Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 4

< 3 December	5 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Frank | talk 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthrax hoaxes

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of news headlines. Tavix | Talk 23:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it needs to be rewritten and better cited, but I don't see what policy or guideline this violates. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply WP:NOT#NEWS. Tavix | Talk 02:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve. Significant part of the history of the entire set of anthrax events: more hoaxes than actual. Either make it into a list article (probably and then rename it as a list) or a regular article (maybe not). Hmains (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, news appearances doesn't remove notabilty. Anthrax hoaxes is obviously a common phenomenon. 96T (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The correct responses to a list of mostly unsourced and probably non-notable anthrax hoaxes would have been to turn it into an article about anthrax hoaxes, as I've done. Deletion is a blunt-edged tool and wasn't appropriate here. Fences&Windows 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Vice Presidents

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

Delete as an unreferenced list with a non-notable intersection. "current" is not static, which provides significant challenge for being encyclopedic. Tavix | Talk 23:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although in poor state, it is comprable to List of current heads of state and government. There is nothing wrong with current articles. See that, List of Permanent Representatives to the United Nations, List of current United States governors, etc. It is perfectly relevant to list current second-in-commands. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But wouldn't it be better as a chart so we can see the previous years too. Each year should be a column. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs refs and some other work, but the topic is notable and there is precedent, as per Reywas93. Cerebellum (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reywas92 et al. This can be fixed in the normal editing process. Lists are more difficult to maintain than categories, but that both are allowed, by consensus and precedent. This is a list that would be of obvious use to our readers. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs a lot of work, but there's not really anything wrong with its topic. Will be hard to maintain, but not impossible. Can't see any violation of WP:LIST, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly redirect to List of current heads of state and government. Just because it can be maintained by someone, in theory, doesn't mean that it can or will. And I'm not convinced that it will be. JBsupreme (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would probably look nicer in the form of a table, but it's obvious from all of the articles called "Vice-President of _______" that there are people who do keep an eye on such things. Part of the process of bringing it up to a current state will be to add this link to the other articles. I suppose that it's possible that it might not be maintained even after it is linked to other articles, but I'm not particularly bothered by that possibility. Mandsford (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that there were three changes that needed to be made. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - sloppiness is not a reason to delete an article, and at this point it doesn't look so bad anyway. The fact that it will require updating on a regular basis is no reason to delete it either. Things change; that's what makes Wikipedia such an ideal medium for an encyclopedia. And it's not like we're talking about the spelling bee champions of an obscure elementary school here...it's the second- or third-in-command in most countries. Frank | talk 02:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some TLC, but it's definitely a notable list. The implied qualifier that this only lists political positions (as opposed to, say corporate ones) should be made explicit. Them From Space 03:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBClone

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

The subject software of this article is non-notable and entirely unsourced. It has never been sourced. There was an AfD in 2006 when web software had no notability standards and the reason to keep then (google hits) would not result in the article being kept now. Miami33139 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing I can find in a reliable source. --Glenfarclas (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tragic death, but aside from his death he didn't received significant coverage. Didn't pass WP:ATHLETE and WP:MEMORIAL applies. Fences&Windows 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Dittrich

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

Non-notable athlete. Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. While his death is tragic, it is not notable and Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually the main reason I created the page was based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_2009 listing where Bern Dittrich appeared as an entry for 11 November 2009 and stayed there as a red link for quite a while. When an entry for death of an individual stays there for almost a month without ever being challenged or deleted, it is an indication of its importance. He has also played in three different formations, in Vienna, in the States and in Vancouver, Canada werldwayd (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add an article to the Deaths list as long as there's an obit. I have complained about that on its talk page: not everything there is notable. I have multiple times deleted/challenged redlinks on that page, but its regulars claim pages should be there for a month once added, no matter how non-notable. Although the Vienna team may be semi-professional, high school and college playing sure as heck don't count. Just because someone dies and is listed there does not mean he passes notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Really? Almost a month? I thought there was a bot assigned to stop redlinks being added to these pages. Anyway, he still fails WP:ATHLETE. His death seemed to get some coverage, however, ([1], [2]) though I'm not sure if this is enough to assert his notability, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Lord Spongefrog. It would appear that he's only notable because of his death; sadly, Wikipedia is not a memorial. SMC (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable as an athlete, and his death, while tragic, was not a genuinely notable one (cf. Jasper Howard), some news coverage notwithstanding. --Glenfarclas (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Escape to donegal

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

Per WP:NFF, this has only recently entered production, and the production itself is not notable. Wait until they're in post-production to add it. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom - for reasons given above. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFF is clear about pre-release, and the production itself is not notable, no coverage except press releases from February 2009. A Wiki article should wait for the film's release. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 23:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this film is produced by Jeffrey Wetzel who produced THE HANGOVER. this is a major motion picture with a major star. (Alan Cumming) See IMDB page. this film was featured in VARIETY earlier this year - WikiEditor20100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditor20100 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You still haven't said how the production itself is notable. Has anything happened in the production that would have notability? You need to read WP:NFF, then, if you still believe this is notable, explain why this film is an exception to the general rule that films still in production do not get articles. Is this film magically immune to being scrapped? Did one of the stars throw a hissy fit about their role? Or is it just like most productions where there is little to no news aside from press releases and puff pieces that tell you little except how much star power it has? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Cynof Gavuf 10:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above; pretty sure notability isn't transitive in that way. If it isn't notable in itself... SMC (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Per [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alan Cumming per WP:NFF. Cerebellum (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAS Laboratories, Inc.-The Probiotic Company

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

Blatant advertising of an organisation. Eight Ounce Kitten (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G11 - blatant advertising page Random Time 22:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G12 - Ignoring the advertising, it's blatant copyvio. I've CSD-ed. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Luskin

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

I found one ref besides myspace here. The article has been cleaned up good by editors, but it started as a poor vanity article. Is the one ref enough to keep this, afaik fails all of wp:music Pirate^Argh!!1! 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to pass criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO, as I can not find that he "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Neither does he seem to satisfy any of the other criteria. Gongshow ^Talk 22:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - The article says he's a member of a group called Shotty No Blitz. As you can see, that's a red link, so surely if a band is non-notable, then its members are also non-notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 00:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the one who removed all of the nonsense from the article in the first instance i found it very lacking in any real content but felt it would be hypocritical for me to nom it for deletion. It could have been taken as bitey. The one ref that was subsequently found by the nominator isn't enough to meet WP:MUSIC. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DitzyNizzy; I should also note that I was unable to find any references for the band. The Corsair piece in the external links is this article's best shot, but I don't think we can justify an article based on a single news story. Cerebellum (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a single article in a college paper does not establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Giver. I'm redirecting, editors can pick whatever material might be useful out of the history. Fences&Windows 00:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Giver Trilogy

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

Article is all original research and there is already an article on Wikipedia - The Giver. Eight Ounce Kitty 21:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect (without merge) to The Giver.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article is in a sad state, and this trilogy is usually not described in detail. The second two novels are considered follow-ups to The Giver. All three are rarely discussed. Angryapathy (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information here is specific to the books mentioned. The 'trilogy' itself is not an actual trilogy, but three books that happen to take place within the same fictional setting. They each stand alone, and so should their articles. I will take on the clean up of the second and third books mentioned. The Giver is strong as it stands.Sabiona (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ItaloBrothers. JForget 21:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp on the ground

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

Contested prod - original prod rationale was that it failed WP:NSONGS; I'm inclined to agree Falcon8765 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A9 No evidence of song (or band for that matter) to meet WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An A9 speedy would be declined because the band, ItaloBrothers, has an article. 71.255.89.120 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of Ghits, but that's not a sufficient reason to keep an article. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage for the song, so unless such evidence is presented, it appears to fail WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 22:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly replace with redirect to ItaloBrothers. There's just not relevant content available to warrant an independent article. --Tjohns ✎ 14:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.

—J04n(talk page) 13:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to ItaloBrothers per Tjohns. Cerebellum (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And since we've no place to go...... (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waldron Mercy Academy

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

One award and one reference in a local paper is not enough to keep in the face of our usual presumption that grade schools are not notable. ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post nomination comment: The text also appears to be very close to a copyvio of this page. – ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I compared the text and believe that the information in Waldron Mercy Academy has been sufficiently paraphrased as to avoid a copyright violation. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:COI notwithstanding, the Blue Ribbon Schools Program award does make it notable.--Blargh29 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UKexpat - Adding an article on Wikipedia has become a lot more difficult than I thought it was going to be. Your assertion "One award and one reference in a local paper is not enough to keep in the face of our usual presumption that grade schools are not notable" is disappointing. It's a national award given by the US Dept. of Education. Very few schools across the country have won more than once--we've received it twice. The reference is from The Philadelphia Inquirer, which has a circulation of a few million subscribers. Trishlockett (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that you are a teacher for this school that the article's title clearly states is that right? Eight Ounce Kitten (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, I'm the marketing director, not a teacher. Let me give you some background on why I've spent several hours of my day here today. I went to a workshop yesterday on social media and the CIO of a school whose school's article is on WP told all of us how easy and beneficial it was to be on Wikipedia. So, I jumped on here this morning. Again, I had no idea it was going to be so difficult. Any suggestions? Trishlockett (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, tell that CIO that they are not being beneficial when they edit articles with a conflict of interest and misadvise others to do likewise. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable school. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - not only a Blue Ribbon school, the highest award an US school can receive, but a double award winner. Couple that with a bunch of notable alumni and plenty of sources that meet WP:ORG and it makes a convincing case for notability. COI we deal with by editing and, if necessary, by the use of admin tools - advise/warn/block. This is also a case where WP:BEFORE procedures should have been applied. This was AfD'd less than 2 hours after creation and there is no indication that the nominator has searched and evaluated available sources nor considered the merit of the awards. The way forward is clean/source/expand not delete. TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm satisfied by the History section, not the Awards section, that the institution deserves an article. I should note that my opinion comes from one helluva' anti-Catholic; just one who thinks that History ought to be preserved and defended in an encyclopedia. The WP:COPYVIO problem can be solved by further editing and referencing. If da' penguin did something of an institutional nature in the US in 1861 that still stands in 2009, then it is notable achievement of said penguin. In this case, notable enough for an article (I considered merge to the Catherine McAuley article, but this would end up lopsided in that article). Per WP:SS I consider this article a spin-off the Catherine McAuley article.

My opinion rationalizing my keep vote comes largely from the New Melleray Abbey article, an article about some old guys in a house. A notable article about notable old guys in a notable old house that dates to 1849: Plenty historic enough for Wikipedia at over three million articles; and I appreciate being able to learn about it here, and then being able to research more off Wikipedia because of the WP:EL provided there.

However, it's easy to see that this article needs work. There are plenty of resources for this, including WP:UFY, WP:INCUBATE, and notably in this case, WP:SUP (note to Trishlockett, click on each link to see what I'm talking about). It's not hard to forgive Trishlockett a blatant WP:COI here, the editor is new and missed doing some research first; some research that involves sifting through hundreds, if not thousands, of policy and guideline articles. Trishlockett, as a member of an educational institution, may want to look more in to what these institutions actually do, and less time listening to CIO's. I've no doubt the kids being educated there, with the teachers' help, can trundle down to the library and find the references I expect in the article, none of which, I note, will be found on Google Scholar because of their age (last I heard 1861 predates 1994), and will probably need some good dusting when they're found. Get out the teachers, mobilize the kids, per Wales, and fix the article, don't delete it. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blue Ribbon schools are notable. Furthermore, this article confirms that M. Night Shyamalan, a two-time Academy Award-nominated filmaker, attended this school. The article lists more notable alumni. Two Blue Ribbon awards and multiple alumni confirm that this school is notable. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to multiple Blue Ribbon awards. Notable alumni is not sufficient criteria, as notability is not inherited. Original author has been sufficiently minnowed. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 01:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your input and your patience for this WP newbie. I'll continue to work on the article. What a great idea involving our students. They've probably already contributed to other articles in the past. I apologize for my naivete. Trishlockett (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This school seems to have more notability than most schools that are the subject of articles. I'm impressed that Trishlockett didn't become hostile, which is what most newbies with COI would do. Thanks for being good-natured, Trishlockett! --Biglovinb (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I would advise the nominator to read WP:ORG, specifically this: "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." The Blue Ribbon Award is certainly a major achievement, and the longevity is also a factor, as noted by User:Aladdin Sane. Also, it is misleading to refer to the 16th largest newspaper in the United States as a "local paper". Coverage in the Philadelphia Enquirer goes a long way towards establishing notability. Finally, as the nominator's assertion that grade schools are not generally notable, I'm having difficulty finding that in any of the notability guidelines; could you please provide a link to whatever policy that's from? Cerebellum (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the general rule is a practical rule based on experience: in the last 3 years essentially all articles of primary schools have been merged or redirected to the school district or town or whatever seems the best place. None have been kept as separate articles unless there is some really special distinction, as there is here. At first, I personally did not want to accept Blue Ribbon as sufficiently special, but the consensus has consistently been that they are. What we consistently do is policy just as much as what we write down. It is often much easier getting consensus at AfD, than at a formal policy discussion,which requires an undefined supermajority--which in practice tends to mean that a few people stubbornly objecting can prevent adoption. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Per all the above keeps. Not even close.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow keep, that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe you're thinking of speedy keep, not snow, and only if Orange Mike also retracts his deletion support would it qualify. An admin can close the AfD early citing a snow keep but that's up to the admin's judgment, not any actions taken in this discussion. -- Atama頭 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm deleting before Transwiki. This material is no use to Wiktionary, the sources aren't any good: they need permanently archived sources that attest to the use, not websites, and most of those terms are in Wiktionary anyway. If anyone wants a copy for userspace, let me know. Fences&Windows 00:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang terms for fat people

