Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 September 15 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. The "delete" !voters miss the point: WP:NOTMIRROR is intended to prevent indiscriminate copy-paste additions of public-domain material. However, in this case the content is perfectly encyclopedic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human trafficking in Albania

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

This article is unencyclopedic and has been copied and pasted directly from http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2010/142759.htm. — Kedaditalk 23:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, this isn't a copyvio issue. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then the relevant questions are: is the topic notable, and, if so, does the existing text provide any useful basis upon which to develop an npov article? Based on [1], it seems that the subject is covered by multiple reliable sources, and is therefore notable. Whether the current text is at all useful depends on the extent to which one trusts the State Department. Since I consider the source to generally be reliable, at least on topics such as this, Keep. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 23:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're thinking of WP:NOTMIRROR, which says, "Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy." This is not source material that is useful only when presented with unmodified wording. On the contrary, it is the latter - using public domain resources to add content to an article (which is specifically sanctioned). Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link correction. "Using public domain resources to add content to an article" and copying a vast amount of text from a public domain resource to create an article are two different things. As is, the article simply mirrors what appears elsewhere. Location (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, it appears as though both of those article were "created" by you in the same manner of copy and paste. As they are mirrors, I would also recommend "delete without prejudice" for them. Location (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I will admit to spending far too much time on Wikipedia, I will also add that I still have far too little time to examine the entire series about the history of Cambodia or every article in three categories that "incorporate text" from public domain resources. "Incorporating text" in an article and copying a vast amount of text from a public domain resource to create an article are two different things. Location (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the judge articles were created by a robot, so they're definitely not just "incorporating text". I don't know about the ship articles that thoroughly, but there are many that were merely copy-pasted to start - see, e.g. this first revision, which is exactly this article. There is a whole wikiproject devoted to copy-pasting the DNB (WP:WP DNB). Wikipedians were really excited when it looked like the New Georgia Encyclopedia might freely license their articles so we could paste them all across. The trial effort started here; village pump discussion here. Hundreds and hundreds of articles have been straight-up pasted from the Encyclopedia Britannica. I can vouch for the history of cambodia series being a straight copy-paste. My point is, this is a totally accepted practice, and deleting this one article on the basis of its being a copy-paste goes against long-standing consensus about the appropriateness of using pasted sources as starting points for articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Location. --Sulmues (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree comments above--Vinie007 08:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems these can be expanded into proper articles - plenty of material via Google that could be used. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the whole copy-paste thing is a big red herring. The topic of this article is "human trafficking in Albania". The public domain material that was copied is an article specifically about human trafficking by country with Wikipedia incorporating the text for Albania into this article. This is a perfectly acceptable means of starting an encyclopedia article on this subject. The only question remaining is whether this is a notable topic. The New York Times would seem to think so. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rationale for this nomination does not reveal an appropriate reason for deletion. If the issue is that freely licensed material was taken from elsewhere an used here, well that is exactly what should happen. NOTMIRROR is designed to prevent the indiscriminate addition of primary source material, which is why there is another project (Wikisource) specificially for such additions. It is not intended to prevent the addition of freely licensed material on notable topics for which we formerly lacked, as here. This material is now cateogorized and linked to other articles of human trafficking, and adds to our coverage on this topic. If the article's language is unencyclopedic, or if its neutrality may be question that is a matter for editing, not deletion. I have yet to see, at any point in this discussion, an articulation of how the encyclopedia is improved by deletion of this verifiable and reliably-sourced material. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voter Awareness !!

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. PROD removed by author. LordPistachio talk 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I just prodded it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beat you by a few seconds :D --LordPistachio talk 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In no way whatsoever is this article vandalism. It is a good-faith attempt to provide information, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion. --LordPistachio talk 23:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the two exclamation points in the title were enough for me. SnottyWong talk 23:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people who don't know what they are doing accidentally do things that look like vandalism without any malicious intent. I think that is the case here. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Fleischmann

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

Fails WP:BASIC: no sources available about subject, one article in which the subject was interviewed about a product. Celestra (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the cover of the IEEE Spectrum magazine referenced. I was on a special breakout in the Microprocessor Report referenced (because the low power technology discussed in the article is from me). In fact, I was referenced many times in the press while at Transmeta, I was an invited speaker at a number of high profile computer conferences, and I even was on a brief CNN interview. Here are just a few more references on me or my work at Transmeta for your kind consideration. I'll gladly reference every single reference if that helps.

List of references
Mit Crusoe gegen Intel. Bayern 5 aktuell, Computermagazin (radio interview), Munich, October 7, 2001 
Schöne, geteilte Welt - Hitech: Neue Chancen für alle. Hamburger Abendblatt, p. 22, Hamburg, March 24/25, 2001 
Cover story: Crusoe treibt Server und neue All-day-Notebooks. VDI nachrichten, pp. 1 & 39, Düsseldorf, March 23, 2001 [online] 
Crusoe im Luxusbett. c't Magazine, 26/2000, pp. 84-85, Hannover, December 2000 
Cover story: Crusoe's race towards 1W. Nikkei Electronics Magazine, pp. 131-165, Tokyo, March 13, 2000 [online] 
Crusoe at PC Expo. ASAhi, No. 271, pp. 14-15, Tokyo, August 1, 2000 
The innovative Crusoe Microprocessor. ASAhi, No. 269, p. 15, Tokyo, July 1, 2000 
Das Projekt Zukunft fordert den Einsatz rund um die Uhr. Computer Channel, San Francisco, August 1, 2000 
Top Vendors Adopt Crusoe. Microprocessor Report, San Jose, July 10, 2000 [PDF] 
Transmeta steigt ins Server-Geschäft ein. Computer Channel, San Francisco, July 5, 2000 
Transmeta nimmt Kurs auf den Server-Markt. Computer Channel, San Francisco, July 4, 2000 
Transmeta chips to make air travel safer. The Register, London, July 2000 [online] 
Transmeta inside. Wired Magazine, 8(7):174-186, San Francisco, July 2000 [online] 
The incredible shrinking computer. On: NY1 (CNN) (TV interview), New York, June 30, 2000 [online] 
Die Herausforderer. Capital, 13/2000, pp. 71-76, Köln, June 16, 2000 
Low power: The new battlegound. Electronic News, San Jose, June 2000 
Cover story: Transmeta's magic show. IEEE Spectrum, 37(5):26-33, New York, May 2000 [online] 
Zu neuen Ufern. c't Magazine, Hannover, January 27, 2000 [online] [shlashdotted] 
Transmeta Introduces Pentium-like Crusoe Chip. Computer World, Framingham, January 24, 2000 
Analysis: Crusoe is a CPU for the road. CNN, Atlanta, January 21, 2000 
Transmeta goes Moble Linux. CNET, Hong Kong, January 21, 2000 
Transmeta revs up own version of Linux. CNET, Atlanta, January 20, 2000 [online] 
Crusoe: A CPU for the Road. PC World, San Francisco, January 20, 2000 [list]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcfl (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of those articles feature Marc Fleischmann as the subject? The requirement is for significant coverage about the subject. That allows us to use those other sources' judgment and avoid subjective assessments. Celestra (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's Marc Fleischmann talking about his work and a bit of him as the subject. E.g., Marc Fleischmann is on the cover of the renowned IEEE Spectrum magazine, he was on stage with Linus Torvalds and the enginnering team at the Transmeta product launch, he's referenced in multiple international artciles, e.g., in c't 6/2000 along with Linus Torvalds, Dave Ditzel and Boris Babaian. It's a bit blurry where the work ends and the subject starts - they seem somewhat interrelated... ;) Marcfl (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a 'no'. Please try to step back and look at the criteria objectively. The article needs to refer to an independent source which has significant coverage of the subject. If there is none today, you can always come back after there is. Regards, Celestra (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all above quoted articles/radio clips/TV clips Marc Fleischmann is personally mentioned and/or interviewed. I have many more articles where Marc Fleischmann's work is discussed or quoted without him personally being mentioned. That seemd more than a number of other people on Wikipedia can claim... Best, Marcfl (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the article was written by User:Marcfl, who is presumably the subject himself, there is a massive conflict of interest and the article could never be objective. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly isn not objective about this article? Be precise. The artcle only quotes substantiated facts. And it contains references for them. This seems a boilerplate response without much thought. There are many articles in Wikipedia that reference _less_ articles (like only one) and are written worse in form, and they contain errors. This decision seems a bit random. Quite disappointing. Marcfl (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you read the guidelines at WP:AUTOBIO where it says, inter alia: "Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and there are many pitfalls." Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is discouraged because it is difficult to be objective and neutral when dealing with an article about oneself. That is evidenced here by the lack of willingness to address the notability requirements directly. Objectively, there either is or isn't substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Please either provide a source which has significant coverage of the subject of the article or accept that the article fails to meet that standard. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. An independent source is a point of media or publication which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. Published works produced by those affiliated with the subject are not considered reliable. Considering the target audience of sources culled from the publications provided, the references are presented by professional industry media of limited interest and circulation. The publications have established an affiliated, direct interest in the subject or the topic of which the subject is speaking and is therefore, not independent. Use of sources of this nature, does not establish or support notability. Accordingly, subject does not meet notability criteria presented in WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Cindamuse (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well argued and written. I can supply references outside of the trade press that cover me in person, but I think that would be vanity, and rather embarassing to have them included. I also understand the COI argument. I simply had seen a number of pages that seemed less relevant, and thought therefore perhaps this might be useful information for Wikipedia. Go ahead. Best, Marcfl (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a lot of discussion here pertaining to COI. I wouldn't worry about that though. A conflict of interest is not reflective of the WP deletion policy. WP is edited by volunteer staff and not all editors that participate have a complete understanding of the policies and guidelines pertaining to deletion. Most editors participate in good faith, just the same. While discouraged, it is quite possible to write a well-balanced, neutral article while maintaining a conflict of interest. The primary concern leading to deletion is one of notability. If you can provide additional information to establish notability that is in alignment with WP:BIO and supported with independent sources, the article would be appropriately kept. As far as embarrassment, save face at all costs! ; ) Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cindamuse. While it might be vanity to supply sources, it's no more so than creating an article about yourself and your company, as well as engaging in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. The COI issue makes it especially difficult to sort this out, but without a depth of sources, it's difficult to gauge. tedder (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. You are contradicting yourself. You want well researched and documented articles, but are allergic against the people who know the material best. Point in case: Eddie.willers suggested RisingTide for deletion, but has contributed Arteli, which contains not a single reference, or much substance at all, but that somehow seems acceptable. Are you serious?!? You seem to contradict your own standards. Besides, an autobio might perhaps be vanity (thank you for improving it (!), it's really helpful style guidance for the future) - and I already said I am happy to have it deleted (I honestly thought it might have been helpful). Now, are you arguing that an article about an open source company that many people have been contributing to (for free) and benefitting of (for free) also is... just vanity? Which then constitutes sufficient reason for deletion (vs. examples like Arteli)? Please educate me. Thank you. Best, Marcfl (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and are you accusing me of engaging in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry? Marcfl (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Grigorieva

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

No sources sinces february, doesn't appears to be relevant either DieBuche (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of social activities at the University of Cambridge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Wine Society

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

Insignificant university student club that does not get significant coverage in reliable external sources. Mkativerata (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mainly, there is nothing inherently notable about the fact that a concert happens to occur in Adelaide. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerts in Adelaide

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

I believe this will be a list difficult to mantain Melaen (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? Is this just your personal opinion? Or do you have some basis for your opinion? Please note that your unsupported opinion is not sufficient reason for placing a PROD on an article. (I also suggest you read WP:I just don't like it.)
  • I created the article, and I and others will be maintaining it. It is our opinion that "difficult to mantain" is not a problem, and is not an issue. What more can I say until I know the reason for your nomination?
  • Are you planning to maintain it? If so, please explain. If not, why intervene?
  • Also, please see below. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've seen that argument before "it's not one of the example subpoints so why should it be deleted?". The main point of WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". A list of concerts in Adelaide, past, present and future, is already stretching that. The rest are illustrations. But just to make the case: Point 1 List of ... loosely associated topics. What does a 1973 Status Quo concert in one venue has to do with a 2010 Wolfsmother concert at another venue? Nothing. The fact that they both came to the same town is that one loose association. Point 4 Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, gives example of upcoming or current programming, but it applies to past programming of no historical significance. Again, what is the particular significance of every concert listed? Seems to me like listcruft.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've seen that argument before "it's not one of the example subpoints so why should it be deleted?".
It seems like a reasonable approach to me. Why do you have a problem with that approach? Please explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed".
Well yes, but there's more to it than that. You seem to have completely ignored my statements below. Pdfpdf (talk)
A list of concerts in Adelaide, past, present and future, is already stretching that.
Pardon?
First of all, where does the "Future" come from? There are NO future concerts in the list.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rest are illustrations.
The rest of what are illustrations of what? Sorry, I don't understand. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But just to make the case: Point 1 List of ... loosely associated topics. What does a 1973 Status Quo concert in one venue has to do with a 2010 Wolfsmother concert at another venue? Nothing.
Pardon? What's the name of the page? "List of concerts in Adelaide". They were both concerts in Adelaide. Your logic makes no sense to me. Please clarify. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they both came to the same town is that one loose association.
Pardon? What's the name of the page? "List of concerts in Adelaide". They were both concerts in Adelaide. Your logic makes no sense to me. Please clarify. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point 4 Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, gives example of upcoming or current programming, but it applies to past programming of no historical significance. Again, what is the particular significance of every concert listed? Seems to me like listcruft.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Please clarify. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please when you reply, do not cut my original comment into pieces like this, it makes it really hard to read what I was saying and separate it from your replies. Second, my point remains that it is loosely associated. One issue is that the individual concerts are not notable, none of them have an article, none of them had coverage beyond routine. Point 4 also stands directory entries, electronic program guide. It may not be the current schedule as the example, but it is nothing more than a bunch of past unnotable concerts put together, i.e. the past schedule. WP:LSC (you have a "complete list" that is not short and full of non-notable entries), WP:SALAT and WP:NMUSIC (the concert tour section in particular) are other guidelines to be considered.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please when you reply, do not cut my original comment into pieces like this, it makes it really hard to read what I was saying and separate it from your replies.
Fair enough. My apologies.Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second, my point remains that it is loosely associated.
Yes, I know your point is that you believe they are "loosely associated". However, as I said/implied previously, I don't understand what you mean by that.Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that the individual concerts are not notable, none of them have an article, none of them had coverage beyond routine.
True. (I'm not sure why that is relevant, but your statement is accurate.)
Point 4 also stands directory entries, electronic program guide. It may not be the current schedule as the example, but it is nothing more than a bunch of past unnotable concerts put together, i.e. the past schedule.
Not really. It is quite a bit more than that - NOT "nothing more". e.g. It is a sortable amalgamated list which facilitates simple access, in the one place, of information that is currently spread over a number of pages, not sortable, and not accessible. This allows analysis that the current state of events prohibits.
WP:LSC (you have a "complete list" that is not short and full of non-notable entries),
Well, the page is still under construction ...
  • By-the-way, I notice WP:LSC mentions: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names.
WP:SALAT and WP:NMUSIC (the concert tour section in particular) are other guidelines to be considered.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:LSC does mention examples where entries in the list fail notability criteria. One is List of minor characters in Dilbert. This type of article is a spinoff of a larger work of fiction which is considerable enough to warrant a list of minor character that can't be in the main article due to length concerns. They also have description of these characters. Notability criteria regarding that type of article can be found in WP:FICT. The List of paracetamol brand names I would consider trivial (see: WP:LISTCRUFT) and would probably vote for deletion were it put for AfD. Also, while the sorting possibilities for the article currently under AfD are neat, it is still exceedingly trivial and offers no real encyclopedic content. It's a cross-listing of venues, bands and dates, with a handful of notes for locally notable entries. It feels more like an Excel worksheet than an article or a navigational list.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:LSC does mention examples where entries in the list fail notability criteria. One is List of minor characters in Dilbert. This type of article is a spinoff of a larger work of fiction which is considerable enough to warrant a list of minor character that can't be in the main article due to length concerns. They also have description of these characters. Notability criteria regarding that type of article can be found in WP:FICT. The List of paracetamol brand names I would consider trivial (see: WP:LISTCRUFT) and would probably vote for deletion were it put for AfD.
Make up your mind please.
In one post you say: "Look at WP:LSC". So I do, and I quote you a section of what it says. Next post you say that the example in WP:LSC is WP:LISTCRUFT.
Do you want me to look at WP:LSC or don't you? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while the sorting possibilities for the article currently under AfD are neat, it is still exceedingly trivial and offers no real encyclopedic content. It's a cross-listing of venues, bands and dates, with a handful of notes for locally notable entries. It feels more like an Excel worksheet than an article or a navigational list.
Sorry, what's your point? Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Sorry, I'm confused. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my point remains the article under AfD offers no encyclopedic content. Every single rock concert in Adelaide, in the form of a table of venue, band and date is not notable or encyclopedic. They are not notable individidually, they are not notable collectively. Every city of a decent size will have a number of venues where concerts by bands with Wiki articles happen on a regular basis. That WP:LSC allows for list of non-notable entries does not mean it allows for any list of non-notable entries.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. In answer to your implied question, speed of construction has slowed since the PROD was placed - it will be under construction once again when the PROD is removed. I see little point on doing lots of work on it whilst it's under discussion. Further, this discussion is using up time that I would otherwise be using to continue the construction. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do not appear to have looked at the list - it is obvious that it is NOT "a list of upcoming concerts". Please remove your delete nomination. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:NOTDIR #4 you'll see that section I quoted is listed as an example of things to not do, not as an all-encompassing list that allows anything not on it. As I read it this fits that example, which is why I explained it in my delete comment. Upon further consideration, I'm adding WP:LISTCRUFT to my reasoning. It's up to the closing admin to weigh the reasons and decide how to proceed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:NOTDIR #4 you'll see that section I quoted is listed as an example of things to not do, not as an all-encompassing list that allows anything not on it.
Yes ...
Section 4 says, and I quote:
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
As I said or implied before, secton 4 is obviously IRRELEVANT to this situation. Please remove your delete nomination. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, it seems to be to be relevant, which is why I quoted it. And it's pretty WP:UNCIVIL to challenge everyone on their reasoning and to call for removing their comments. That's not how this works. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, it seems to be to be relevant, which is why I quoted it.
Yes, I know you said it before. That's why I asked you WHY you think it seems to be relevant. You are yet to explain, despite two requests for clarification. Here's the third request: Why do you say it's relevant? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it's pretty WP:UNCIVIL to challenge everyone on their reasoning and to call for removing their comments.
Well, that might be the case if that is what I'd done. But I didn't. And I haven't. And I haven't called for EVERYONE to remove their comments. In fact, I haven't asked ANYONE to remove ANY of their comments. So please, do NOT attribute to me things I haven't done.
I have asked YOU (not "everyone") to remove YOUR "delete nomination" - not your comments. So please, do NOT attribute to me things I haven't done.
Pdfpdf (talk)
That's not how this works.
No, that is NOT how it is supposed to work. Please choose your words more carefully. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it this fits that example,
Hmmmm. As anybody else would read it, it bears no relationship to the example.
Please exactly explain WHY your conclusion is relevant. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's conclusion is relevant here. It seems like you might not understand how AfD works. We all come here, check out the article, and we're SUPPOSED to not just !vote, but to explain why we came to such a conclusion. It's not supposed to be a giant argument with each editor about getting them to remove their conclusions. It's not a vote, it's a question of policy and how people interpret it. It's not personal. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's conclusion is relevant here. It seems like you might not understand how AfD works. We all come here, check out the article, and we're SUPPOSED to not just !vote, but to explain why we came to such a conclusion.
Yes, that's how I thought it was supposed to work. But all I see is people making unjustified, unsupported and unexplained claims. When I say: "I don't understand, please explain", I get NO useful response. (c.f. I've asked you certain questions three times - you have yet to make ANY attempt to answer ANY of them. On the other hand, I have responded to ALL questions and comments, and NOBODY has reacted. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not supposed to be a giant argument with each editor about getting them to remove their conclusions.
It isn't. Please stop mis-representing me. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, it's a question of policy and how people interpret it. It's not personal.
Agreed. But when I say: "I don't understand. Please explain." No one does. They just repeat themselves. If I didn't understand them first time, what makes them think I'll understand them second time? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
which is why I explained it in my delete comment.
Sorry, I don't understand. Which bit of which delete comment explains what? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, I'm adding WP:LISTCRUFT to my reasoning.
Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to the closing admin to weigh the reasons and decide how to proceed.
Yes, thank goodness! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The criteria for the list will cause it to become unmanageably large. The AEC website lists twelve upcoming concerts for October, and that's only one venue. At only 12 concerts a month, we're looking at 144 new entries every year for just on venue! If all 5 extant venues have about the same number of events, and nothing is ever added for the numerous clubs and small venues, that's over 700 entries a year. (And if we're going to include a list like this for Adelaide, why not New York or London? Clearly impractical!) The list is arbitrary and cannot be maintained. Pburka (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing inherently notable about concerts in Adelaide. It is just another day at the office for the performer. The current list severally fails WP:NOTDIR: it is a repository of loosely associated topics, non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and attempts to be a complete exposition of all possible details. The list could never hope to be exhaustive. It is another over-ambitious example of WP:LISTCRUFT. WWGB (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lookin thru the list I see no entries with their own blue linked article. Remove non notable concerts from this list we appear to have an empty list. No need for an empty list. (an under construction tag does not exempt article from wikipedia standards). (what makes a concert, is The Joe Blo Xperince concert in John Citizens backyard eligible for this list?) (WP:LISTCRUFT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable.) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Microgaming. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PokerTime