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

A combination of an indiscriminate list and, primarily, a list of dictionary words. Coming from the second link, "Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides." (bolding mine). Additionally, the references used are very iffy: going through, the most unreliable sources used are about.com, wiktionary, urbandictionary, and slangsearch. Mm40 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced and poorly organized list. Belongs at Urbandictionary, not here. Angryapathy (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not a dictionary. also, see List of slang terms for police officers for an even more poorly sourced list of this type, which i would recommend for deletion. if we did allow such lists, we would obviously have more than this one and List of terms for white people in non-Western cultures. List of terms for ethnic exogroups links to articles, thus is an acceptable list here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary 70.29.209.121 (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. A fairly useless list which is just going to act as a magnet for every unsourced piece of slang under the sun (which is pretty much its' current state of affairs). SMC (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure whether to delete what could be a good article, but it also has potential to become a magnet for vandalism. I'd like to see a discussion as to why this list was created. WP:DICT could apply here, as does WP:LIST. Disclosure: I am 200 pounds. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. JBsupreme (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Kubek15^{T CS} 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same descriptions given over and over again. It seems that it would do nothing but pour fuel on the spread of insults of overweight people. The C of E (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Transwiki - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Google Watch

The result was Merge to Criticism of Google. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Floyd

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines and lacks sources. Article includes very little detail. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTEMP. I can't even find sources in news articles about him, and the evidence from the page leads me to suspect that any such sources would be a "one time event" indicating his recruitment and/or dismissal. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After seeing Angryapathy's source, which I did not find on my own, I agree with his assertion of keep. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE. According to this [7], he played in games for the Indianapolis Colts, which meets "played in the higest level of sports." Angryapathy (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE. I've added the Colts info and a reference. Mm40 (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Cerebellum (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing in games for the Indianapolis Colts, a professional team in the NFL, means that he passes WP:ATHLETE and is thus notable. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KOBRA (roller coaster)

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

A stub about a roller coast that is scheduled to start rolling next year. Prod tag disputed by the article's creator. Problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Add these two sentences to Chessington World of Adventures. Even when it is finished, this particular roller coaster is not likely to be noteworthy enough to merit a full article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE. Do you remember when SAW - The Ride article first started? That was only two sentances long and you idiots never put the deletion tag on it.

--Cbbcfan (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion But I think Cbbcfan's comment should stand. It's a fair comment, and I think we're all grown up enough to stand being called idiots. Canthusus (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more direct opinion from this user is seen at this diff[8], to give some reference of weight of the comment left here. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even a roller coaster... "amusement ride" is more accurate. Rides of this type aren't in the consensus of amusement park rides notability. WP:N troubles per that and a duck test. Wikipedia is not a directory of every carnival and amusement park ride on the planet. Having checked, "Disc-O" is not a classification of roller coaster, which would have the closest tangent to notability possible. Unless this ride breaks a variety of world records or reaches notability in some other form, this just isn't going to work here, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS not withstanding. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on incivility from User:Cbbcfan, though I'd suggest a reading of WP:GNG and WP:TALK to learn some of the proper vocabulary in Wikipedia discussions. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It might be worth noting that User:Cbbcfan has been blocked indefinitely for editing abuse. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. Noted. Thanks for the notice-- that alone can't "count" and theoretically shouldn't matter, however since I see it's almost exclusively related to matters in this article and this AfD, I suppose that suggests a heavy COI in any comments, on top of the COI of being the article primary contributor. Just... on paper. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it... Cbbcfan created the article. It was quickly tagged as an "article for deletion". The user took offence that people were "trying to delete the article" (possibly not understanding that AfD is a discussion process, and also feeling ownership of the article) so reverted the AfD notice. This got the user in an edit war with lots of other editors (myself included) over whether the AfD template should remain, resulting in an inevitable 72 hour ban to allow things to cool down. At the same time, Cbbcfan's comment was removed from this page, thus excluding him/her from the discussion - this really wound the user up and they responded with some very angry words, resulting in an indefinite ban. So, yes, Cbbcfan has been blocked indefinitely for editing abuse, and that was related to this article and this discussion. But I don't think that's a COI that's relevant to whether the article should stay or go. We've got someone who has made useful contributions in the past, who got him/herself in a corner through misunderstanding the process, and responded rather too angrily (personally, I'm not convinced that indefinite block was appropriate - time to calm down might have been more constructive, and I would support a reinstatement if the user requested one and showed that they had learned). All of which is to say that I don't think the status or personality of the original editor of the article is relevant. What matters here is whether the subject of the article is sufficiently notable, and is likely to contain sufficient content for inclusion in Wikipedia. Canthusus (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the blocked/unblocked status of the article's author does not directly affect the worthiness of the article regarding deletion. It does have some weight on the credibility of the contributor if there are some questionable, unsourced sections of the author's contributions. We should also look at the contributor's overall contributions. This may be a one-time event in which the contributor (and possibly the blocking admin) overreacted. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not a roller coaster; it's a flat ride. But in any case, the only coverage about it I could find is [9] which isn't sufficient to establish this as a notable ride. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Definite consensus to delete. This bio as it stands definitely has no place in Wikipedia. The notability is also very much in doubt. Fences&Windows 20:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. T.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair

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

This is a long and rambling career résumé, and badly written at that. It's an essay, original research, an advert, and I'll welcome anyone who says it ought to be speedied. I just can't quite justify nominating it there. But it has so much that screams "speedy" to me and even looks like a copyvio, though I can't find the source! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like it was speedy deleted before for being a copyvio of http://www.trgnair.org/ . The new one looks like very similar material with near gibberish (e.g. "An ambidextrous personality…") inserted to make it harder to identify as a copyvio. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable self-promotion. Angryapathy (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability and copyvio issue. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non notability.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is badly written, but the subject meets WP:PROF. Cerebellum (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Substance is missing. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Could not find any entries in WoS using his last name plus the names of various co-authors listed in his CV. His publication venues are evidently not mainstream peer-reviewed journals, although he lists them as such, i.e. "International / National Journals". Impact likely nill and GS shows h-index of 0. Uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - promotional; I don't there there is enough reliable, third-party information to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military Aircraft Serial Review

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

Non-notable hobby book for aviation enthusiasts, one of many on the market. Nothing to show why it is anymore notable than any other. Contested prod, article had been deleted a year ago following a prod for lack of notability MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I second that, doesn't seem worthy of notice. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Detete per nom.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient reliable source references for article subject to pass notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no consensus for deletion JForget 21:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riyadh Shikawi

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

The attempt to find more reliable sources has failed. The merge proposal has been on the page for ages now. No signs of interest or explanations are given on both talk pages. This article here is solely base on the primary source and the fact that this name was on the FBI list for a while. For me it looks 99 % sure that it is Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi and in this case i do not think there is much to merge. Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi has already a section about the rendition, maybe just the fact that he was on the FBI list and then delete and redirect. If we speak about two different individuals than this article should be deleted because it fails WP:BIO notability and my attempt to find reliable secondary sources have failed. IQinn (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "the fact that this name was on the FBI list for a while" seems to miss the fact he was arrested by the CIA, handed over to Jordan, put in Guantanamo Bay....he's somebody a lot more happened to than simply "his name appeared on a list for a while". And generally when the FBI issues a terrorism alert, Wikipedia (rightly) adds an article on the subjects. However, if it is shown that it's the same as the other article, then Merge is appropriate. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Arrested by the CIA, handed over to Jordan, put in Guantanamo Bay..." not in the article so far. Where are the sources for that? Would it be a sign that they are the same person? There is nothing more than that he was on the FBI list for a while. Could you please add the sources if you have? IQinn (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to the article says, a Yemeni who is currently held at Guantanamo...He was named as a suspect in a Yemen plot...the FBI discovered that he had been arrested by the CIA and rendered to Jordan. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's all not sourced. IQinn (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not the basis for an AFD, it's the basis for an {{unsourced}} tag. I don't mind you adding such a tag - and if nothing can be found in a few months, revisiting the idea of an AFD. I do however mind the idea of deleting an article about an apparently very notable person because people are too lazy to fact-check. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they are notable? The creator may say they are notable, but I could create an article saying "TParis00ap is president of the world from 1987-Present". Such a claim would suggest I am notable and by your logic the article should stay until such a time as WP:RS are not found in a few months. WP:V states that the threshold for inclusion is verfiability, not truth. If the "very notable" assertion were sourced so it could be proven, than you would have an argument. But unless it can be verfied, then that sentance cannot support WP:N. Also WP:V puts the burden of sources on the content creator, not the deletion nominator. Unsourced material may be questioned and suggested for deletion.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information was added by a fairly trustworthy editor with 2000+ edits on en.WP - I would give him the benefit of the doubt, although it is legitimate to ask him to add citations and footnotes - WP did not used to work that way, and many editors are/were unaware of the need for footnoting each claim when many of "these" articles were created. Looking at this government publication, this book, and a Google News Archive search...he seems to be who the article claims he is. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{edit conflict) It is amazing. How many people are there now, that you have attacked in an uncivil way - whenever somebody nominated an article from your project - to Afd for discussion? More than ten? There was time enough to fix it. And you could have fixed it now and you still have time to fix it. This article has been a problem for years. Do not waste time with attacking people. IQinn (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iqinn: I don't see any apparent attacks about this subject from User:Sherurcij, but if you know of any I would suggest you bring it to WP:DR instead of here. This discussion should be about the subject, not about incivility by any of the contributors. Let's all refrain from personal attacks here please. I'm not sure if the "too lazy" comment was interpreted by you as an attack, but I hope you understand he did not say you were lazy. He could have meant the content creator was lazy not to add the source. Please always WP:AGF. I suggest a cookie of peace?--TParis00ap (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, TParis is correct that my reference to "laziness" is a general inference of an "unreferenced fact". You, me, the creator, the last person to view the article, we all should have spent 20 minutes adding references. We didn't. But that's cause for a clean-up of the article, not its deletion. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way i did check more than 20 minutes and when there is nothing to add than it's time for AfD IQinn (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've both acted in in good faith. User:Iqinn probobly did spend more than 20 minutes and did his best to find sources. Most folks have different techniques of finding sources and some techniques are better in certain circumstances than others. I find tweaking google searches even a little will produce significantly different results. It's all about having the gut feeling about how to type a search to get the desired results. Apparently User:Sherurcij has found some creditable sources that should be included if we can work it out. I'll see what I can do with what was provided and add the others to "External links". [[WP:V] requires claims to be verified, but it is obvious from the sources provided in this debate that the subject is notable. But unless we can figure out a way to add the sources, we can't meet WP:V. Luckily, WP:V doesn't require WP:RS to be easily verified, only that it is possible. I'll work it a little.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. The user's argument for keep is based on unsourced claims. They are not independantly verifiable. The nom already tried to find sources and could not. User:Sherurcij is suggesting that if someone wrote an autobiogaphy with claims of notability, they should be kept. As far as I know, that is only enough to save someone from WP:CSD, not WP:AfD. Apologies if that is not the case, but that is how I read it.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made some changes with the sources suggested by User:Sherurcij but I still support my delete !vote. I made a good faith effort to fix references and use the ones provided. Some of the material provided I did not have the capability to add. However, I would like to note that many of the sources have minute mentions of the subject as an associate of AL-RABEEI which would not support WP:N requirement for significant coverage.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Sherurcij, and the sources he has linked above. The article meets WP:N. Cerebellum (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the sources? Most are trivial mentions that he is an aquaintance of someone else or that he was part of 8 other people removed from the FBI list. Almost none have significant coverage and almost all are trivial mentions. I only say most because I cannot read the books but the snippets suggest the same trivial mentions. WP:N states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." User:Sherurcij has proven he exists, not that he is notable.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not suggest he was a tailor who made a suit of clothes for notable people, they suggest he was a terrorist and the subject of an international manhunt. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got no argument from me there. But they don't say why he was significant or more important than any other terrorist out there. Should we have a page for anyone who has ever held a gun for Al Queda or the Taliban? We need to know why he was significantly more important than any other terrorist.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda, perhaps. The Taliban, obviously not. Should we have an article on every bank robber? No. Should we have an article on every bank robber who was on the FBI's Most Wanted list and triggered an international manhunt? Yes. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you would have sources saying "He robbed a bank". In this case, we do not have a source that says what he did. Only that he was an aquaintance of someone else and the FBI wanted him.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy the GNG; difficulty in categorizing reasons for coverage not grounds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is difficulty in coverage not grounds for deletion? The key idea for WP:GNG is significant coverage. This subject does not have any significant coverage. He has quite a few trivial mentions focusing on his removal from the FBI list and nothing else. Please check the sources. WP:V states that the basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We cannot verify anything significant about this person. This may also be a WP:BLP issue (not well versed in BLP). There are quite a few unsourced claims in there. If the unsourced libeus is removed and the trivial sourced content is removed - we no longer have even a stub.--v/r - T P 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impossibility to find sources to verify is grounds for deletion; difficulty with the sources is not. And yes, we should have an article about every individual on the most wanted list: that's a clear sign of national-level importance as a suspect or criminal. The FBI is the appropriate agency to determine that, not Wikipedia. Though they may sometimes jump to unwarranted conclusions, nonetheless they count as an adequately RS. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. This article asserts that Riyadh Shikawi's real name is Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi and links to that page, which is a redirect to Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. If they are the same person, they don't need two separate articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Sheru.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free per click