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

Non-notable poker website fails WP:WEB borderline speedy, prod removed by content creator with no changes Delete Secret account 21:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moneymagpie.com

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

unknown notability, Melaen (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George B. Boomer

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

no reference found - unknown notability Melaen (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Beast Wars. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmetal Driver

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

Article has no references and no indication that the subject has real-world notability. Was proposed for deletion, but that got opposed by User:DGG who suggested that it was mergable to a lis. But it doesn't seem like this website actually has anything like "List of Transformers plot devices" and I'm not sure making one would be appropriate. Delete would be appropriate. NotARealWord (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a section at the article called "plot devices" or something? NotARealWord (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep nomination withdrawn and nobody advocating deletion (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stenoscript

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

looks like a thing made up Melaen (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Deck

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

no reference found Melaen (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ally W. Salem

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

scarce evidence of notability Melaen (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the only coverage is the Rock Era magazine interview, and it is not at all clear that this is a reliable source. Aside from that the claims for chart success are to Soundclick, a music social media site, and its charts aren't relevant for notability. The artists is unsigned, and has yet to put out an album. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD:A7 Nancy talk 15:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimkata

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

not jet notable, imho Melaen (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial album art

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

Arbitrary and vague inclusion criteria with very few citations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Concerns about notability and sourcing lead to a consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The International Electronic Dance music Hall of Fame

[edit]
The International Electronic Dance music Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unclear notability Melaen (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decepticon Clone

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

Article has had no references for a long time. I don't think the subjects of this article could be notable. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the provided refs are insufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smeg (vulgarism)

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

The article fails real-world notability. While this may of passed for an article back in the ol' days of 2007, I doubt any verifiable sources will be found. The term may be popular, but its really not notable apart from its appearance on Red Dwarf. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Really? Can you really believe that there's enough sources about the word Smeg that could warrant an article? People don't comment on Smeg. Smeg doesn't have origins going through the 1800s or a long line of people using it throughout the ages. Smeg is just Smeg. It is a word that one, albeit famous, show used to replace swear words. That is all. There is not enough information for an article, nor is it really notable apart from when it appeared in the show. Harry Blue5 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability isn't temporary. If it was notable 10-15 years ago, it's still notable. Lugnuts (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you did say that. Please read my arguement properly. Lugnuts (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If no one said it was notable 10-15 years ago, then why even bring it up? If you're referring to the old nomination, please note that Conseus Can Change. It was never notable enough for its own article. 194.80.20.181 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The above IP address (194.80.20.181) was me, as I forgot to log in. Please note the IP address is shared, however. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without RS, delete is the inevitable consensus Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overcast (Transformers)

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

The article is about multiple non-notable and unrelated fictional characters. Delete due to lack of sources, notability and proper subject. NotARealWord (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - That is an inaccurate remark and I removed it. As you can read in following paragraphs he HAS appeared in several stories, as himself. When he was created he was a repaint of Jetfire by Hasbro, but since then he got his own stories. Mathewignash (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Redirect is inappropriate due to being multiple unrelated and non-notable characters. Also, "He's an Autobot, a Mini-Con AND a Decepticon" is inaccurate since they're highly separate characters (them, not him). Again, which reinforces how unsuitable this article is, attempting to cover multiple unrelated subjects simply due to a shared name. NotARealWord (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Zalben

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

Blatant advertising from a long-gone user. All external links are dead, and he does not seem to meet the notability criteria. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Of Rollin'

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Art Of Rollin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tales From The Crypt (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both articles (aside from incorrect formatting of titles per naming conventions), fail WP:NALBUMS; these are mixtapes (not albums, EP or singles) with no chart action, no further information nor sources of any kind. Notability of mixtapes are questionable at best. - eo (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn as promised, per Phil Bridger's comment. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenda Madima

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

South African translator of material in Venda, much of which was written by his father. After this prod was contested, it took me two weeks to decide whether this article should be brought here. The notability assertions are clearly sufficient for a keep if they can be referenced, however I am unable to find references that attest to the very existence of the awards the article claims he won. The creator pointed, rightly, that our insistence on reliable sources creates a systemic bias against Africa-related material, however major awards should get reliable coverage even in Africa. Delete, but I'll withdraw if reliable sources can be found.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure of the basis of the request for deletion. Is it that the awards are not notable? That may be the case, but the article is about the author, and his claim to notability is that he has translated the first ever Venda novel into English. Regarding the awards, I'm following up with a contact who is friends with the author and hope to find out more about the awards. As pointed out above there are few online references to local African content such as this. There is a link here (cached page, in Afrikaans) to a prize he received for the translation. This seems to be a different award to the one mentioned on the book cover, but I'll follow up more once the site is up. Regardless, he is a notable figure in South African and Venda literature. Keep Greenman (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is an English version of part of the above reference here. This lists its nomination for the SATI Award for Outstanding Translation. Note that the Afrikaans article mentions that it was both shortlisted in the final three, and won a special prize (not the actual award). I have also found a reference mentioning that Madima won the the "African Literary Award" here. Greenman (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Madima's translation of his father's book is studied as part of the high school English curriculum in the Western Cape.[3] He was selected for a radio drama residency sponsored by the British Council, the BBC and the Performing Arts Network of South Africa (deliberately redlinked because we should have an article).[4][5] This magazine has what is probably a review of his translation, but Google Books only displays the bare minimum to allow us to make an educated guess about what it is. I've exhausted my currently available brain power by digging out those sources, so I won't yet try to decide whether we have enough to demonstrate notability. Greenman, you seem to be familiar with the subject and to be in the right part of the world to look for the offline sources that doubtless exist. How about a trip to the library to see if you can find any press articles about Madima? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus favors keeping all articles in question. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Ramah