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

The article appears to be OR, based on a concept created by the page's creator and primary author (Rsantiag. The article has only two sources, both self-published and created by Rodrigo Santiago. Searches did not find any additional references to this concept other than by Santiago. Absent additional sourcing, topic is not notable at this time. Ravensfire (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Ravensfire (talk)[reply]

Delete, this is self-promotion and original research. Haakon (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. An interesting read, but OR nonetheless. SMC (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, et al.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably well intentioned, but not notable, WP:OR and relies on WP:SPS. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are possible sources, but nothing actually newsworthy, see [10], or reliable. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SimplyTweet

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

A twitter client with a few reviews linked as sources - but nothing that seems to establish notability. Random Time 16:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16]. Joe Chill (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe. Update the article with these references. SMC (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated article with links suggested by Joe. Hboon (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As far as I can tell, there are enough sources that are reliable and independent of the subject that confer notability. As such, I think that the article should be kept and expanded, with more references. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources listed above demonstrate adequate significance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zsinj^Talk 02:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Brit

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

No reliable sources found Polarpanda (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any sources either - and since the article makes no claim of significance it would seem to be liable to speedy deletion as well. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD criteria A7.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. No indication of notability, and I could not find in-depth coverage for this person. Gongshow ^Talk 22:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Ann Hester

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

While I have the highest regard for all our men and women in military service, it has already been established that the Silver Star, as only the third highest award for valor in the order of precedence, is not considered notable in of itself to be suitable criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The fact that Sgt. Hester is female does not change this fact. She is a soldier and we need to make uniform standards for inclusion. Rapier1 (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't have access to deleted articles and it's unfortunate that (if I'm interpreting your talk page correctly) the article about your father, who was also a Silver Star recipient, was deleted (is that policy written down somewhere?), but in fact Sergeant Hester's gender is exactly what makes her notable. --CliffC (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Being the first woman to receive the Silver Star since World War II most certainly makes her a notable and well-known war hero of the Iraq War! -- Evans1982 (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny their heroism, in fact, I firmly believe that the Silver Star should be a notable award in of itself (Let's reopen that debate in fact). Having been shouted down on this point, however, I don't agree with the fact that these brave young ladies' gender is enough to make them notable. If the award itself isn't notable, then being the first woman to win it can't be considered notable according to WP:N. It's unfortunate that if these ladies had posed for Playboy they'd merit an article (but as national heroes they don't) and I lament the screwed up societal values that Wikipedia adheres to, but the policies are clearly stated. Being the first woman to win a non-notable award in any given conflict does not make one notable. Rapier1 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this Google News Search turns up 192 hits for her. Although it's a given that her gender is what's responsible for so many articles, this amount of news coverage alone makes her notable. --CliffC (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The world media has spoken: The fact that she is a female who received the Silver Star is notable in their eyes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seeing as though the Silver Star is given to soldiers in combat, and women in the US military are not directly in combat units, these women are unique recipients. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is definitely notable. I'd recommend that the nominator avoid nominating articles that involved Silver Star recipients for deletion because of his conflict of interest. This could potentially be seen as bad faith nominations in retaliation for his Dad's article that was deleted. It seems the nominator is nominating in good faith though, I am just warning of a potential perception.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes notability per WP:ANYBIO, WP:BIO#Basic criteria, & WP:GNG. --RightCowftCoast (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leigh Ann Hester's notability is unquestionable, really. The Silver Star isn't the Medal of Honor, but it's no trivial award, either, and there aren't that many female Silver Star recipients around. It's quite an achievement, especially considering that the military still bars women from many combat assignments at this time. Methychroma (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davidwr. With the de facto relegation of the Medal of Honor to a posthumous award, the Silver Star is almost second only to the Distinguished Service Cross and her equals (Navy Cross and Air Force Cross) for those who survive the action. (The Distinguished Service Medals are higher in precedence, but are "end of tour" awards for high ranking officers, not combat decorations. The sources are there and the uniqueness of an award of this level to a female is itself notable. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my opinion, she passes WP:ANYBIO. There certainly seems to be enough reliable, non-trivial coverage of her to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Shamsul Alam

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Lin Brown

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

As with Sgt. Hester: While I have the highest regard for all our men and women in military service, it has already been established that the Silver Star, as only the third highest award for valor in the order of precedence, is not considered notable in of itself to be suitable criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The fact that Sgt. Brown is female does not change this fact. She is a soldier and we need to make uniform standards for inclusion. Rapier1 (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't have access to deleted articles and it's unfortunate that (if I'm interpreting your talk page correctly) the article about your father, who was also a Silver Star recipient, was deleted (is that policy written down somewhere?), but in fact Sergeant Brown's gender is exactly what makes her notable. --CliffC (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Highly notable and well-known war hero of the Afghanistan War! As CliffC mentions her gender itself makes her notable as only the second woman since WWII to receive the Silver Star and the only woman of the Afghanistan War to receive the medal. -- Evans1982 (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny their heroism, in fact, I firmly believe that the Silver Star should be a notable award in of itself (Let's reopen that debate in fact). Having been shouted down on this point, however, I don't agree with the fact that these brave young ladies' gender is enough to make them notable. If the award itself isn't notable, then being the first woman to win it can't be considered notable according to WP:N. It's unfortunate that if these ladies had posed for Playboy they'd merit an article (but as national heroes they don't) and I lament the screwed up societal values that Wikipedia adheres to, but the policies are clearly stated. Being the first woman to win a non-notable award in any given conflict does not make one notable. Rapier1 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The world media has spoken: The fact that she is a female who received the Silver Star is notable in their eyes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person notable for one event, and as established above, the Silver Star is not a high enough award to automatically confer sufficient notability. What sources there are can be considered news coverage. Powers ^T 17:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seeing as though the Silver Star is given to soldiers in combat, and women in the US military are not directly in combat units, these women are unique recipients. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject passes notability per WP:ANYBIO, & WP:BIO#Basic criteria via significant coverage. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Silver Star is apparently not considered a notable award, as not every recipient garners an article. Powers ^T 16:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep combination of SS and being female brought her to attention of press, which is what makes her notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Silver Star may not be the Medal of Honor, but it's still a distinguished award (third-highest after the Medal of Honor and Distinguished Service Cross), and women who have won it are hardly a dime a dozen. So she's definitely notable. Methychroma (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTE and WP:BIO criteria met, along with "significant coverage" requirement. --Alan (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the other keeps. Joe Chill (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with other reasons to keep article, as per. -Signaleer (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the exact same argument made at the other AfD. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 21:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotech age

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

wp:crystal. This article seems like a random assortment of predictions about technological developments in the 21st century. I'm not against having this article, but there seems to be no consensus, among the people making these predictions, about what developments will take place, other than the existence of nanotechnology itself in some form. I think this article would have to be entirely rewritten, and have at the very least an outline of the groups of people making these predictions and how they differ from each other. Bob A (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no need to have a separate article from nanotechnology. Polarpanda (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no need for the Nanotech age article to be separate from the nanotechnology article, why don't you merge the nanotech age article into the nanotechnology article? GVnayR (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would be confident to merge this article into nanotechnology, but I oppose that: the whole content of nanotech age aims at essay-ish and speculative prediction of the future whereas nanotechnology is about realistic technology of today. Nanotechnology is one of the most dynamic fields of science and any prediction for longer than a couple of years is just unrealistic. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How can I make my article less essay-ish? I have cited 25 references in my article and that information should be merged into a related article rather than deleted. After all, I am a avid fan of nanotechnology and Raymond Kurzweil and I would like to see the transhumanists of Wikipedia do more to preserve this knowledge that our sons and daughters could really use someday. GVnayR (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I can help but noticing that we've had exactly the same arguments here. Materialscientist (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  There are interesting and profound differences between us, Materialscientist. I am a transhumanist but I am a not a scientist per se. You are a scientist but "choose" not to practice transhumanism. All the transhumanism "education" that I received came from Vernor Vinge and Raymond Kurzweil. Neither of them have strayed me in the wrong direction because they tend to think unconventionally like me. Maybe conventional scientists shouldn't be dealing with matters related to transhumanism and the Singularity. GVnayR (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  You mean "scientific minds" are intrinsically clouded in judging transhumanism and should be excluded from such debates? I don't believe so. Please understand that I, and most other scientists I know, are open to unconventional thinking - just tend to verify things before believing in them. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I found more than 20 references and cited them to the article where appropriate. If it's too much of an essay to be on this website, why don't you alter the style to make it look like an encyclopedia entry? I was conditioned in school to make essays, not encyclopedia entries. GVnayR (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  For whatever it's worth, i'm a transhumanist, but i come from a rather different memeticity than kurzweil. Bob A (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I just happen to like Kurzweil's memeticity. The first book that I read that was really transhumanist was his "The Singularity is Near" book. GVnayR (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The Nanotechnology article is about nanotechnology. The Nanotech age article should be about people's expectations of nanotechnology. These expectations are real world facts that people should know about and deal with. There are 192 United Nations member states that have signed on to Millennium Development Goals.

The debate held at the University of Nottingham [[17]] in August 2005 on Nanotechnology gives respectable real world opinions about the expectations for the future of Nanotechnology. What predictions are worth considering should be guided by their source from respectable institutions rather than by editors who have contributed to the Nanotechnology article and perhaps see their personal judgement about what is significan threatened.--Fartherred (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see that more people are aware of the differences between my Nanotech Age article and the nanotechnology article, I will change my vote to keep. GVnayR (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just got rid of the two dubious sources that Fartherred didn't approve of. After all, I believe this article has a future on Wikipedia. It is strongly suggested that Polarpanda and Materialscientist change their votes to keep because I am working hard to make this article less essay-like and more encyclopedia. GVnayR (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the diffs, i don't see any significant improvement in the article. Some of the predictions i, personally, find likely, while some i find unsubstantiated and some i find banal or stupid. Even the ones i find likely are uncertain on account of peak oil. Bob A (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you listened to the documentary on the Minority Report DVD very carefully, the futurist said that fossil fuels on are their way out. Things won't come crashing to a halt because of peak oil because renewable energy is going to power everything in the future (i.e., solar, wind, nuclear fusion). GVnayR (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Speculative articles about things that might be possible in the future are a fine thing, but Wikipedia isn't the proper venue for them. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I suggest editing the article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards instead of deleting it. Consider this quote from WP:BEFORE "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." The Millennium Development Goals and the University of Nottingham nanotechnology debates are historical facts worthy of recording.

The informed discussion of what is necessary for colonizing planets is the basis for a group of Wikipedia articles. This demonstrates that some comment about things in the future is proper in Wikipedia. If unsourced and poorly sourced claims are removed from "Nanotech age" it can be well on its way to being a fine article.--Fartherred (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article can be brought up to Wikipedia standards, why was it put for deletion in the first place? It would be in the best interest of Bob A to withdraw his nomination. Wikipedia can't close its eyes to future knowledge forever. Give it enough time, and this might become a FA-class article someday. GVnayR (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never claimed to be male. Bob A (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for that gender-specific statement, Bob A. I will be more careful in the future. GVnayR (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because article's author User:GVnayR is not knowledgeable and topic is not notable. Wikipedia is not a place for speculative fiction. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There happens to be 5150 Google hits on "nanotech age." And I happend to be knowledgable about history, and a little bit of science and technology. It's not like I slept my way through high school. GVnayR (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article just seems to be speculation about things that cannot be verified until they actually happen (or don't as the case may be). Mah favourite (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Future knowledge should never be shunned on Wikipedia. If we don't add some stuff about the near future (outside of fiction), we'll start losing our viewers to Future Wikia once the Singularity gets closer and more people start to be curious about things like nanotechnology and moon colonization. GVnayR (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, future knowledge is fine but this seems more like future speculation. In my opinion Wikipedia should only mention future events when it can be shown that definite plans exist for specific projects (similar to the articles for upcoming films, albums etc). If a company has outlined plans for a future development in nanotechnology and this has been discussed by reliable third party sources then an article can be written. The content of this article seems to me like broad speculation presented as fact. Maybe there is a way that the article can be kept by changing the way that the speculation is presented and calling it something like Theories of a future nanotech age but I am really not sure. Also, articles should not be written to try and keep 'viewers' at the expense of the core principles of Wikipedia. There are lots people who are interested in reading essays, stories, speculation etc, this doesn't mean that Wikipedia should start including these things. It is an encyclopedia and if people are after something other than encyclopedic material then it is fine for them to get it elsewhere. Mah favourite (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what it takes to keep this article on Wikipedia, then I change my vote to rename this article to Theories of a future nanotech age. GVnayR (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn and sources provided. Fences&Windows 00:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Blue Orchestra

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

Notability (WP:BAND). Google search fails to produce any non-trivial reliable sources and news search fails to produce any as well. The article has two third-party sources linked, but it's not exactly significant coverage. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Joe Chill (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are decidedly a better and/or more dedicated researcher than I am. It is clear now that this is notable...is there any way to withdraw an AfD nomination? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Chill (I never thought I'd write that). The reliable sources found by Joe Chill clearly prove a National tour of Australia, thereby allowing the band to pass WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill's finds, notability is established from multiple independent sources and satisfies WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill: all these sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:BAND#1 Victor Silveira (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Interpretations

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

Contested prod. Orginal prod comments: "Seems to be WP:Original Research, an essay published by the user. Specifically WP:Synth, and included e-mail address suggests this is an advertisement."

Prod was contested with no reason provided. Another editor has since removed the e-mail from the article, yet it still seems to be an implied advertisement per "These are only examples of interpretations which I have already given to some of my clients." in the text, although this is not blatant as it may be taken from another source, as there are references present.

On balance though, doesn't seem like the kind of topic an encyclopedia would cover even after clean-up to remove synthesis. Thoughts? Taelus (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research and an essay of personal musings: For thousands of years now, dreams still remain as an ancient mystery. In my attempt to answer my curiosity to find out if some dream experts have common interpretations to a specific dream, I went through different book stores and surfed into the internet to gather facts on the matter using related reviews. Then redirect to dream interpretation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More-or-less an Essay consisting of Original research. Well, there are some references, but it's mostly OR. The topic may be deserving of an article, but not much is saveagable in its present form. Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 16:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. POV essay on Dream interpretation written entirely in first person per WP:NOT#ESSAY. MuffledThud (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no redirect required.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sort of an interesting essay about one person's way of thinking and logical connections — I don't think I've ever dreamed of lice crawling on me — but an essay nonetheless. Mandsford (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay giving the author's point of view, it is not encyclopedic. Mah favourite (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alliance Rail. Despite the limited coverage, the consensus is to combine Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail) and Great North Western Railway into a new article about the parent company, Alliance Rail. Go to it! Fences&Windows 15:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail)

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

Now also Great North Western Railway, contested prod. Adambro (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. The reason from the proposed deletion was as follows:

There was a flurry of news articles in late September following a press release by Alliance Rail which suggested they had submitted proposals to the ORR but nothing else has emerged since nor have any details of applications appeared on the ORR website. I propose this is deleted until, or if, anything more concrete emerges such as an ORR application, particularly when the service is planned not start for four years and the reports of a dispute with Grand Central cast further doubt about the likelihood of this getting off the ground.

The prod tag was removed, without explanation by Fizzycreative (talk · contribs), which at the current time is that user's only edit. A Google search for the username reveals a a graphic design company of that name. The website notes that the company has been working with the subject of this article to design a logo which suggests a conflict of interests. It also suggests work is continuing to develop the services described in the article but I would maintain that until evidence of an application to run the services appears on the ORR website, it is premature to have an article about this subject which could easily come to nothing.

There is also a sister company, Great North Western Railway, which I also proposed for deletion and hasn't yet been contested. If it is whilst this AfD is still ongoing then I'll add it to this discussion since exactly the same issues apply to both. Adambro (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alliance Rail Holdings (Alliance) is a UK Company (Registered in England Number: 07026295) and has submitted plans to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) to begin the operation of new rail services on a number of routes from 2013 through its subsidiaries Great North Eastern Railway Co. Ltd (GNER) and Great North Western Railway Co Ltd (GNWR).

The fact that information has not yet appeared on the ORR website is not something that Alliance can control, but the applications were submitted on 23 September 2009.

The person seeking to have the entry removed clearly has little understanding of the process and the timescales involved with these types of applications. For instance Grand Central (another rail open access operator) was established in 2000 but did not begin operations until late 2007. Similarly proposed services by Grand Union (now to be operated by Grand Central) for Bradford to Kings Cross were first listed in 2005, but services are not due to commence until May 2010.

Alliance has many supportive stakeholders, and the applications have also been favourably reviewed by Passenger Focus (see their news archive), and the fact that these applications take so long has also been clearly identified by Alliance’s own press release. Alliance also has an appointed point of contact within Network Rail.

Whether services actually become operational will ultimately be decided by the ORR, and as Alliance has stated, the process for determining such applications is unlikely to be concluded until late in 2010 or early in 2011.

There is also a large reference to Alliance’s proposals in the latest Rail Magazine, dated 2 December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliance rail (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both: into an article about Alliance Rail. Articles about unconfirmed proposed rail franchises are too much like WP:CRYSTAL in my books. However, there does seem to be reasonable coverage of the company itself. Should the consensus emerge that Alliance Rail isn't notable, my preference will be to Delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here are some additional references which would tend to establish notability for the two operating companies as well as Alliance Rail: http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Second-London-rail-link-on.5675562.jp http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/4653813.Former_Grand_Central_boss_Ian_Yeowart_in_company_rift/ http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Rail-boss-faces-legal-threat.5685793.jp – Eastmain (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That falls within what I described as a flurry of news articles following the Alliance Rail press release. None of those articles make these proposals any more than simply that, proposals. The same flurry of news articles doesn't really demonstrate that Alliance Rail merits an article either in my view. My opinion is that a company needs to do something more than make a proposal to operate rail services for an article to be merited. Adambro (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could I ask what your opinions on a merge to Alliance Rail would be Eastmain? Adambro (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
1. The author may not be aware of it but there is a blatant Conflict of Interest WP:COI - see his/her User name - the contributor is the interested party.
2. The article is promotional - an attempt to awake interest in a possible future commercial enterprise (press releases).
3. Wiki is not a crystal ball - the function of an encyclopedia is to report current and/or historical fact, not offer journalism or speculation on future events. WP:CRYSTAL (see Alliance's own self-condemning comment above: process and the timescales involved ).
--Kudpung (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: OK, I see that having two pages is just on a 'flurry' from the interview, so I agree with Chris to merge the pages and have infomation on Alliance Rail and some infomation on the proposed GNWR and GNER services.Likelife (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. They will certainly be independently notable when/if they get approved but not now. They could change significantly in both name and scope by then and it is too early to have articles on them. We generally don't have articles on railways that are only in the proposal stage unless they have been discussed at length in parliament or subject to some other formal process. That said, they are notable enough as proposals to include briefly in the parent company's article as future projects. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and redirect without prejudice to standalone articles if the proposals progress significantly. These proposals have received independent coverage that shows they are being taken seriously. In the context of open access train operators in the UK this is significant enough that there should be some coverage somewhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please could people also see WT:UKT#2 things. A related discussion there. Simply south (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into a single article on Alliance Rail, and leave redirects. The fact that they have two separate subsidiaries is not enough justification for the separate articles. Also, the merged article should stick to the bare facts, and be monitored for conflict of interest issues. --RFBailey (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Magazine

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

No indication that this is notable in any way, no sources given. —Chowbok ☠ 15:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. With a circulation of 100,000, it may have some notability in Pakistan. The article needs some sources showing it though. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Could find no sources that show magazine meets Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Obviously this was trending strongly toward a delete until the last couple of days, at which point a number of credible and valid keep votes came in and additional sources were provided. Were this to be relisted (which I considered doing given that new info came in late), it's likely this might have ended with an even stronger "keep" sentiment, but I don't think it's worthwhile to bother extending the discussion. It's worth pointing out that the only choice here in my view (after factoring in strength and validity of argument) was between closing as no consensus or "keep" outright, in part because some of the delete comments do not really provide a rationale, and in part because some obviously missed sources when searching for info about the article subject (a lack of familiarity with Australian politics no doubt also played a role).

The concerns mentioned by Robofish in terms of BLP are well taken, particularly as this is a figure of relatively marginal notability who has received some rather negative coverage. At this time we don't have consensus to delete this BLP article in particular or these types of BLPs in general, but the least everyone here can do in the interim is watchlist the article and try to keep it up to snuff going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Landeryou

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

This article was prodded on Nov. 27 with the following rationale: "no credible assertion of notability, no sources supporting basic facts, possible BLP violations." On Dec. 2, User:Rotovia removed the prod with the message "see talk." However, no such discussion was posted on the talk page, then or later. The fact is that the prod was correct: this article makes no credible assertion of notability. He's a right-wing blogger, but those are a dime a dozen; no effort is made to show that he meets our inclusion guidelines for biographies or that his website meets WP:WEB. The majority of material in this article has no citations, and there have already been BLP concerns as well as serious conflicts between the article subject and Wikipedia administrators. This article is unmaintainable crap that we don't need. *** Crotalus *** 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Gerard Wikimedia blog controversy (only joking), actually delete per nom, the lead "In recent years, he has attracted attention through his website "The Other Cheek: Andrew Landeryou's Blog of Freedom," and VEXNEWS which has been the subject of media comment.[citation needed]" rather says it all. If that's the best this can do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable from internet source check. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like he's not notable, unless some reliable sources can be provided showing otherwise (can't find anything myself though). Mah favourite (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has been no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources of this person, at best all you get is a passing mention. This article, if you can dignify it thus, is a complete mess and liable to being problematic. I can see no good policy based reason for keeping it. RMHED (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The blog, Vexnews, is perhaps notable - it is a popular blog that regularly breaks stories that are picked up by the mainstream media - but Landeryou himself is not notable. mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia's article on Andrew Landeryou is a waste of disk space. --NE2 02:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all criteria at WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, VEXNEWS is perhaps notable, but I'm not sure that Landeryou is, beyond the drama that he's caused here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Question As I asked on the talk page, is this and this about the same person? There is nothing in the article about that. There is a fair number of "Andrew+Landeryou" Gnews hits. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the same Andrew Landeryou. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources for an article on Mr. Landeryou or his blog. I'm not sure what the first comment on this AFD is referring to, but if there's a Wikimedia conflict of interest issue here, all the more reason to delete the article. Robofish (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the history of this article, I'm amazed to see it existed as a very poorly sourced negative article since 2005. It was only last month that someone bothered to clean it up. For a WP:BLP, and especially one of marginal-to-no notability, this is really not good. Robofish (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like he's not notable, unless some reliable sources can be provided showing otherwise (can't find anything myself though). Mah favourite (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've changed my opinion to keep, as a result of the sources produced by Fences and Windows he seems to satisfy WP:GNG. The article needs to be tidied up and these sources added but that is not a reason for deletion. Mah favourite (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a long-time political figure who runs one of the more notable political websites in the country. There's a ton of mainstream media sources on the bloke dating back years - it might well deserve a rewrite, but he's pretty clearly notable. Rebecca (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Rebecca. An important figure in Australian student politics, a central player in the Optima scandal that brought down MUSU and among the most notable Australian political bloggers. It would of course need plenty of work. --bainer (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond some ructions in student and Labor faction politics, not notable (he needs to be the *subject* of independent reliable sources, not merely mentioned by them.) Vexnews is clearly not a reliable source, I'm surprised that is even being considered - its own editorial statement contradicts our RS guidelines. Orderinchaos 05:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable for being a fugitive from Australia for a year,[23][24] and also for his blog, for which he has been described as notorious.[25] Had an intervention order imposed on him recently due to his blogging:[26]. More on his blogging:[27][28] He seems to only be known for negative things, but that doesn't make his bio a hit piece as it can all be sourced. He's most certainly a public figure. Fences&Windows 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another angry middle-aged blogger. Yawn. And his twittery is humdrum. But immediately above, Fences and Windows manages to show that this one's been in the news for more than one event. So I suppose that he qualifies. Unenthusiastic keep. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Oh my God, see what they call him when searching by "Andy Landeryou". Abductive (reasoning) 05:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WarP

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

No coverage by reliable third-party sources. Additionally scope of activities is not international or even national in scale thus failing WP:CLUB. The article is filled with unencyclopedic, non-verifiable, that when removed would leave absolutely nothing in the article.

(The sources in the article, btw, are not reliable, and winning interschool events does not satisfy notability guidelines) Aditya Ex Machina 14:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sources are as reliable as most others, though it may not satisfy notability guidelines.--Karmanyaaggarwal (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH (as they have absolutely no editorial oversight, alternatively you might want to read up on WP:RS). Additionally they're all trivial mentions, with no third-party coverage. Since I see you're new to Wikipedia, I've left a bunch of useful links on your talk page that you might want to check out. Aditya Ex Machina 15:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Polarpanda (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Miyake

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

She undoubtedly exists; she certainly wrote (co-wrote, actually) the book mentioned; and she gets a few hits on Scholar. Does this cross the bar for notability? I'd suggest it doesn't. Black Kite 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little impact yet. Article was created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Early-career scholar with little impact yet, e.g. books written = 0, books co-edited = 1, h-index = 0 (WoS) and 2 (GS), no other notable academic achievement, title, accomplishment, etc. that shows up on Google – way short of anything in WP:PROF. Article history indicates this is a student-created fan page. Uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. TN X Man 14:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Siing

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

No indications that this person ever actually existed. Fails WP:BIO. Perhaps falls under WP:HOAX as the person is claimed to be president of Dhaka which can refer to either a city or a district, but not a country, and therefore has never had a president. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aside from the nom there is one editor arguing for deletion, while we have three expressing a keep sentiment (including Edkollin, who did not officially !vote), one merge, and one on the fence. There's no consensus for deletion, and the keep commenters all invoke specific sourcing provided during the AfD by Edkollin showing that the term "Second British Invasion" has had some purchase (at least in the 1980s in the U.S.) and thus might plausibly be a basis for a Wikipedia list article. Thus we end up with keep, though of course a merge remains an editorial option outside of the context of AfD, and is something that could be pursued on the talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Second British Invasion Artists

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

List based entirely on one source. The second source makes no mention of "Second British Invasion". Basically just a list of British bands that popular in the early 80's. You could make similar list for practically any era of music. Ridernyc (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a section called "Second British Invasion" in British Invasion so if it's a valid section a list seems appropriate. If not, that section should be removed, or at least renamed. Polarpanda (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused about

A. Why this list is being singled out for deletion when most lists, especially about lists music genres have no citations at all and seem to list every and any act that editors seem to think fits the particular genre.