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

As far as I can tell, this is an unnotable summer camp. It's tone is promotional, and without the significant coverage in reliable sources, its impossible to rewrite Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages:
Camp Ramah in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Camp Ramah in the Berkshires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Camp Ramah in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ramah Darom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Camp Ramah in New England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Camp Ramah in the Poconos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Camp Ramah (Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Strong Keep. Ramah is a notable religious/cultural institution of the Conservative Movement that has been operating since the 1950s. The material can be edited to remove the advertising tone. It is not a lost cause at all. Much has been written about these camps, and there are countless alumni and staff members who have gone on to become leaders and important figures in the Jewish community.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (all). Nom appears to be confusing his personal view (which I differ with) as to whether the article is promotional with appropriate AfD rationale. Even if it were promotional, that would not be a proper AfD rationale. It is clearly notable, as reflected in RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, your view -- which I disagree with -- that it is promotional is wholly irrelevant to an AfD discussion. The fact that you raise it suggests that it played a part in your thinking. It has no part in this discussion. As to RS coverage, it is clearly there, evidencing notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? Half the references in the Camp Ramah article are from Ramah websites - not relaible by any stretch. Also, the Camp Ramah in the Berkshires article got deleted at its last AfD (link above), and has been recreated still without any decent refs. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan -- you are required to do a wp:before search before nominating an article for AfD. Have you done so? If so, how did you miss the 1,150 gnews hits and 2,160 gbooks hits and 260 gscholar hits?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed I did, and from what I could see, and barring only a couple of exceptions, it was a stack of trivial mentions. If consensus disagrees with me, then fine, however I'm not one to answer everyones !vote with a counter-statement. I've followed the correct procedures, I think the articles should be deleted. I definitely don't need to carry on answering accusations of bad-faith, which are unfounded. That is all. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I find it hard to believe that you did not find in those 3,500 entries sufficient RS support for notability. I think think a withdrawal of the nomination is in order. Also, fyi, you directed the readers (in all but the Camp Ramah AfD) to the first AfD that had already been closed as a keep. I've addressed that error.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I semi-disagree with Nom on their points. Quite obviously the tone of these articles is one of the things which makes them poorly-written. However, articles in need of improvement are not automatically candidates for deletion. Furthermore, these articles also lack citations as is pointed out by Nom. A quick search on Google Scholar will reveal that Camp Ramah is quite notable in several areas of academic research because of their large population and impact over time. I thank Nom for taking the time to identify problems with this article series and invite Nom to join the community in an effort to remedy the issues. Since I believe that none of these issues are grounds for deletion (instead, they are a call to arms!), I must vote keep. --yonkeltron (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles provide adequate references from reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Camp Ramah only, delete the rest - there are sufficient independent reliable sources to sustain an article about the camp/franchise but there do not appear to be reliable sources to sustain articles on the individual camps. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Camp Ramah per Cow Of Pain. There is no need for a separate article on each individual camp. Certainly, a list of such camps can be included in the main article, and maybe an extra sentence or two if that particular camp has some unique feature. Otherwise, the individual camp articles are going to be nearly identical, and mostly redundant to the main article. The franchise is notable, but the individual camps fail WP:GNG. Note that previous AfD's for individual camps have resulted in deletion, and the articles have been (inappropriately) recreated since. SnottyWong spill the beans 23:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Camp Ramah Separate small, insignificant articles could be merged to create a more comprehensive article. Little (if any) coverage as separate entities, but sufficient notability as a whole. Grsz11 23:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and relist separately for a specific analysis. The parent Camp Ramah is clearly notable as attested by its multitude of sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to Camp Ramah and cleanup per argument by Are You The Cow Of Pain?.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Alansohn. Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All because this nomination, that seeks to destroy articles that collectively fulfill both WP:NOTABLE, that do not violate WP:NOR, and that comply fully with WP:NPOV and adequate WP:CITE are an entire well-established network of Jewish summer camps, that would in effect wipe out and disable the entire Category:Camp Ramah that would require that this category be now placed up for deletion at WP:CFD as well (so this is in effect not a good faith nomination that is defective as it stands), which in turn this is a sub-category of Category:Jewish summer camps, that in turn are (sub-)sub-categories of both Category:Jewish educational organizations and Category:Jewish youth organizations, that in turn are sub-sub-categories of the parent categories Category:Jewish organizations and Category:Jewish education and much more in this category field. So the nomination simply creates a gaping hole and opens the door that every last Jewish summer camp's article will face deletion, that then defeats the purpose of writing a serious and comprehensive encyclopedia. Much work has gone into creating and building up these important articles over the years that are a pillar of Jewish education in North America and beyond. The articles may need some work, and perhaps start from some standard promotional material, but that does not make them hopeless as the nominator falsely alleges, since that's is not much different to tens of thousands of articles all over that have the same starting points but over time develop into key components of a much larger whole that many not familiar with this field of Jewish education often cannot fathom. The nominator is requested to withdraw this damaging, sweeping and defective AfD that could cause much harm and undo much work that has gone into these articles over many years. Perhaps staring a centralized discussion at WP:TALKJUDAISM about how to improve the articles would be a better, more productive and incremental, and less provocative place to start. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is curious that Grsz is again the subject of the ethnic foul accusation.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User Are You The Cow Of Pain? is requested to withdraw his false allegations which do not address the facts and arguments in this discussion or about its topics, but merely resorts to debasing this discussion, there was never anything said about "skullduggery and evil-doing" that are just red herrings here. And User Grsz11 is reminded that many WP articles qualify and exist as WP:STUBS, it's kosher on WP, and then they develop over time. Please note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, it doesn't matter if the deletion of these articles will prompt the deletion of supporting categories. That is not a reason to keep an article. SeeWP:PLEASEDONT (i.e. "People worked hard on these articles" is not a valid rationale). Just because someone spent a lot of time creating articles on non-notable subjects and created a bunch of categories to put them in is no reason to keep them. The only reason to keep the articles on the individual camps, in my opinion, would be if we could find multiple, independent reliable sources which discuss the individual camps in a non-trivial way, per WP:GNG. So, instead of writing a long whine about the perceived collateral damage that deleting these articles would cause, go and find some sources. SnottyWong communicate 01:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the snotty use of the phrase "whine", unless one seeks to distract from the core issue. As most of the commentators have indicated, there is in fact among the 3,500 indicated newspaper articles, books, and scholarly articles sufficient treatment of the camps in a non trivial way to meet wp's notability requirements. Just because Snotty has different views, whether or not he has read the 3,500, is no reason for him to disagree with the majority by using snotty terminology to attack them.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snottywong: There is no need to give me or anyone tasks. It's ok to ask for more citations, but it's definitely not ok to give "jobs" to any users in the middle of any AfD. Sure, there are times when I have spent time improving articles, but there are also times when I nominate articles for deletion, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments that are put forth here at this time and place. In any case, you are wrong, because as a number of users are making it very clear to those not that familiar with this topic and phenomenon that the articles are about WP:NOTABLE subjects individually, and that certainly the whole is even greater than the sum of the parts. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a nom makes such a bad nomination as this one of a religious camp (he has garnered zero support,for example, for his sentinel deletion proposal, in light of the thousands of articles about the camp), and the nom is an editor who says that he "believes religion is harmful to society", it is reasonable to assume that the nom was telling the truth about his views on religion. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations of bad faith are way out of line. The articles were in a shabby state with serious question marks over their notability. While there is support for keeping the main article, there is also support for merging the rest. Mu nomination was sound, and based on policy. Please remain civil instead of bandying about accusations. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It's a perfectly legitimate nomination and has gained support to merge the smaller (and incredibly repetitive) articles. Differnt view do not mean wrong views, some people around here just don't get that. If you're accusing him of acting in bad faith because of his dislike for religion, others are just as likely to recognize and comment on your particularly point of view regarding this. Not everybody who disagrees with you is making a religious or ethnic attack, and it's about time to realize that. Grsz11 11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone nominates articles with literally (as pointed out above) thousands of articles and books on it, claiming non-notablity, when in fact (as DGG pointed out) it is not only notable but famous, garner zero support for the primary nomination (let alone no consensus for merging), and trumpets the fact that they consider religion -- as he puts it -- to be "harmful to society" as he seeks to delete articles with dozens of refs and potential refs ... as he fails to nominate secular camps that are totally devoid of such evidence of notability. That's rather unique, though I credit him for in good faith honestly trumpeting his belief as to the danger of religion (a view raised by him of his own accord; not by others) as he seeks to make the mention of Jewish camps Judenfrei, while leaving mention of secular camps intact. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What tosh - the nomination had nothing to do with the fact that its a religion-based article. While you were looking at my userpage you should have also looked at my contributions, where you'd have seen that barely any of my edits are on religious articles. The way I came across this article is by hitting "random article", whereupon I came across an article that was in my view worthy of deletion. You're on very dodgy ground claiming that I go around making nominations because I don't believe in the supernatural. It's akin to saying that because I sometimes nominate an album for deletion it must be because I hate music. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While a lot of references have been added, I urge contributors to this discussion to look at them for quality. At least 10 of the references are to Ramah's own website(s). Two are deadlinks. At least one is a paid-for listing (the NYT one). I won't remove them myself, but someone should. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dylan -- you would do better looking at the thousands of other articles/books that could serve as references, and add them. Note: we judge at AfDs the refs that can be added to articles as well as those that are in them, not solely the refs that are in them. Furthermore, there is no reason to delete references to Ramah's own websites. And it is not appropriate to delete deadlinks -- it is in fact inappropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What sourcing? All of the sources discuss Camp Ramah in general, not any one individual camp in particular. SnottyWong gab 13:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the articles and clicked through on the sources, finding many articles on individual camps.AMuseo (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Arisc

[edit]
Ad Arisc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Short version: Geonames is not reliable alone to prove a given place exists, as shown in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination). Further research leads me to conclude this will never be more than a single sentence on a dubious locale.

Long version: Not enough information provided to prove it is a village, let alone what it is clearly. Per my assertion above, I looked for confirmation that there was, indeed a village named "Ad Arisc" or some version thereof; Ethiopian names for people & places are not transcribed in any standardized fashion. The authorities I use for confirmation fall into one of three groupings: (1) Central Statistical Agency publications; (2) The Local History in Ethiopia database at the Nordic Africa Institute (it used to have far more detailed entries in the past, but it is still useful for verification purposes); & (3) verifiable sources like traveller's reports or memoirs, published articles, & histories. Out of the three, I found "Ad Arisc" (listed as an alternative version of "Adi Arish") only in a single line entry at the Local History in Ethiopia database. None of the reports of the 1994 nor the 2007 national censuses mention it. At this point I concluded this article was borderline until I had a look at the Google map image at the provided latitude & longitude: nothing there. All I could find for 5 miles -- or even 10 kilometers -- in any direction was the typical barren scrubland of northern Tigray, & some dry water courses; no sign of a village or other human habitation. GeoNames is full of ghost & erroneous duplicate entries; I believe this is one more example.

Note: I have provided this much detail as a help to other editors who may need to verify future placenames concerning Ethiopia. llywrch (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AnyMemo

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

Contested prod. Non-notable flashcard freeware. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy LaSalvia

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

Delete - self-promotional article (probably) written by the subject User:Jmlasalvia. Coverage in reliable sources is in the form of identifying LaSalvia for the purposes of attributing quotes to him and are not significantly about LaSalvia. The Wall Street Journal article is about the formation of GOProud and the MetroWeekly article is about the group's appearance at a conservative conference. This is insufficient to establish notability under either WP:N or WP:BLP. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last time I checked, WP:GNG says: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The two sources cited in the article surely do more than a trivial mention of LaSalvia. And I didn't link the Gnews results to give mere hits: I presented it because it contains more articles that talk about LaSalvia, like [7] or [8]. --Cyclopiatalk 23:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Maximals. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stinkbomb (Transformers)

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

Disputed prod. Notability not clear, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Dinobots. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striker (Transformers)

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

Disputed prod. Notability not clear, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Amin Mamaqani

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

No notability whatsoever. Is everybody else getting a 404 error on official website? Marcus Qwertyus 16:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Landing Object

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

This article seems only to exist in order to give Template:Takeoff and landing something to point at for "crash landing"; crash landing itself redirects to emergency landing. The only nonduplicative content concerns deliberately crashing spacecraft for various reasons, which I do not think could be considered "landing" per se. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The topic title itself doesn't make any sense. All of the text are simply examples or dictionary style definitions for a crash landing which as the nom pointed out, already exists as a redirect to another article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Silo

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

Non-notable regional publication. The only reference provided in the article is a first-hand interview of a library manager; no other sources are available per an online search. Additionally, the primary editor(s) of the article appears to have a conflict of interest with the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn and no !vote for delete. NAC Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Joshua Poupko

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

Assuming good faith on the part of Tony Webster (talk · contribs) and bringing this here. Rationale is "This article doesn't appear to meet WP:NOTE, and a previous AfD discussion identified that it should be revisited." I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Courcelles 04:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Napiyerism

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

I just don't think this is real notable.... 2 says you, says two 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Rome, Georgia#City founding period. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Phillip Hemphill

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

Non-notable - probably copy-pasted from another website Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but I am still at a loss to understand from the article what his claim to fame was. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't really understand it either - I'll come back to it when my head is clearer and see if I can make any sense of it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armigerous Families of Great Britain

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

Unreferenced, possible hoax. Previously prodded a year ago and nothing seems to have changed: "Organisation does not seem to exist, article contains factual errors, which themselves are not worth correcting because they are about other topics (coatrack)". Fails WP:RS at the very least. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Nozue

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

Nozue is an FMV director. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be anything to say about him. I can't find any information about the person himself rather than the credits entries. It does not seem to be possible to expand this article with actual biographical information. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of top international ice hockey tournaments in history

[edit]
List of top international ice hockey tournaments in history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks context, POV. "top international tournaments" according to who? Functionally, it is redundant to both List of international ice hockey competitions featuring NHL players and Best-on-best. We don't need three articles on the same concept. Resolute 14:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cliffjumper

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

Non notable fictional character, fails GNG, and no reliable secondary sources comment upon it. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since Grimlock was voted as keep. But the "other incarnations" page should seriously be merged here and the article should be only about the red Dude and hisn derivatives. NotARealWord (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is a red Porsche at all like a Yellow VW Beetle? Mathewignash (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well:
  • They're both pretty small for giant robots
  • They both have horns
  • The vehicle modes of their original toys were not realistically proportioned
  • Their original action figures came in both red and yellow
  • Every Cliffjumper action figure from late 2006 onwards was made from a Bumblebee

-NotARealWord (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Despres (futurist)

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

Subject is non-notable. References consist of two defunct websites formerly run by the subject, membership of a mailing list and an entry on a wiki. CSD templates repeatedly removed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, there is no recourse against an editor who is not the original creator of an article and who removes a CSD template, even if you suspect there is a relationship between them. {{hangon}} is for the original creator to buy some time while he/she makes a case for his/her article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (I checked and you are correct - I should have known that). Pity. It definitely opens up the possibility of "tag teaming" and sock-puppetry to keep an article artificially alive, but I can understand the logic since the alternate (NOT allowing anyone to remove CSD tags) would cause worse mischief. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the work of Jonathan Despres in the futurism field is considerable. He is a notable futurist and a well known debator in this field. More information could be provided if there would be no menace for deleting the article. --Smith2200 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Smith2200 Are you Jonathan Despres? Your posts are remarkably similar to his, e.g. here Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend that the full term of the AFD is followed so that consensus is proved, then we can instantly delete on a G4 if it pops up again under another name, otherwise we may have to repeat this exercise again. AFD is much stronger than speedy delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mystery Science Theater 3000. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc

[edit]
Rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this group. The group's claim to notability is its supposed role in getting MST3K picked up by Syfy but there's nothing that supports it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. The assertion of notability is based on an unverified single event that itself should be covered only in the MST3K article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MST3K was one of the first shows widely recognised as having an online cult fan presence, and it's probably reasonable to assume (though not necessarily conclusively proven) that that fan base contributed to MST3K being given 3 more seasons on SciFi. However, the newsgroup is just part of that fandom, and can't really take credit for the renewal. Indeed, I notice the Mystery Science Theater 3000 article doesn't even mention the newsgroup except as a "see also". So yeah, fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability per WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable usenet group. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to MST3K or even merge to rec.arts.tv when that redlink turns blue. This Google News Archive search finds two newspaper references from 1995 and 1996. Someone with library access could look at this Scientometrics journal mention. I have also added the following references found with Google Scholar and News searches:
    • Godes, David (August 2003). "Using Online Conversations to Study Word of Mouth Communication" (PDF). pp. 10–11. Retrieved 15 September 2010. We found 169 different groups that contained messages about the shows in our sample ... Table 3 ... 20 Top Newsgroups in the Sample ... rec.arts.tv 9,649 ... rec.arts.tv.mst3k.mis 578 {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • Lieck, Ken (July 14, 1995). "The Information Dirt Road Marketing Your Band on the Net". The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved 15 September 2010. groups where obsessos of all types get together and exchange information about their favorite TV shows (news:alt.tv.brady-bunch, news:rec.arts.tv.mst3k)
    • Werts, Diane (May 14, 1996). "A MSTie Farewell to Mike, The 'Bots and Bad Flicks". Newsday. Long Island, N.Y. pp. B.53. new MST feature flick which just ended its NYC run and should hit the burbs soon check the Internet newsgroup rec.arts.tv.mst3k -84user (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the three sources are simply mentions of the group in sources that are not actually about the group (one is an academic study of online communication and the other is a news story on the same subject). The Newsday article is PPV but from what's visible it appears not to mention this group at all but instead mentions rec.arts.tv.mst3k.announce which is a different thing altogether. In any event, these sorts of trivial mentions do not establish notability per WP:GNG. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the Scientometrics article is about mad cow disease, for heaven's sake! Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kjellberg Finsterwalde

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

Advertising from a spam username. I didn't see a lot of info anywhere in the refs. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs a good copyedit and could use more refs, but the company made important innovations and won a national prize; clearly notable on those grounds. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Urbach

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

Not notable, not reliably referenced. Party official (head of arbitration committee) of a party that hovers below 2% in Germany. Lots of Ghits but most of it published by his party. I cannot really say what the status of The European [18] is - looks like an online newspaper but at least Wikipedia hasn't heard of it, and neither have I. Pgallert (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online non-news current affairs periodical: de:The European - took its title from an English-language weekly launched in the 90s, which is why the name seemed familiar to me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing indicating notability. The article could do a better job of presenting the case for inclusion - for example I infer that "ACTA coordinator" refers to Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, it would be nice to have an explanatory link, and the biographical sketch in The European is the best source, but is used only for his place of residence and not characterized in the footnote - but he appears to be a relatively minor functionary in the party. He is not mentioned on de.wikipedia, including in their longer article on the Pirate Party, where they do have a couple of German party functionaries redlinked. I don't think he would meet notability as a politician even if he were with a larger party, and that is the issue, since notability is not inherited. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He will soon be a member of Pirate Party Deleted. Can't see how a minor official in a very minor party is notable without significant additional coverage VASterling (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to List of X Universe races per nom and WP:BB. Article was completely unreferenced and completely redundant with the "Boron Kingdom" section of the target article. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boron Kingdom

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

Too trivial for its own article. Belongs in List of X Universe races Dondegroovily (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge by WP:SNOW. AfD is not for merger proposals. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borel's law of large numbers

[edit]
Borel's law of large numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is apparently the same thing as Law of large numbers. No reason for two articles on the same topic. Dondegroovily (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capping (Mystery Science Theater 3000)

[edit]
Capping (Mystery Science Theater 3000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that support the notability of this subject. Admittedly it is difficult to screen out false positives but a dozen different searches with different inclusive and exclusive strings turns up nothing. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Healing