B. Why lists exist and why there seems to be little or no standards that apply to them when compared with regular articles.

The second source was put in as a backup source for the first source. The first described the British Invasion groups that as acts that largely derived their American success from MTV. The second source listed acts that were successful in America due to MTV during the same time period but did not mention the words "British Invasion" specifically. The second source was clearly describing the same phenomenon as the first. To delete the article because the second source did not specifically say British Invasion is just as the cliché says not seeing the forest from the trees.

But the real problem and where you should be putting your cleanup efforts is trying to find out what the policy is for lists and establishing or reestablishing enforcement for those. Or maybe we should do without lists at all. I am sorry I went on and on but I am used to being criticized for trying to limit further damage to existing lists. This list was originally in the main article but moved out because me and other editors had to almost daily delete additions that did not meet the criteria for Second British Invasion as established in the article. This move seemed to help. Edkollin (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST might help answer your questions. IMO lists are needed as a way to find articles. Polarpanda (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says treat the list as a regular article but the reality (at least with popular music) is that they are an anything goes zone where Wikipedia standards don't apply. Another words the de facto consensus is for anarchy.

As for Second British Invasion since it was a phenomenon not really a genre a group will not be labeled a Second British Invasion act but a New Wave or Syhthpop or whatever genre they were. Articles about the Second British Invasion will list the top five or ten groups as examples of the phenomenon but will not give you a comprehensive lists of every Second British Invasion act of note. Edkollin (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere, please. I don't think that the term "second British invasion" ever really caught on, and for good reason. We did have an article called Second British Invasion, but it's been merged into British Invasion (which was about the wave of British rock groups that were popular in the mid-1960s). We have an equally indiscriminate List of New Wave bands and artists, and my feeling is that it would be better to attempt to make that one a better list by throwing in discriminating information about who was from the U.K., who from the U.S., and who from other nations. There's no denying that "British invasion" was a well-known term, but calling anything after that a "second British invasion" really Americocentric POV of the worst kind, isn't it? Is the point supposed to be that the history of new wave didn't begin until people in the United States started listening to it? If anything, it was more of a case of an "American invasion", with lots of U.S. groups following the path of a genre of music that was invented in the British Isles. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We go by reliable sources not what you think. There are articles and books chronicling that era by reliable sources that use the term. I would agree it is not as widely used as the original term but you do not need that type of mass recognition for it to be notable. We have articles on some fairly obscure genres.

Off Topic: Good luck with the New Wave List. I could not agree with you more about the New Wave List. That list was one I was referring to both in my questions above and my statement "de facto consensus is for anarchy". I have run in to wall after wall in even just trying to limit further damage. Edkollin (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what I think. However, if you found only two "reliable sources" that suggest that "second British invasion" caught on, that might make a difference about what other people think. The idea of comparing Eurythmics to Herman's Hermits makes me laugh. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion as to whether the the British Invasion article should be split belongs on that talk page. This is a discussion about deleting the The Second British Invasion List Article. There are two reliable sources in the British Invasion subsection that says the phenomenon existed. I'll move copy them to the list article. Edkollin (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Sourcing [29][30][31]. I believe that the additional sourcing I've shown here and added to the article plus the dozens of hits from reliable sources from back then and in this decade you will see if you go into Google News archives shows that this was a notable phenomenon. Edkollin (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with edkollin on this one (and believe me, this is rare enough to be duly noted) : most artists on this page already make part of other more inclusive and "documented" pages and for the few artists left that are not part of those pages, they'd better join them, in my opinion. Not without saying that this list of Second British Invasion bands looks rather random and poorly constructed in its present form because of the various musical genres represented by the artists chosen to sum up the invasion. Not that this Second British Invasion is not worth mentionning, of course, but maybe not worth having its own list created as it is.CouchJarvis (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion I think stems from the Second British Invasion being a phenomenon not a genre. While most Second British Invasion acts were loosely New Wave not all of them were. Eddy Grant, Musical Youth was not New Wave but had US success in this period due to MTV airplay and were British thus satisfying the criteria. Edkollin (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I think if the page is to be kept, it would be more interesting to have it organized by musical genres which would result in suppressing the "random impression" that this page about an existing phenomenon (thus deserving its page, like any other phenomenon) presently conveys. CouchJarvis (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough independent sources that make it notable Cynof Gavuf 11:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think Edkollin has found enough sources. Polarpanda (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are sufficient sources.--SabreBD (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 billion hungry campaign

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

No reliable sources for this campaign. Article then appears to be about related stuff and not what the articles title states. Polargeo (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This also may be a recreation of an 1 billion hungry petition which was speedily deleted Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have been added. The page is about a humanitarian campaign and in line with similar pages of other UN/humanitarian organizations. user:Lowpet —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As this campaign is clearly identified as an FAO initiative 1billionhungry, 1billionhungry.org, not dated linked to the World Summit on Food Security 2009 why not move this article into the World Summit article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.195.128 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a merge to World Summit on Food Security 2009 is probably the best idea. GlassCobra 23:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. allen四names 05:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. More about the FAO than topic. If there is anything worth keeping, move it to FAO. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though maybe paraphrasing it and putting it in the FAO article would be worthwhile. SMC (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tom Kuntz#Short Films. Consensus is to delete and redirect. Sandstein 10:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Breakfast

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

Non-notable internet satire. External links confirm it exists but that does not satisfy WP:N (first 100 Google hits fail to show independent coverage in reliable sources). I have PROD'ed it twice before and both times it was endorsed by other editors, then inexplicably removed. GSMR (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to section at Tom Kuntz/Short films. Kuntz and some of his later works have a notability. This one does not... unless an editor other than myself considers a few possible sources [32], [33],[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and works to bring the article itself into line. Until then, all I can opine is a merge, as that places the information in the place readers might expect to find it. NOTE: Declaration of COI: I have twice worked with Kuntz. And though I am offering a hopefully neutral opinion here, I ~~will never edit~~ should refrain from editing his article ~~nor~~ and articles about his projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one wants to improve this per the possible sources? My having worked with Kuntz on other projects suggests improvements here be done by others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Tom Kuntz#Short Films. The sources provided by Michael Q Schmidt mostly aren't very reliable, and none give significant coverage. Michael, you can feel free to use the best of those sources to cite the material in Kuntz's bio about this short film. Fences&Windows 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; this is a real geographic place ("populated place" in GNIS). Deletion nomination was motivated by an apparently erroneous GNIS search result. I'm glad that this AfD caused me to notice this article and clean it up. --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharps Chapel

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

Geo stub topic I tried to clean up. Original poster RVed. On further investigation I cannot find any GNIS [39] indication by the place name of the article title. Article tone is also problematic. Shadowjams (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is a real place that simply didn't have an article yet. I can't imagine why GNIS didn't return a record for it, as it even is a USPS-recognized postal "city".
I've replaced the strange little essay with a short article about the unincorporated community, and I've renamed the article to Sharps Chapel, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 21:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Slovakia relations

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

the last AfD seemed more like no consensus, note it was closed by an admin who is now banned from closing bilateral AfDs. in any case, these 2 countries do not have embassies, and almost all of the third party coverage is based on mulitlateral relations. [40]. simply being EU members does not guarantee automatic notability...I would like to see keep votes actually show evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why prime ministerial visits don't count as 3rd party coverage... they must have said something during the visits. Polarpanda (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added several third party independent links (in English) describing bilateral relations in the shape of official visits and six bilateral agreements spelling out cooperation in the avoidance of double taxation, air services, health care, combating crime, visa abolition, and investment. Multilateral relations are also obviously a type of relations. Both are European countries in the Euro Zone and have close multilateral relations based on trade and illegal immigration agreements. Notability is established. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not have been renominated for deletion. There were links to 3rd party coverage that were found in the first discussion that were never added to the article but clearly helped in the keep result. This looks like a second bite at the apple after a result the nominator didn't like.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

any article can be nominated or renominated for deletion. the best way to save articles is to improve them with reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although, the Article Rescue Squadron has been somewhat successful in saving valuable material from deletion, they have not been as successful as I would have liked. Many of these relations articles, which could have been improved if anyone cared to do the work, have been needlessly deleted. That is in large part a result of cavalier attitude toward deletion. A more appropriate course of action would be to ask the creator to improve the article, to put out calls for help on the talk page or at the relevant national wikiproject, and then to attempt improvements by oneself. An Afd should be the last resort in a situation like this where articles with obvious potential merit are being put on the chopping block.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources have been added and the article has been expanded. That is how AfD should ideally work, they should encourage editors to improve the article. Thanks for the good work Cdogsimmons. Pantherskin (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an absurd premise for an article, of course. Look: two EU members are going to have some degree of interaction. They're going to sign scraps of paper on the ever-so-mundane themes of "cooperation in the avoidance of double taxation, air services, health care, combating crime, visa abolition, and investment". They're going to have "memoranda of understanding" "setting the framework within which authorities from the two countries" will go about their routine bureaucratic work. Their presidents (who, I might add, are figureheads) are going to shake hands with each other. They're going to say friendly words about the other party on rare occasions. They're going to have "excellent" relations, because what on earth else would we bloody expect for a small central European country and a pair of islands 850 miles away, on a continent that has abolished war and clings to pacifism as a sacred totem?
Now that we've cleared that up, let's be mindful of what the problem is here: the lack of multiple sources actually covering "Malta–Slovakia relations" as such in any meaningful depth. Determined and foolhardy Wikipedians declaring such and such flotsam they may come by on Google to evidence "relations" does not an encyclopedic topic make. For that we need actual sources describing an actual phenomenon, not trivia we'd never notice outside this series of nonsense articles.

Does Wikipedia have a word for the opposite of a peacock term? When people talk about "trivia" and "scraps of paper" they are engaging in debate by using the opposite of a peacock term, anyone have a suggestion on what to call it as a retronym? What is the opposite of a peacock, what is an ugly bird? Should it be called "turkey talk" or "trash talk"?

By the way: "41 years of lasting cooperation"? Putting aside the peacock language, is anyone as amused as I am by the assumption that it will always and forever be 41 years since 1968? Add, add your trivia in peace, but go ahead ignoring such glaring errors. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One wikipedian's flotsam may be another's obsession. Please do not refer to other Wikipedians as foolhardy in the future (particularly when you are referring to me). It is insulting and violates our policy of WP:No personal attacks. I think you will find that the information in this article is also well sourced. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[W]hat on earth else would we bloody expect for a small central European country and a pair of islands 850 miles away, on a continent that has abolished war and clings to pacifism as a sacred totem? Nothing is obvious, as Foreign relations of Slovakia#Liechtenstein will tell you. 96T (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, much coverage in secondary sources. Six bilateral agreements also constitute relevant bilateral relations in my book. Headlines such as "Malta and Slovakia to strengthen bilateral political and economic relations" and "Improving ties with Slovakia" indicates that Malta-Slovakia relations as a subject, and not just elements of their relations, is given independent coverage. 96T (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be enough in the sources to demonstrate notability for this topic. There are actual sources about the links between the two countries in this case (this is not always the case for these relations articles). As per Biruitorul's point above, I have removed the 41 years line because Slovakia has not existed for this long anyway (the source isn't in English so I'm not sure in what way it mentions their 41 years of cooperation). Mah favourite (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets every standard of notability and for verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OmniCode

AfDs for this article:

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

At the previous deletion discussion in 2006, the main argument for keeping seemed to be that the nominator's Google test was flawed. Which, perhaps, it was. However, the evidence presented in that discussion appears to have been limited to Google and the User Friendly site. Our notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and this article contains no such references. I also can't find any such references myself, although that may be due to confusion with other things named "OMNICODE" or some variant. As such, since this appears to have no notability outside of the User Friendly community, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for this content. Powers ^T 12:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no reliable sources writing about this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete standards now are different from 2006 and this is unsourced silliness. Miami33139 (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tajikistan national under-17 football team

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

Amateur football team, doesn't meet WP:SPORTS. Shadowjams (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTS is WikiProject Sports, not an inclusion guideline. And if you meant WP:ATHLETE, that only applies to individuals, not teams. Powers ^T 12:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet WP:N in any case. Do you have an actual opinion? Shadowjams (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd start with questioning the basis for deletion; without a clear understanding of the grounds on which you were suggesting this be deleted, I couldn't very well agree or disagree with you. Powers ^T 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? By its terms, it's outside of WP:ATHLETE which is the relevant guideline. I'm not of the opinion that WP:Athlete is so technically hamstrung that it might preclude looking at athletes that don't participate at a professional level. Shadowjams (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE only appears to cover individuals, not teams. There are countless teams for which the players are not notable, but the teams are. Powers ^T 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: National representative team, playing at a level at which FIFA run globally reported tournaments. Players at this level are unlikely to be notable, but the team is. The existence of such articles is useful, almost essential, to prevent inappropriate info about such underage teams being reported on the main national team site, which should be reserved to data about the senior men's team. Kevin McE (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is an article for a national team at a recognised youth level, and team have previously played in World Youth Cup. Eldumpo (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, notable national youth team. Giant Snowman 22:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm at a complete loss to understand this nomination. Surely common sense tells us that a national representative team in the world's most popular sport is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article? For the wikilawyers here a a few of the many sources available:[41][42][43]. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - U-17 national team for football is notable, and WP:ATHLETE isn't the relevant guideline to reference in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - U-17 teams are notable and there are many examples currently on Wikipedia. GauchoDude (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep representative youth national team who have qualified and played in an international FIFA tournament. --Jimbo^[online] 18:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, non-admin close, withdrawn by nominator as article improved and only dissenting opinions offered ♪ daTheisen (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Latter Five Poets of the Southern Garden