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

Neutrality issues are so serious that it would be preferable to delete this completely and start again. PhilKnight (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The "delete" side fails to adequately explain how this list's scope is unclear. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest divorce settlements

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

Very poorly defined and subjective list. What makes a divorce settlement "large"? Money? The circumstances around it? The fact that those involved are celebrities? At what threshold does a settlement go from "largest" to just "really big"? I don't know and this list makes absolutely no attempt to explain. It might be worth listing a few noteworthy cases of abnormally large settlements in an article like Divorce, Alimony, or even an entirely new article, but this list is the wrong way to go about that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of English-language surnames

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

Recently created article, unsourced. Besides some of the surnames listed not originating in the English language (D'Oyly, for example, being French) I ran a search for other similar articles to assess protocol and came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames. Not sure if this is a recreation? roleplayer 11:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per snow. Killiondude (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of light can be crossed

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

Contested PROD. Personal essay, bordering on WP:OR. roleplayer 10:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts of Fire International Ministries

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

Fails notability per WP:ORG. A review of the references reveal that they not only contain misinterpreted citations, but also do not mention Hearts of Fire International Ministries at all. As such, this article lacks significant reliable sources to support notability and inclusion. Cindamuse (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Cindamuse (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW close. Clear hoax, no need to keep this article hanging around any longer. Nancy talk 16:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Gork

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

Hoax article. Entire editing history is from two single purpose users whose only edits have been to this article. All sources are from websites which allow users to anonymously post press releases (easier.com, mynewsdesk.com, dailynet.de), therefore making none of the references reliable. The only "legitimate source" is from esafetychallenge.eu, but this is simply a PDF press release created by yet another anonymous posting website (businesspress24.net). Finally, no such record of anyone by the name Stefanie Gork or Stefanie Ruiz-Herrera in the histories of German Formula Three, British Touring Car Championship, American Le Mans Series, Le Mans Series, 24 Hours of Daytona, 24 Hours of Le Mans, World Touring Car Championship, or the 24 Hours of Nürburgring, several of which the article claims she has won a championship or two in. The entire race history is a fantasy. The359 (Talk) 06:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Palma

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

Biography of a non-notable person. Most online information mirrors article. Article was created before 18 March 2010, and is thus ineligible for a BLP PROD. Shirt58 (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peddy D

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

Fails general requirements. I can't find multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable references for this artist. Tagged for notability since December 2007. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FINA World Junior Diving Championships

[edit]
2010 FINA World Junior Diving Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - WP:NOT#STATS. Indiscriminate collection of information, nothing encyclopedic here. All we have is a medal table and a list of medal winners. Not to mention this is merely a junior world championships which, imo, is not notable. Lacks sourcing, is an orphan but for one article. Was prodded but creator de-prodded. User has been previously notified about similar non-notable or WP:CRYSTAL violations, but has chosen not to respond and work co-operatively in this regard. Strange Passerby (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Cookies & Cream (film). Redirect is the consensus I'm interpreting. Userfication can be considered when/if the author requests me (or any other admin) Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Holt

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. I find a lot of notation for his films but no secondary support for the individual. Awards listed appear to be for his film, not for the individual. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I haven't even addressed this. What notability do his works have? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator makes some mention in his opening comments of the various projects having coverage and awards, but feels the possible notability of the films through their coverage and awards could not possible met the criteria of CREATIVE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you can't come up with any notability for his works? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you cannot or will not look yourself for anything that might prove your opinion to be wrong? Though I am not the nominator, I am willing to accept that his initial searches did just that... and I do not doubt his having looked before writing his statements. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP. It's not my responsibility to do your job for you. If you think the article should be kept, then it's your responsibility to do the citing. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm an unpaid volunteer Proudfoot.... NONE of this is my "job", no more than it is yours. And while it's always interesting when newer editors like yourself decide that the actual gruntwork toward improving articles is someone else's "job", a self-accepted responsibility for sourcing articles is a personal choice, and not yours to dictate. And yes...this is a poorly written BLP, yes... but it is sourced and it does make assertions toward notability, no matter how many tags gets hung on it.. At least its newbie author made some attempts toward that. And while yes, it will definitely benefit from improvement, AFD is not meant to be used as a bludgeon to force cleanup, nor is it a place for you to demand that I or anyone else jump to it because you command it. I invite you to re-read WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, and WP:DEADLINE.... and try to gain a real understanding of what they mean. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all take a deep breath...I feel better. A couple of things; I do not see that any of the works created by Holt as being established as "significant or well-known work", either in the article or in the review of Google articles I performed prior to the AfD nomination. Most of the support in the article is just a site listing of a movie. There are a couple of reviews, but nothing that supports this is a significant work. The burden of providing support falls to the originator of the article. Currently, the substance of the article does not support inclusion in Wikipedia. Let's all remember we are a community of volunteers and while we may have disagreements, we should not take those disagreements personally. By best you you both. ttonyb (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ttonyb1. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree strongly with Schmidt, that, as he notes, if an individual's work receives recognition and awards, that notability IS the individual's under WP:CREATIVE and that notability through recognition of their works is specifically not a violation of notinherited." But at least a cursory G-search doesn't find those honors and awards here. Just a couple of honorable mentions Vrivers (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So... if enough can be brought forward to show that his works themselves are notable, they having a WP article or not, then under CREATIVE, that notability is his. I do note that the individual has been interviewed, and even if not contributory to notability, much of the background portions of the BLP is supportable.[20][21] And toward CREATIVE, his Cookies & Cream appears to meet notability criteria,[22] and his other works are approaching. In appreciation of courteous responses, I have above modified my original "keep" to a "redirect to Cookies and Cream" and "userfication of he BLP to its author" for continued work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources show that this film is notable? Nothing but listings that the film exists and it won awards at non-notable film festivals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Proudfoot, we're discussing a BLP and how to best serve the project, and not an article about a film, poorly writen as it is, that has itself been the subject of critical commentary.[23] While yes, the film article itself needs improvement, it's do-able and is itself not the topic under discussion. In compromise, I proposed userfication and a suitable redirection...but I now begin to wonder if you yourself have an unfortunate COI due in your apparent animus toward compromise and your adamance to not even consider a suitable userfication to its good faith author or a redirect to a suitable target... both options which remove this article from mainspace and create a win-win for the project. I will not be drawn into unhelpful banter with you, and will trust a closer to consider guideline and policy supported alternatives to your outright deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We are discussing a BLP. You have yet to provide any information that provides the person's notability. You suggest redirecting to the film. You have yet to provide any information that provides the film's notability. And yet I, who never heard of this person or the film, somehow have some mysterious COI? Pot, meet kettle. It never ceases to amaze me how, when somebody disagrees with another person, all of a sudden, claims of COI show up with no justification nor evidence. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Proudfoot, I agree the BLP might be removed from mainspace. So why be a sore winner? I suggested a guideline and policy encouraged way that the article on the filmmaker might still serve the encyclopdia... and now you have a new beef... about something that is not a BLP and something that is not the article being discussed here for deletion. And as the film article will be undergoing improvements that might make it a suitable redirect recipient, perhaps you might wish to visit and read and re-read WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT, and WP:WIP... as improving content, even if it takes a little time, or does not happen because you DEMAND others improve what you can not or will not, is always beneficial to the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Given the work that has been performed on the article, userfication or incubation is a viable alternative to full deletion. On a side note, we should also acknowledge the work MichaelQSchmidt has performed on the article and his continued contribution to improve Wikipedia by providing his editing skills to needy articles. MichaelQSchmidt my hat is off to you. ttonyb (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Regals Musical Society Inc

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

Fails WP:CORP, insufficient coverage from multiple secondary sources to assert notability. Article borders spam territory. Prod was contested. — ξxplicit 05:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis at Brandeis University

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

Non-notable summer program. TM 04:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Merge options are of course available as editorial decisions, post AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Box Recycling System

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

Article fails notability, that is, how is this different than any other curbside recycling program in the world. Blue Box (container) has been similarly tagged. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Delete is the primary consensus. Merge, as an option, is only an option; given the clear lack of RS, I'm closing this discussion as delete Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Box (container)

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

This article fails to explain notability, that is, how is it any different than any other curbside recycling program in the world. Blue Box Recycling System has been similarly tagged. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Hefner (band) . Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Better Friend

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

Song article with no credible notability claim Dondegroovily (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Holmes

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

Notability of the person not established, beyond being the president of a notable organization. About all the article says is that she has that job and what she gets paid to do it. That information should already be given in the article on the organization, The Hunger Project. Wolfview (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more information about her into the article then. Wolfview (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, AFD is not for cleanup. However, yes, will try to do some more research, and get on that. -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. All populated places are notable. No delete !votes standing. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beamore, Drogheda

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

Stub-quality article about town of questionable notability. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of jägerbomb variations

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

List of nothing but OR, no references and no sources. Nakon 04:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Recursive Bayesian estimation. T. Canens (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bayes filter

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

Content has been moved into Recursive Bayesian estimation, article ready for deletion Dondegroovily (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect. Non-admin close per WP:SNOW. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of the Austro-Prussian War

[edit]
Battles of the Austro-Prussian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Everything on this page has been copied to Austro-Prussian War. This page no longer serves any purpose. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Orchestra

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

Not notable. All the links go to some random web page. I have lived near Kent for a pretty long time and am an avid music fan. I have never heard of this band. Google search doesn't reveal much. UhOhFeeling (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Article moved to new name and refocused to more notable topic. Article expanded appreciably since nomination. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Axivion Bauhaus Suite

[edit]

As discussed below, this article has been moved to Bauhaus Project (computing). This move has been approved by the nominator. The goal is to establish notability for the new article, which will include a brief mention of the Axivion Bauhaus Suite.