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

Sigh. My PROD was removed because it's a stub, for some reason thinking stubs are immune from deletion for any reason. I'll quote myself from the PROD: "As it stands, it is literally just a list. A list of 5 things, 2 of which don't even have articles." The 3 working links are also stubs with no sources. There is no "Basic Info" or explanation text as is required by WP:STUB ♪ daTheisen (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator note: Here's policy on lack of stub immunity for no sources, and they must have some actual explanatory information. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - I removed the PROD, and I see that the AfD rationale has not improved. I don't think that "stubs are immune from deletion". Simply, the fact of being a stub only is not a proper rationale for deletion. If an article has problems that can be dealt with editing rather than deletion, it must not be deleted, per deletion policy. Since adding sources and creating articles are obviously problems that can be dealt with editing, the nom rationale is moot (What the nom links about stubs is a style guideline, not policy). --Cyclopia ^talk 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not preventing anyone from improving the thing. I basically ran into a wall of "huh?" as Chrajohn did. It's because there's no content or context. I see Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article in the guidelines, and realize this precisely follows that. How would you react to an article that read "Number turkey 4 2 6 73 1" with half red links, marked as a stub? That's what it looks like to me, albeit with larger words. A stub needs an explanation of topic, some shot at notability and some kind of resourcing. New stubs might be treated more loosely by NPP as a courtesy but even that's on an assumption if immediate improvement. Would suggest you remove that text about being open to deletion, since any stub gets by? Actually, does this have an article on zh.Wikipedia with any kind of (English) usable resource? If yes, I'll give good faith on notability to the sister project and look a lot different at it. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I evidently still was not clear. The article is not a nonsense list, it clearly states that it is a list of Chinese poets and some of the links are blue and link to informative, even if short, articles. If it looks to you like a string of gibberish, I don't know, but you probably should read it better before considering it as such -it is not definitely as such. Given that there is some meaning in the article, it cannot be deleted simply because it is a very short stub. We do not delete article for problems which can be dealt with editing, simple as that. If you have other rationales to suggest deletion, fine, but the one you proposed is definitely not a valid one. And, yes, if you PROD an article and it gets deleted, you are obviously preventing anyone to improve it. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Scholar returns a handful of hits and a general Google search returns a bunch more, but I can't evaluate any of them due to the language barrier. The term seems to have also been translated as "South Garden Five Gentlemen". --Chris Johnson (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you'll find that the "South Garden Five Gentlemen" was a name used for the Early Five Poets of the Southern Garden, active in the 14th centrury. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Chris Johnson (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and flag for expert attention. The presence of some hits in Scholar and Books for the string of Chinese characters would appear to indicate that this group is not something that someone made up. A Ming Dynasty literary circle would appear to make a strong initial case to be something an encyclopedia ought to cover, even without a lot of English language data out there. Unless there's some indication this is a hoax, and I don't see that, I see no reason to delete stated here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Smerdis. Obvious indications of notability and sources clearly exist. Edward321 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources that I have added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AFD is not for cleanup. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uninstaller

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

While the concept of uninstallers is a notable matter, this article, despite its name, proceeds to describe a completely alien topic which fails to meet Wikipedia general notability requirements. To make matter worse, this article is written like a blog post or the author's opinion, cites not a single reliable sources and employs a heap of weasel words or other vague phrases. (E.g note how many "Usually" are used and how the phrase "most (third-party) uninstallers" is used.) Finally, this article also contradicts itself too. It can be safely deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable. The article contains basic information about the topic. The remaining editorial musings can be dealt with by editing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a topic worthy of inclusion, but it really needs to be rewritten. Reach Out to the Truth 16:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic merits an article irrespective of what's currently there.--Michig (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see. So, are you people proposing a Keep and merge or Keep and rewrite? We could merge the notable parts of summary section into Installer article, blank this page and leave a redirect. We also can copy-edit, cite reliable sources, proofread and cleanup, which is a tough task. Is there anyone between you who think it can be done? Fleet Command (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can have at least a short properly sourced article here. Sources exist with which to improve the article, e.g. [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] from Google Books.--Michig (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - poor article, notable subject with quite a long history. Needs to be rewritten to be decent but AFD isn't the forum for that - tag it and move on. -Halo (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poor article, notable subject Philly jawn (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upstanding youth

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

I initally deleted this as a speedy deletion. However, this may have been hasty, there is a credible assertion of notability, so I've restored it. This is a procedural nomination. Ged UK 08:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some references would be good with this article, but I couldn't find any that weren't MySpace, Twitter etc. Unless some good sources are added I think it should be deleted DRosin (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deletion isn't a death sentence. No salting here, but also zero references, given ample opportunity. Even my band has some local references. Shadowjams (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "credible" assertion of notability is the Hawaiian Music Awards, which you'll note doesn't have a page, and upon searching (on wiki) doesn't have a ready answer either. What exactly indicated notability? Shadowjams (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no mention of them wiining the Hawaiian Music Awards (HMA) at Google News Archive, and all the references to them appear to be at sources which would not meet WP:RS/WP:IS. According to their facebook page, the albums both won the HMA award - yet I can find no evidence of this. I do not think that the HMA would qualify as "a major music award", I can find no evidence that any of these albums have charted, or that they meet any of the other criteria outlined at WP:BAND. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about a band that would appear to not meet WP:MUSIC. (This, however, should be more obvious from the nomination than it is.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Hawaiian Music Awards site doesn't list previous winners. I found a site that does list them, but the award the 2002 album allegedly won didn't exist until the next year apparently. And even then, the reliability of that site and the notability of the awards themselves are questionable. Reach Out to the Truth 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the site given by Reach Out to the Truth, I find the following:

7th (2004): Punk/SKA Album of the Year RECORDING: Kam Highway Catharsis ARTIST: Upstanding Youth
10th (2007): Ska Upstanding Youth Still
12th (2009): Nomination: Rock Album Nominees: A Sense of Urgency (Upstanding Youth).

However, going by the notes on the 10th Awards, these are people's choice awards given to the best music recordings and artists of (year). The winners were selected by public online vote. These awards are not peer-awarded or profession-awarded, but public-awarded. I see no indication that voting was verified by an independent source. Also, there are no details in the 2004 and 2007 of other nominees for the award - and there is no way to ascertain if there were other nominees. In some years, there was only one nominee for a category, and in later years these were given an "honorary" award. Indeed, if you look at 2006, the first 3 positions for awards were given. I do not feel that this award is particularly notable (or reliable). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjuwusu

SEE GOOGLE NINJUWUSU..DO NOT DELETE, WHAT IS U.F.C THEN. NINJUWUSU HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 1973.

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

I removed the {{db-spam}} tag because this article is not promotional.

However, I have been unable to locate reliable sources to establish notability for this topic. A Google News Archive search returns no results; this is the same with a Google Books search. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evidence of notability. Reach Out to the Truth 17:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one unsourced line, no evidence of notability --Nate ^t/_c 17:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no claim (or evidence) of notability. JJL (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, possible hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't look like a hoax as much as some guy's idea that he's created a new martial art. Not notable. --Glenfarclas (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of references - looks almost all places like twitter, myspace and the other usual ones. Probably exists - distinctly non-notable. Peridon (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I VE BEEN A STUDENT OF NINJUWUSU FOR OVER 18 YEARS, THEY HAVE MANY CENTERS AND MANY ENTIERS ON GOOGLE. Posted by User Ninjuwusu 18:16, 9 December 2009

KEEP NINJUWUSU

NINJUWUSU IS A FORM BASED MARTIALS ARTS WITH SELF DEFENSE TRAINING, I FOUND NINJUWUSU IN ST.LOUIS IN 2003 AND STILL A STUDENT. NOT NOT DELETE Posted by User Ninjuwusu 18:11, 9 December 2009

Above two posts copied from Talk:Ninjuwusu by Peridon. (User Ninjuwusu is the creator of the article.) They don't seem to tally to me. Peridon (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Skotheim

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

Non-notable individual. Lacks GHits of substance and limited GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this needs more references. The tone is pretty dodgy too. Also the pictures make it look like this is his Facebook profile. Not so adamant that I couldn't change to Keep but needs serious work to prove notability DRosin (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this person could be notable in the future, but as with most entry-level profs, his article is premature – WoS shows an h-index of only 9 (insufficient for WP:PROF #1) and he doesn't appear to satisfy any of the other criteria. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor, PhD 2004, a bit too junior yet for academic notability. WoS lists several recent papers in Nature and he is at Stanford, so probably will be notable soon, but not just yet. Nsk92 (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too junior, notability not established. However, I have to point out that he is far more notable than many academics who have passed AfD. Hairhorn (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - just below what I'd like to see for WP:PROF. When he becomes department chair, or Associate Professor, or wins a major grant or award, then he will rate a Wikipedia article IMHO. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May become WP notable but not yet. Article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not currently notable as those above have described. --Glenfarclas (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo Trail

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

Non-notable. The article's claim to fame is unsourced and is not even mentioned on the John Slaughter article. In addition, the article has been an orphan for quite some time. The only pages linking to the article are Assessment categorization templates. --Fredddie ™ 06:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just sounds like another dirt road in the desert. ---Dough 48 72 18:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trail described in this article apparently is not the Geronimo Trail Scenic Byway. The scenic byway seems quite notable, but doesn't seem to be a trail from Douglass, AZ or have anything to do with John Slaughter. So be careful when interpreting Google results. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not even notable enough for the Douglas, Arizona article. --Triadian (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Douglas isn't even all that far from New Mexico. This is just a rural county road like many other unremarkable access roads in all Western states. No need for an article on it. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger (pornographic actor)

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

Possibly dead single-named porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Only source at time of nomination is a dead link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor Roger. I think some porn actors are notable, but there is a line where it crosses into the absurd and I think this article crosses it. Without better sources, this article is a Delete for me. DRosin (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he was the arguably the very first gay porn star, sources added. This is - yet another - of noms unfortunate fixation in this subject area where their poor judgment including apparently ignoring WP:Before is quite evident. -- Banjeboi 14:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice example of WP:ABF. Unsourced bios get nuked, if they get sourced instead then Wikipedia is the winner. End of. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on the history of noms actions only. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What was his real name? What was his precise date of birth? What is the source for the assertion that he was a hooker? I find none. None in the article. I guess we can't defame a dead guy whose only name is "Roger" but this is unsourced garbage that does not belong in an encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Real name added, I found no source yet to support his escort work but that he did so would hardly be surprising as it's rather standard in teh porn industry. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; this is ludicrous. Searching for the words Roger pornographic actor will certainly return lots of hits. Which means boo. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but we need to find the ones they speak about this actor and they were active in a specific time period so that really is less of a challenge to seperate out which ones are which. Most gay porn actors after him simply had to use a second name as there already had been a Roger, if in doubt comparing filmographies would clear-up any confusion. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Good grief, peeps :p - Alison ^❤ 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.RadManCF (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not support the basis of the article itself. Enigma^msg 00:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Donovan

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

BLP of porn performer sourced only to IMDB at time of nomination. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actor. Joe Chill (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lacks coverage required by GNG / PORNBIO. JBsupreme (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before. Does not meet the notability guidelines for the subject area. Enigma^msg 15:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced + no coverage per WP:PORNBIO - Alison ^❤ 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Article is just a small pile of unsourced claims including one potential BLP violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G10. NW (Talk) 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Jamieson

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

Poorly sourced BLP of porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail GNG and PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete G10 - unsourced or poorly sourced BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Early close. Previous AfD closed as keep only two weeks ago, there's no point rehashing this debate so soon afterwards. If editors want to merge to Media portrayal of lesbianism they can discuss that on the talk pages. Fences&Windows 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian kiss episode (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

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

The terms of reference for this article (ie, the lesbian kiss episode is a new "sub-genre" of American television) are mostly based on an out of date article from The New York Times. This presents major WP:ONESOURCE and point of view issues, as the lesbian kiss episode phenomenon has been observed in Australian television for years now. I am sure it will soon appear in other countries as well.