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

No assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Flagged for refs for over a year. With the name change to a broader topic and the sources provided, I withdraw the nomination. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "deltionists" moniker is WP:UNCIVIL. I did a search and cannot find enough data to support notability. The link above is a single instance of a paper that appears to be by the authors of the software. This of course isn't a way to establish notability. Since I was unable to find good sources, I tagged it. If however you can find good sources that would be great, please do so. Note that in over a year since the request was made no one added a single source. This isn't an issue of not following proper wikipedia process, 1 year is plenty of time. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally a research project at the University of Stuttgart. It was then spun-off as a company. This is another one of the research/tool software products that seem to mystify the deletionists. I'll add more cites within next 24 hours. — HowardBGolden (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC) — Revised by HowardBGolden (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - I look forward to it. When proper sources to establish notability are in place I'll happily withdraw the nom. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you may be understandably flustered, please keep this civil and don't attack another personally. Your arguments may well be valid, but may be weakened in the eyes of a closing administrator because of the presentation. I advise any insulted parties not to disparage further. In the end, assume good faith in wanting to improve Wikipedia despite disagreements. Plus, we can't say they didn't look; they may well have, but only in the wrong direction. —CodeHydro 15:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The new-found scholarly reference seems to be from a conference proceeding, so it's not necessarily fully peer-reviewed, but otoh it should be reliable enough, esp. given that computer science does not place as much emphasis on review as other fields do. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get that. But it doesn't mean that merely having a paper makes a particular product notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about Keep/Move I suggest moving this to "Bauhaus Project (computing)" since the Bauhaus Project is the real topic. Axivion is a participant in the project and they provide commercial support for the project's tools, but they aren't the main topic. For a non-creator description of Bauhaus, see Aaron Quigley's PhD dissertation, pages 155-158, [34]. (Note: Koschke is a key investigator on Bauhaus, so references to him are also references to Bauhaus.) I will find more independent citations, but many are behind a paywall. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your posting above says more about the poor quality of your research skills or your impatience than it does about the subject of the AfD. Please make useful contributions to the discussion, not ill-founded conclusions. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howard... Snotty is a respectable researcher and as he said above, he did only a quick search. Plus, Bauhaus is a rather complicated case due to the fact that most useful sources are in German and that it is overshadowed by the more famous Bauhaus school. —CodeHydro 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hadhrat Mawlânâ Khâlid-i Baghdâdî. T. Canens (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid al-Baghdadi

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

Delete. Use Hadhrat Mawlânâ Khâlid-i Baghdâdî as your source of information instead. Dondegroovily (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Worth

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

There are many available articles written by this journalist, but I can't find any significant coverage of him in RSs. Without any RSs, I think the article fails WP:AUTHOR / WP:BIO. Novaseminary (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment When you subtract out the scholar hits that are his own articles (NYTimes/IHT), you get just a few north of 200 citations. With the books you get just south of 300 citations. According to the NY Times index (the first ref in the article), he has written or contributed to 1,078 articles. That ratio doesn't seem like the widely-cited sort of stat that would qualify for AUTHOR #1. And without any RSs indicating that he "regarded as an important figure", WP:AUTHOR #1 would not seem to be met unless we consider the sheer volume of his work as inherently notable. There are plenty of journalists who are written about and easily meet WP:BASIC / WP:AUTHOR; John Leland (journalist), for example. If somebody has done a profile or two of Worth, things would be different, but just a huge number of bylines doesn't seem to get him there. His PhD/academic work also seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC Novaseminary (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A journalist is the most prolific type of writer, so the citation hit-rate will inevitably appear low. I would argue that major journalits in Iraq are notable, even if they don't receive the cultural press that has established the notability of John Leland (journalist). Furthermore, this simple search shows his work helps reference a number of wikipedia articles. I agree WP:ACADEMIC doesn't apply, but I still think he passes WP:AUTHOR #1. Bigger digger (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But we can't write an article without RSs. And it is not just that he hasn't received cultural press, he hasn't received any coverage in RSs that I (or so far anybody else) can find. Without RSs we cannot ascertain whether he is "regarded as an important figure" per AUTHOR #1, and even the citations he does have appear not to be from his journalist peers (as one would expect), so he seems to fail the second half of #1. Novaseminary (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete - Novaseminary is right. I believe this guy is more notable than half the sports people, celebs and fictional characters here, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to want to write about him. Their loss! Bigger digger (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashbank

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

Location is really part of Leeds, Kent, no notability. Dondegroovily (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep--- In September 2010, four months short of the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia's founding in January 2001, we have arrived at a point which should allow/enable every place/location/settlement/suburb/section/borough/neighborhood, etc in the world to have its own stub and, when a qualified editor is willing to expand it, an article. As opposed to a theoretical reductio ad absurdum suggestion of an entry for every person, building or street in the world, habitations can make a stronger argument for highlighting, having continued through generations and through millenia, thus carrying, along the way, histories of innumerable lives. Whether the place is at the highest level (London) or lowest (Ashbank), it should have its own entry, however brief (for Ashbank, as of this writing). The alternative method, that of redirect to Leeds, causes unnecessary confusion by intimating that "Ashbank" is/was an alternative name for "Leeds" or, if the redirect lacks an immediate explanation of what "Ashbank" means, then the very purpose of the redirect's existence is put into doubt. Finally, specific to this title, compared to the thousands of same-named places and surnames found within disambiguation pages, Ashbank is comparatively unique in that during the three years and one month of this stub's existence (created on August 14, 2007), no other place with that appellation has had a Wikipedia entry (one "Ashbank" is red-linked within List of places in Alabama: A–C).—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, the stub needs to mention that it is a suburb. Someone on the talk page thought that it is actually within Leeds (a mere neighborhood, which usually isn't notable). Dondegroovily (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ashbank is a separate settlement to Leeds and therefore entitled to an article of its own, or at least a valid redirect. When someone eventually works on the Leeds civil parish article, they may decide to either expand the Ashbank article independently, or merge it into Leeds, Kent. Until then, although it is just a single line, the article is valid as an independent settlement and should not be deleted. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sorian

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

Notability. Was part of a group of articles created based on Obama recess appointment announcement. Created by a banned user, but not eligible for WP:CSD#G5. Rd232 talk 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing is very thin — the Washington Blade piece is the only one that gives him any nontrivial coverage, and that's not exactly at the level of a major national newspaper. I don't think an interim assistant secretary is the sort of position that's inherently notable. And in this day and age it doesn't seem likely that being both gay and federal policymaker is an especially unusual combination either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch·comms 02:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by Orangemike (talk · contribs) at 14:06, 16 September 2010 per G7. NAC Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator photography

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

Non-notable hobby. 50 users on youtube is not "big". Derild4921☼ 01:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When is it going to be deleted? (I am the author, and am for deleting it to.) Airplanegod (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G7; sole author's request. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April to fall

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

Band does not meet the minimum requirements for inclusion. Although the article claims that the band has achieved mainstream success, I can't find any reliable sources that confirm this. Pichpich (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morse sakshama

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

No evidence of notability for this online competition. PROD removed without adding any reliable sources. Salih (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The film exists, and stars well-known actors. The consensus is that this makes it notable. As an aside, as MichaelQSchmidt points out, there is a risk of systemic bias here. Many Indian newspapers and magazines do not have any online archives before the 2000s. With this being Tisca Chopra's debut, and a film starring Ajay Devgan, I would be surprised if offline resources were not available if a search was made. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platform (Hindi movie)

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

No evidence that it exists let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Has the film been widely distributed and has it received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics? Widely distributed; perhaps (no RS available to prove that). And full length review, I'm yet to see one.
  2. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release? >> No!
  3. Was the film deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release? No!
  4. Was the film given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release? No!
  5. Was the film featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema? No!
  6. Has the film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking? No!
  7. Was the film was selected for preservation in a national archive? No!
  8. Is the film "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program? No! (and I hope not!)
  9. Does the film represent a unique accomplishment in cinema; is it a milestone in the development of film art; does it/did it contribute significantly to the development of a national cinema? No!
  10. Does the film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career? No! (In part, yes. Ajay Devgn is apparently very notable and there's no denying he played a role in the film. But did he play an important role in the 'making' of the film? No RS; so the answer is no again! But is it a major part of his career? Well, until I see RS proving that, the answer is no!)
  11. Was the film successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country? No! India is one of the largest film producing countries in the world! Thanks and regards ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 07:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects, a problem with your well-intended analysis is that it fails to take into account that many early 1990's newspapers and magazines in India have NEVER been placed into online archives, so we cannot declare as an "absolute" that the film did not receive coverage or reviews by critics known in India nearly 20 years ago. And while the film was only one of Ajay Devgn's early films when he was being typecast as an action hero, it actually marks the big screen debut of actress Tisca Chopra... and as her debut definitely makes it the most important part of her career, and it IS being written of and referred to more than 5 years after its initial release. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Robot Chicken episodes. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Special (Robot Chicken episode)

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

I doubt that episode article is notable enough, the article currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left Hand Creek (Colorado)

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

Notability :)Ladsgroupبحث 00:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who claimed this article is a "map"? It's written in encyclopedic format. --Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete. Should suitable sources which meet WP:RS be found, then the article can be recreated -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akuma to Love Song