I doubt these issues will be resolved by splitting the article into two separate lists for American and international television programs. My experience is that even one list would be difficult to maintain as more and more episodes which are rating stunts are added. Two editors who argued to keep the article in the first AFD are firmly against expanding the criteria for inclusion, say to include all lesbian kiss episodes which drew more than a million viewers. I feel the only alternative is to delete the article and use a category until more up to date sources are available. Ottre 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kinda sorta soon since the last nomination, but yes this should be deleted for the reasons stated. JBsupreme (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This certainly appears to be a notable phenomenon. I agree trying to keep an exhaustive list is becoming increasingly pointless and/or difficult, so I wouldn't mind seeing that removed. However, the first several, especially L.A. Law, Roseanne, and DS9, attracted significant coverage at their respective times and a decent article could be written from those sources. Powers ^T 12:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close - this article was nominated less than a month ago and kept. The nominator offers absolutely nothing to support a new nomination. There are many sources that discuss the phenomenon in American television so the premise of this untimely new nomination is false. Otto4711 (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator: this is a knee-jerk response. In fact, there are only three sources which discuss the phenomenon in American television: the article by Stephen Tropiano, the second article by Sarah Warn (the one about Buffy), and the article by Virginia Heffernan of the New York Times. Of these, the first two are not scholarly analyses, and the latter is an out of date article. Ottre 16:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of date" has no meaning in this discussion. The NYT article expresses how these episodes have been viewed. Other sources may or may not express how these episodes are viewed in some other fashion. If so, the proper course of action is to add the other sources, not delete this article. And again, this was discussed less than a month ago. Nominating the same article over and over again in hopes of getting a different answer is contrary to the mission of AFD and contrary to the principles of consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Go read the recent last AfD for tons of good reasons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as a POV fork from Media portrayal of lesbianism from where it was split off. The very focused scope of this article is based on a premise so narrow it goes into POV territory ("lesbian antics are great for a quick ratings grab, and not much else"), ignoring other aspects of media coverage of displays of lesbian affection, even going so far as to ignoring different points of view that exists for some of the specific episodes in the list. (ie: the article here only describes it as a great ratings grab, ignoring both the pioneering aspects of some the episodes (several of these are the first ever portrayal of any sort of lesbian affection in the medium or genre) as well as how the creators/producers have described how from their pov it certainly wasn't an easy ratings grab, but something they had to argue at length with studio heads to even get on the air. (sources for this at this archived discussion[49]). It also (out of necessity due to its scope) ignores the inevitable flipside of the coin, ie episodes/shows that do portray lesbianism, but where kissing or any sort of physical affection was excluded due to, basically, homophobic attitudes of the powers that be. The article could probably be expanded/amended to be more neutral, but then the very narrow scope of it would lose much of its meaning, and the contents would be better covered within the context of the article where it was previously housed. For example these episodes and broader commentary on them could be covered alongside other tv portrayals of lesbianism in a chronological order. And, like I said at the link, certainly include the "lesbian kiss episode" phenomenon in that article as one aspect of tv portrayals of lesbianism. But it is just one aspect of many, and as such in my opinion not best suited to a separate article. The list table has OR and indescriminate information issues and should be deleted or culled back to episodes which have been defined as a "lesbian kiss episode" in reliable sources. Right now the unsourced entries in the list includes both cable and broadcast shows, with no apparent reason for why these specific episodes were selected. It appears the list is intended to include every tv episode with a female same-sex kiss, implying that all of them are "lesbian kiss episodes", something that is not supported by sources. If the list was redefined to only include every broadcast episode (which again, nothing in the sources to support that every such episode can be defined as a "lesbian kiss episode") it would still have approximately 100 entries, raising both OR and indescriminate information concerns. See the list I pasted at the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian kiss episode#Break for long table. Siawase (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's something wrong with the content of the article, fix it or discuss how to fix it on the talk page. Don't nominate it for deletion. Reach Out to the Truth 17:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given his comments on the talk page I have to question if Ottre really believes that the article should be deleted or if s/he's just having some sort of tantrum over the scope of the existing list. S/he apparently had no issue with the list when he wanted to add material to it barely two weeks ago. This is a bad-faith nomination and should be closed. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The former AfD just closed on 19 november. Even Dr. Delete JBsupreme recognizes this!! I hereby reincorporate every keep vote from the huge last AfD.--Milowent (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lance (pornographic actor)

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

Poorly sourced article about gay porn performer which includes unsourced assertions that they were "male prostitute" and had a "love of Latin boys". Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love the 'citation needed' on the measurements bit, hilarious. I hate to ruin someone's day but I don't think there are enough references to support such a 'prominent' (see what I did there?) figure being on Wikipedia. Some better references would be good, lots of gay porn actors on the AfD today DRosin (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP violation. Also does not meet WP:PORNBIO. Enigma^msg 15:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment – Now I'm really confused. The first sentence of WP:BLP states "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" [emphasis in original]. How can the policy apply to any non-living person? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strictly speaking, yes. However WP:BLP also states; "Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper. The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material. This applies to verifiability of sources, and to all content policies and guidelines.". Also, BLP applies to recently deceased people. Jes' sayin' - Alison ^❤ 23:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Roger (pornographic actor) and above; unsourced negative BLP. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Usourced BLP - Alison ^❤ 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nom failsWP:PORNBIO. 16x9 (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G10 - Negative unsourced BLP Kevin (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cort Stevens

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

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Tagged as unsourced BLP since July 2007. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actor. Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before. Does not meet the notability guidelines for the subject area. Enigma^msg 15:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best DR (Dr. Dre album)

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

Judging from the history, this was originally cut and pasted from somewhere, resulting in gibberish. After trying to figure out what it originally meant to be, I can't find any traces of this album. —Kww(talk) 04:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Haven't been able to find any indication this album exists. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 06:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I second what Hunter Kahn said above; I'm finding nothing about this album. Gongshow ^Talk 06:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Congress of Genealogical and Heraldic Sciences. Sandstein 10:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XXVIth International Congress of Genealogical and Heraldic Sciences

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

Deprodded article on an annual gathering of of heraldists and genealogists which was held in Bruges in 2004. Nothing remotely indicates that anything notable happened at this meeting. Article has been edited only 10 times since 2006, and gets viewed less than twice a day. Abductive (reasoning) 04:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How frequently somethings gets edited or viewed is not a valid consideration for articles one way or another. Our job is to be useful, not popular. A comprehensive encyclopedia is useful because of being comprehensive, and it is to be accepted that many of the articles will be little read or edited, probably in close approximation to the Pareto principle, also known as the 80-20 rule. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one is at the most extreme end of the spectrum. Being viewed is a sign of interest. Having secondary sources is a sign of interest. These things are interconnected. Sometimes an article has a lot of page views but few secondary sources, but you will be hard-pressed to find an article with a lot of secondary sources and few page views. Try it. Abductive (reasoning) 05:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all Merge this and the other individual conferences. Our practice is that something very special must be shown to prove an individual academic of semi-academic conference notable, like the Solvay conference. Normally rthe article should be about the series, as here. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no encyclopedic content to merge, and the title of the redirect would be a highly implausible search term. Abductive (reasoning) 05:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per DGG. The date and location, at least, could easily be merged to a list in the International Congress of Genealogical and Heraldic Sciences article. Powers ^T 12:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - it is reasonable to assume the conference received some mention in field-specific publications. However, there is no need for a separate article for each edition of the conference at this time. One article for the conference in general which mentions the individual one's date & an other relevant info is sufficient until that article gets too bloated & needs split. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 abundandtly clear, so closing a couple hours ahead of time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of instrumental songs

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

Utterly uncompleteable and arguably non-notable. Overall, most music is instrumental. Hairhorn (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite notable but this list is unmaintainable. It does not have clear inclusion guidelines. I believe that any clear inclusion guideline would define a scope either so large as to be impossible to use and maintain, or else far too narrow for the article's title. Acceptable instrumental lists might include a list of all instrumentals that charted on a major national chart. (Of course, then we run into problems of defining "instrumental" -- is "Tequila (song)" an instrumental? "Wipe Out (song)"? Powers ^T 12:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument against notability would be simply that it's too broad to be notable as a list, (even though Music and Instrumental music are unambiguously notable topics). It's no more notable than, say, List of of all streets in the world. Beyond a certain point, list length varies inversely with significance of the list itself. Hairhorn (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Powers - a totally unmaintainable list, with no real criteria Shadowjams (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmantainable list without inclusion guidelines. There are also songs on there that aren't notable for their own article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too vague of a criteria for inclusion (WP:SALAT) makes any attempt at a list to be laughably incomplete. I'd say this is too wide for a category even. Them From Space 01:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject matter far too broad to be useful. There are hundreds of thousands of instrumental songs. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the cogent statements above. in addition, the article confuses songs with performances. exactly 100% of all songs ever written may be performed without vocals, and most have (muzak, anyone?). I could see a nice list of instrumental releases which top the pop/rock/etc charts, by country or US only. that is unusual, and thus notable. jazz instrumental releases are not notable, of course, as there are so many. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worthwhile subject, wrong approach, starting with "This list is meant to cover all genres". Are there any jazz compositions that aren't instrumentals? Any list of this nature would need to be limited to measurably popular instrumentals (such as on Billboard charts), would have to have a set definition (pop music rather than classical, for instance) and, ideally, would have links to .wav files so that someone could say, "Oh, so that's what "Theme From 'A Summer Place'" is". Most of these don't have universal recognition. The first "hits" that I recognized were "Chariots of Fire" and "Classical Gas". Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literary and Debating Society (NUI, Maynooth)

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

Student club at a single campus with no particular claim of notability and no sources for notability. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 04:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs sources. From my personal experience as I have created an article about a student club which was deleted, student clubs have to be particularly notable like Skull & Bones otherwise every student club in the world would be on here. If there are some good sources though and notability could be shown then this could be kept DRosin (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitrix

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

Promotion for non-notable company; article from SPA with conflict of interest [50] (he's a marketing person working for the company). Sources given are insignificant trade rags. Haakon (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, unambiguous advertising Nothing more than a Advertisement masquerading as an article created by an WP:SPA using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion --Hu12 (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per Hu12. I'd love to see an article about these guys one there are WP:RS. Joe407 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not understand why speedy deletion was declined: . BIP is a business-driven intranet solution designed for Enterprise 2.0 collaboration that includes the latest integrated communication, collaboration, social networking, document sharing, project and business process management, extranet support and task management tools. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw: Das Spiel

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

Does not appear to meet any of the three notability guidelines listed under Wikipedia:Notability (web). The 4 sources also lend no notability, with 1 being to a forum, 1 to the game itself, and 2 to gaming websites that do not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable source. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is, while a short article, a fundamental piece of the Saw media franchise, which makes the notability guidelines disputable because it is a piece of a multimedia franchise which is definitely notable, inherently making a key piece of media notable as well. There are plenty of reliable sources for this article, I had just never added them, but I will tonight, making this a lesser argument. Because this is a German game, there are less english sources than ideal, but the media franchise is American/australian, making it still relevant to the english wikipedia. I am going to work on getting more sources and connecting the article better to the rest of the franchise, so this article may be kept. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being related to a source that is notable does not make something automatically notable. If, for example, I wrote a Saw comic book right now it would not be notable simply for being a Saw-related piece of media. If you can source it up and establish notability though, that's another matter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fan-made works are held to the same standards as any other subject; as Staxringold says above, simply existing or being "related" to a notable series does not prove notability on its own. In addition, the work is almost certainly non-notable if there are few or no reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject (as is the case with this topic). Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the relevent citations - flashgames.de and gamershood.com - do not come close to satisfying the general notability guideline. The remaining citations are used for WP:COATRACKs. Marasmusine (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: After reviewing the deletion policy and notability guidelines, I realize that this individual game may not be entirely notable for the english wikipedia. So, I propose a move/merge to "Saw flash games" or something similar which would refocus the page on all of the four flash games of the Saw franchise. This would allow coverage of each almost-notable game together and make it entirely notable due to it covering multiple games equally. Thoughts or opinions?GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, not notable enough to stand on its own. Disagree with any merging, as there's no parent topic suitable enough, and it's irrelevant anyways as its not notable. --Teancum (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedview

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when I created this it appeared that Feedview would become significant in its own right (like DOM Inspector which shipped with pre-3.0 Firefox). I agree with the nom that it is not, and that Firefox's RSS functionality can be adequately covered by the article on Firefox itself. Cynical (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It definitely needs work, but there's no consensus to delete it. Fences&Windows 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of metonyms

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

It's like a list of metaphors - it is endless. I do not believe such a list is useful - there are 1000s of metonyms and everyone can make 1000s more. A few more prominent examples in metonymy should suffice. Renata (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made it to clean up the crud bucket list on Metonymy.--Louiedog (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that might be the case. I would have boldly deleted the excess. Renata (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, Louiedog, but a list of metonyms is potentially endless. The list actually begins by stating that it's a list of common metonyms – so why doesn't the article title make that distinction? Even if it did, I would still support deletion at this point, because the entire article appears to be unreferenced original research. If you can find references indicating that the metonyms on this list are, in fact, more common than others, I may reconsider. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be easily be sourced, and limited to only those instances where a place name is used to reflect an entire organization. The original concept was a grafitti wall for just about anything that popped into one's mind (i.e., "a microwave" can mean "a microwave oven"), and it's going to be taken for granted that any nation's capital (Washington, Moscow, London) is going to be a metaphor for that nation's government. On the other hand, some are less obvious ("Madison Avenue", "Fleet Street", "Red Square"). Not voting a keep, because this one has been an ethereal concept from the start, and a "do over" (metonym for something that should be started over) would be in order. Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know if this perhaps sets me apart from most, but I've found the list very, very useful when writing. In fact, I'm on a temporary diversion from writing one right now, as I went to consult the list (just to double-check what "Whitehall" represents, and was dismayed to see AfD status. I agree that it could easily get unwieldy, but I think with careful policing and removal of the more obscure listings, this could remain a valuable resource. --Grahamdubya (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was a bit sceptical but I think this list is useful. I think this would be difficult to police, but I think it is worth keeping, though how it relates to Wiki policy on lists I don't know DRosin (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just re-reading A Stop at Willoughby's comment, I agree that sourcing would be good on this article DRosin (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would agree that the list of place-government metonyms should be heavily trimmed or summarized, but for everything else I think this article is useful. Reinderien^{talk/contribs} 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for Buttercup (TV series), and speedily deleted by the ed17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for Party Of Five (Philippine Version). NAC. I hate bundled noms... Tim Song (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party Of Five (Philippine Version)

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

Hoax "upcoming" television show. This article has been previously posted as Party of Five (Philippine Version). The creator (User:Harry santavega) also has a history of creating hoax TV show articles related to Claudine Barretto.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason.