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

A contested proposed deletion, this article does not show why this manga is notable according to WP:N or WP:BK. A CSE search primarily brings up scanlation sites, but no information on licensors. Malkinann (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aside from the audio adaptation, which does not seem to be notable in the way that WP:BK asks, and having some volumes reach the lower ends of the manga best-seller list (as in, never cracking the top 20), there's not much to substantiate the notability here. I had thought it had been licensed in France or Italy, but apparently my neurons are firing about some similar series, as I'm not finding any record of it. Will poke about some more tomorrow, but it's not looking good for this one. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 10-ongoing series by Tomori Miyoshi ja vol. 1 ja vol. 10, serialized in Shueisha Margaret with some promotional voice comics (vomic) adaption released. No licensor found in French, German, Italian & Spanish. Available reviews are from fansites, blogs & forums thus can't be used to assert the notability of that work. This series fails both the General Notability Guideline and the Specific Book Guideline thus should be deleted. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia Terrorism Portal

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

In spite of the large amount of text in this article, this article still does not meet the WP:WEB criteria: no evidence of actual articles about the site in WP:RS -- mere mentions in passing do not count. In spite of the apparently impressive list of references, most are either self-cites, mentions in passing, not from WP:RS, or irrelevant to the subject of the article. The material referring to the notability or otherwise of its creators is also irrelevant, since notability is not inheritable. The Anome (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the content is about the Institute for Conflict Management, which might be a legitimate topic for an article (the content herein doesn't assert the notability of that particularly well, either; it's mostly biographical information about its key people). The actual content about the website which is ostensibly supposed to be subject of this article is weak; no WP:RS are provided. It has been cited a couple of times extremely briefly (I see two links to it on the NY Times link provided, and it is mentioned once in passing on the CFR link provided). No substantial coverage about the actual site has been demonstrated. --Kinu t/c 16:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demoscene.tv

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

Not a single properly published source, fails WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovic

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

No Sources given, and I have been unable to find any confirmation of this. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always Kabhi Kabhi

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

Per WP:BALL  Forty two  10:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population issues in The Philippines

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

Delete"' per WP:NOT and WP:OR WuhWuzDat 13:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essay, original research, possibly encyclopedic, but would need a fundamental rewrite in its current condition. Delete with no prejudice toward recreation as a valid encyclopedic article. —fetch·comms 02:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment New contributor's first article, encyclopedic topic, and the sourcing is appreciated, although it's written as an essay. A good example of a well-written article on a topic of this nature is Family planning in India. I'd recommend userfying it so that it can be worked on if the author wants to pursue it further. Mandsford 15:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Upper Middle School

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

Non-notable middle school (claimed awards are not distinguishing even if true). Per standard practice, should be deleted and redirected to town or district. Bongomatic 14:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than 3,000 schools have been given the Blue Ribbon . . . doesn't make them notable. Bongomatic 17:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blue Ribbon schools are indeed notable, as the government-organized award is the highest award any U.S. school can receive. Just because there are many schools that get this award annually does not mean that its significance is lessened; the U.S. has thousands of NRHPs, but they are all notable due to this designation and their historical significance. This school is obviously distinguished for its academic and educational excellence. —fetch·comms 02:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As for Blue Ribbon, do we really want Wikipedia ending up with 3,000 entries detailing the curricula etc for 8th graders? The answer is yes, if all of those 3 000 individual entries are about notable subjects. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school district per usual practice for schools under high school level. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect or delete - Per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Blue Ribbon schools are notable.

    See CIBA cited as one of the best by Education Department from the Journal Inquirer, "The Blue Ribbon award is given only to schools that reach the top 10 percent of their state's testing scores ... It is considered the highest honor a school can achieve." That this school has received the highest honor an American school can receive demonstrates that it is notable. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If ten sources say that there is no higher environmental compliance certificate that may be awarded by the State of California to a car than the smog check (mandatory for all vehicles that use the public roads), does that make every vehicle that complies notable? Bongomatic 09:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FreeMedForms

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

I placed a prod tag on this article due to lack of independent sources. The prod tag was removed and no independent sources were added, so here we are. The current sourcing consists of some wiki pages and a mailing list post, and a paper in Farmacia Hospitalaria - but the paper does not actually mention FreeMedForms at all - it is about a freely available data set that FreeMedForms makes use of. I've had a look and haven't found any better sources. Given the absence of reliable sourcing, this article does not satisfy the General notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FreeMedForms is a young project as you can see. It has been started in 2008. There are no commercial support for this project. FreeDiams which is part this project starts to bring light on the project because of its uniqueness. There are no other open source, community based project that correspond to the FreeDiams app: pharmaceutical drug prescriber / drug-drug interaction checker. All contributors of the FreeMedForms project does not declare any conflict of interest. FreeMedForms is only build by volonteers (mainly medical doctors) without any kind of compensation. For now, I can not add more consistent and reliable sources than those already added. May be just insist on the fact that GNUmed and fr:MedinTux can be freely connected to FreeDiams. Thanks for your help.--Eric Maeker, MD (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Note that if IP disruption resumes this can be brought to WP:RFPP or another appropriate venue. T. Canens (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cambodian singers

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

Contested PROD - PROD reason was "This is a strange one. It was moved to user space In February 2010 by someone who has since been indef blocked for page move vandalism, and I've just moved it back to main space as I see no reason for it having been there (The user whose space it was in, User:Ganerer appears inactive and to have had nothing to do with it). Since then it has been heavily edited by a number of IP editors, including some who are kids who have a known history of making unreferenced and unsupportable additions to pages related to SE Asia (and usually having them deleted). It is completely unreferenced, and one of the IPs even claimed "NO SOURCES NEEDED FOR THIS ARTICLE, IT IS NOT A MAIN ARTICLE" in an edit summary. The whole thing is a mess - I'm sure a good article could be written, but I wouldn't trust a word of what has been written here, and I think deleting it and starting afresh with proper sources is probably the only way to go." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree otherwise move back to userspace--125.27.54.210 (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article can not be kept in userspace for ever - userspace can only be used to temporarily hold work-in-progress articles that are going to be moved to mainspace, and they must be in the userspace of the user who is developing them. That is clearly not the case here - this should never have been moved to User:Ganerer's space in the first place, and it looks as if it was done as an act of page move vandalism. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The horrible lack of sourcing for this, even pruned list, and ownership issues from IPs who want to keep it in someone else's userspace for ever doesn't indicate much notability. GedUK  06:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is nothing more than a list of notable people of a particular occupation and nationality, perhaps the most basic kind of list of people on Wikipedia. At present it only has bluelinks; I have no reason to doubt those people are notable as long as those articles exist. I personally wouldn't insist upon a cite for something as basic as an individual's occupation and nationality, as clicking on those bluelinks will clearly confirm whether they are 1) Cambodian and 2) a singer, but clearly this is something that could be sourced within this list even though it is not at present. Whether this list may be appropriately merged into another one is a different question. And the fact that this list has been disrupted by particular editors is certainly not a basis for deleting it; try protection if no other option works. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My comments about the article being unsourced, and about the additions made by known IPs who have a history of not understanding notability and of adding unsourced and unsourceable material, was aimed at the mass of redlinks and unlinked names that were originally in the list, and which clearly could not be trusted - what is left now is a very small portion of the list that I originally brought here. If it is kept, there is still some more pruning to do - 1) The Khmer Rouge wasn't a Cambodian singer, and so shouldn't actually be a member of the list itself. 2) The "Artists who sings for Multiple Productions" part is unsourced (as per the "multiple productions") and just duplicates people from further above anyway. 3) Some unsourced comments about some individual singers need to be sourced or removed. I'll be happy to clean it up further should it be kept. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CatSCAN

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

Article with no useful sources that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Should probably be redirected to CT ScanX-ray computed tomography if deleted. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Just want to clarify that this article is about the character from the Transformer series and not the medical device properly known as a "CT scan". This was nominated with all the other Transformer stuff. I would suggest that if this was redirected that it be pointed to the Transformer series and not the medical device as there is almost always a space between "cat" and "scan" when refering to the medical device, as others have pointed out. Thanks. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Auditing Tool for Security

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

Nothing to assert notability of this particular product. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. The subject meets WP:NSPORT and this article is about him. Any ambiguity can be dealt with through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Owen (footballer)

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

I nominate this article for deletion bcuz there were 2 players with that name (William "Bill" Owen) in Manchester United, and this article does not stat which one its referred to, as both players could have been FW and the link on that article does not work. – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There did seem to be some confusion in the article as the Holywell and Newton Heath player originally mentioned was actually the W. Owen whose name is unknown. I have now changed the article to be about the later Manchester United player who also appeared for a number of other Football League clubs and about whom information is available. I would suggest keeping the article in that form as there is too little known about W. Owen to make an article. Keresaspa (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, the person you actually added is not the "Bill Owen" mentioned but its actually W. Owen, Some sources says that W. name was William while others claim he is first name is unknown, I think we should add more refs and info about the players cuz right now, it still confusing on who we are talking about in the article.

Here 3 links, first one to StretfordEnd which claim his name is unknown, while mufcinfo claims both were William, [49] [50] [51] So now, after writing this, I am my self not sure who is the right Bill or who is unknown. -- HonorTheKing (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added an infobox to the article. As Joyce lists two other players known as Bill or Billy Owen, as well as William Owen (footballer born 1906), this article should probably be moved to Bill Owen (footballer born 1906). Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_September_14&oldid=1142639671"