-WayKurat (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Party of Five deleted as G3, but Buttercup appears to be real; see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367300/ . —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —WayKurat (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Party Of Five (Philippine Version) per G3. Creator creating hoaxes in unannounced future Philippine TV series remade from U.S. and other countries. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Buttercup (TV series) as well, as I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Imdb indicates that the series exists/existed, which is enough to allow it to pass G3, but not enough to allow it to pass the general notability guideline (Imdb is not considered a reliable source). I agree with The Ed17's G3 speedy deletion of the other article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Buttercup (TV series) per Whpq. Thanks for finding sources in the Philippine media; I genuinely couldn't find any myself. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Buttercup. It's apparently a tagalog soap opera and has received coverage in the Phillipine press. See [51], [52], [53], [54]. -- Whpq (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Buttercup per Whpq. Nominator (User:WayKurat) didn't know the show was apparently a hoax. It is a Tagalog Soap Opera aired in Philippine television several years ago. Adding sources are bit improving. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn nomination for Buttercup, just realized that this is a real show. I have included this article for deletion since the creator has a history of making hoax articles. I would like to request the admins concerned to close this AFD. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Eric Pearl

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

Non-notable TB (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His book does appear to exist [[55]]. Also, Google has lots of coverage of the subject [[56]] Is the subject notable? I honestly don't know. But this article could be of a much higher quality than it is now. (Also, a strict application of WP:BLP that unsourced information should be removed would leave absolutely no content, letting an A3 speedy go through. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, the book exists. The rest of the article is pure promotion/hype, and completely unsourced. Also - a nitpick in case article is kept - the article title should be changed to "Eric Pearl", without the "Dr." When I created an article about a physician I was informed in no uncertain terms that the article title should be just his name, without "Dr." or "M.D." --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not proven and not sourced. "He is the discoverer, practitioner and promoter of..." seems to sum up the content. Gilo ö 04:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably better suited to being posted on craigslist than here. Sources as well needed. Direly. DRosin (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marimallappa High School, helpfully created by Fences and windows. No one disputes the fact that there are no available sources as of right now, and as such we can't have an article. If sources are found later the redirect can be reverted to a full biographical article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marimallappa

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

Zero third-party external sources. All are either Wikipedia-mirrors, the University mentioned in the article, or Wikipedia itself. Aditya Ex Machina 08:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non-notable people don't get multiple schools named after them. Sourcing will be a problem, since the subject lived well before the internet and sources will probably not be in English, but that is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point. I've searched pretty much everywhere and sources cannot be found. Consequently, there's nothing to write an article from. Aditya Ex Machina 15:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a stub about the school named after him, Marimallappa High School. This can redirect there. Fences&Windows 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4marks

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

Non-notable website. Fails the primary criterion - no secondary sources in Google. Traffic rank of ~294,000. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 03:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Strong delete No decent sources, very poor article in my opinion DRosin (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Sources can be added, and will be added soon by me, and as this is one of my first articles I am working on improving it still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.220.174 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Removed due to sockpuppetry. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biggest social networking website for Catholics. Don't even think about being "racist" against Catholics! OmniWikia (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please refrain from personal attacks in accusing other editors of racism. Thank you. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And Catholics are not a race. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable - No news or scholarly reference, one book reference (a footnote reference to an article published on 4Marks.com "Porn: The Marriage Wrecker). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note User:OmniWikia has been blocked 1 month for vandalism and sock puppetry, with 24.118.220.174 being blocked 1 week as a sock puppet. MuZemike 21:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GLAM (industry sector)

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

article serves only to define a non notable acronym WuhWuzDat 22:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting article, adequately sourced to show notability IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An increasingly notable acronym, which is strongly related to the wikimedia mission, so it should stay to inform new wikimedians what we are talking about. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raša Djelmaš

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

This article is about a nonnotable musician that fails WP:BIO as he hasn't been the subject of significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources and he hasn't had any notable influence on his field. The article is also an unreferenced BLP. Them From Space 03:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any coverage in reliable sources; appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G7; requested by author (on this AfD's talk page). {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynarch Javascript calendar

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is a calendar component for use in web pages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Gillaspie

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

Being noted as one of three ministers who ordained another minister (whose article was deleted) hardly meets WP:N. Furthermore, although it's unclear from the article if the subject is still alive, but there appears to be some WP:BLP issues here too. And that self-reference to the talk page only leaves me with the impression that this article, just as the one for Arnold Murray did, will only draw POV pushers and fanatics. œ ^™ 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is a primary policy on wikipedia, and you're an administrator, yet you ignore violations of the policy to discuss this for deletion. Why? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I wasn't sure if it was a BLP, the article is not clear whether the subject is alive or not. -- œ ^™ 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btw, putting it up for deletion is not ignoring the problem. -- œ ^™ 07:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the article has been around for a few years and its edit history with all the BLP violations is still there. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this source cited in the article refers to him as "the late" so it appears that this is not a biography of a living person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well despite my nomination for deletion being for the article in the state it was before User:IP69.226.103.13's edits essentially resolved most of the issues, that still leaves only the question of the subjects notability. Even in its current stubbified state it's not much of an article but nevertheless I withdraw my original nom. -- œ ^™ 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current version of the article doesn't clearly assert a claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Girl Next Door (band). Kevin (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chisa (vocalist)

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

Singer with a notable band, no assertion of individual notability. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 03:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to her band's page Girl Next Door (band) does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO for her own page. J04n(talk page) 21:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 01:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data Carrier Detect

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

As for Ring Indicator, this is one pin of the RS 232 interface; nce you take out the duplication from RS 232 required to give this article context there's insufficient content left to support an article. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have too much information to be merged, would probably make the RS232 page too long UltraMagnus^speak 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reason stated by User:UltraMagnus Reswobslc (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if an editorial merge is desirable that can be done later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football years

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

Article is orphan, google search 1 and 2 fail to produce any non-trivial 3rd party sources. Appears to be non-notable. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and start over if it really is notable. This appears to have been a brief attempt by a fan of the show to create a quick article about this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and allow re-creation without a deletion review. Unable to determine notability from article. This would've been a great PROD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in the current article worth keeping, and can't find any secondary non-trivial coverage. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 04:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AxsJAX

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

A nonnotable software piece with no secondary sources given. - Altenmann >t 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Under the scholar link, there are some papers which discuss the library in detail, and mention its use in other projects. These papers are serious academic papers, but this appears to be a relatively little-known tool in a highly specialized area, so my keep is weak. Ray^Talk 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by creator. tedder (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crayola crayon colors

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

Per comment at Talk:List of Crayola crayon colors#Pure Advertising: It.27s a Commercial for Crayola by Timothy Perper. His reasons listed if I understand them correctly are an NPOV concern that the majority of sources used were from Crayola's websites, a question of notability, and the list in effect being a commercial for Crayola. PaleAqua (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ (nominator) - Agree with some of the concerns brought up by Timothy, hence the conversion of the comment into an Afd. PaleAqua (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep Based on majority of comments below, recommend speed keep per WP:Snowball. Still strongly believe the article has numerous problems. PaleAqua (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's no more an advertisement for the Crayola company than a list of chewing gum flavors would be an ad for a chewing gum company. What, is there some place that we can purchase retired crayons? Hard as it may seem to believe, the colors of the crayons have made news throughout the decades [57]. Believe it or not, people write about this in books about marketing [58] and [59] and [60]. I think of this more as a list of "colors" whose names became familiar because of a label on a crayon. Perhaps we would feel better if it incorporated names assigned to other boxes that carry 64 different hues. I'm sure the nomination is made in good faith, but "pure advertising" isn't a fair assessment of the article. Mandsford (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to comply with NPOV. How is it a commerical for Crayola? Is a list of centuries by Dravid not promotion for him too? warrior 4321 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is as synonymous with Americana as apple pie is. Who DIDN'T grow up with Crayola? In this day in age, this is a very notable list, IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cornflower, every time Crayola changes a color in the 64 box, it makes news. Abductive (reasoning) 04:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis article is more then just a commercial for Crayola, it also contains historical information about the listed colors, and while the table set ups in the Specialty Crayons section may not be the most encyclopedic option the bulk of the content is completely appropriate. The article is about the primary product of an highly recognizable company, there is no question about the fact that Crayola crayons have had a cultural impact, if they meet the notability requirements to get their own stamp then they are probably meet our notability requirements. As for the NPOV claim, as of writing not a single line on the article is marked as having a disputed NPOV and the original talk page comment provides no examples. Additionally there are a number of non Crayola owned sources and in my read through nothing glaringly non NPOV stood out. Vantar (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...WP:CS..."Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires attribution for direct quotes and for material that is likely to be challenged." Are you challenging? Is this a particularly controversial article that needs opposing reliable sources? This is a perfect example of what Wikipedia should contain. I love it. I would give it a bolder Keep if wiki-markup would only allow.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medium Delete I would much prefer that the authors and editors provide documentation for all the data they present in the article. My critique, included in the talk page of the article itself, lists problems with POV, reliability, original research, lack of citations, among other things. The first, large table, contains color swatches, color number identifications, and names; that section provides only two references but neither lists ANY of these. So where do the color swatches come from? If they are taken from an (uncited) Crayola website, then there may well be problems with copyright violations; if the author provided the swatches from his own files, records, or work, then the table is original research. And if these problems can't be fixed -- well, then delete the article.

I have added more details to my comment on the talk page -- it might help if everyone goes and reads it rather than depending on only the brief paraphrase of my comments provided by PaleAqua. If you look carefully at the article, you'll see that the tables contain a great deal of unreferenced material. And I am afraid that a postage stamp does not prove that a list of Crayola colors is notable.

Timothy Perper (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the article talk page for more detailed comments about problems with this article and reasons favoring its deletion and merge, after editing, with the Crayola article. The comments made above, by a number of people, were written BEFORE those comments were made. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a significant NPOV problem. Yes, the article has issues just like the vast majority of articles, but that is not sufficient reason to delete it. I would support changes like removing the RGB values if they have no source, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree re: NPOV (No POV issues - someone needs to explain this rationale to me). Agree re: notable list (Yes - It's notable, as a large number of people (and some Wikipedians) have used this brand of crayons at some point in their lives). And having done the same colour testing as Timothy Perper did here at the relevant talk page I can see that whoever nominated the RGB and hex colours probably grabbed those color values from the colour swatches available on line at the Crayola website. I slso don't think that this comes under WP:OR, as it fits the criteria of routine calculations (color sampling via computer program being reasonably routine these days). But when all's said and done, what actually appears here seems to be a classic inclusionist vs deletionist debate that really doesn't do 'the project' any favours. For what it's worth, I think it's a perfectly valid article and I can see a time when a curious person would ask themselves the question "I wonder how many Crayola colors there are" and being rewarded with a great Wikipedia answer. Mark5677 (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is actually one of my favourite Wikipedia articles. I don't see this as a significant NPOV issue. Not sure about copyright concerns re: PaleAqua, that might be an issue to look into DRosin (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep very well sourced article. Interesting articles like this make wikipedia a great place to visit.
RE: Nominator's statment: "NPOV concern that the majority of sources used were from Crayola's websites"
See: Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete I think there is some misunderstanding about how to address NPOV concerns. Ikip (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong Keep Crayola is undoubtably an integral part of every child's life and this article brings joy to countless of people throughout the cyberspace. Besides I don't think you'd want to deal with an angry MLIA mob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.186.78 (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To delete requires some sort of rationale. That Binney & Smith is the authority for the colors it made is not a reason for deletion. Heck, Ben & Jerry's is the source for its list of flavors, and there are many others. No one else, in fact, could be an authority on the crayon colors <g>. Collect (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a wonderful example of what Wikipedia can be. Topic is clearly notable (as indicated by 3rd party coverage) and article is reasonably well-sourced. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is a wonderful page! -- R. Mutt 1917 Talk 19:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gutter King

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

Non-notable home-made movie. Article is completely unsourced or based on the director's blog. User should use twitter and not Wikipedia to log the production's updated. Damiens.rf 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indy film with only one public screening that's been documented. No other records outside of IMDB. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom DRosin (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation. Since the article itself states that the film is completed and has been screened, I corrected the article to reflect that it is no longer NFF. Further with WP:NF instructing "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it would seem the blurbs Quiet Earth [61], [62] do not quite constitute significant coverage. If this changes and it gets more coverage, allow it back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band. Damiens.rf 00:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the least, criterion 1 of WP:BAND appears to be met, with articles at Spin, Paste, The Arizona Republic, and a small biography at Allmusic. Gongshow ^Talk 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Gongshow's first three sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Damiens, looks like we got a winner. Still, glad you brought it up. =) Gongshow, good finds there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:BAND criterion #1; in addition to the above, the subject has also had coverage in The Washington Post and The Boston Globe. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above DRosin (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist meets WP:BAND criteria #1 and #6 (as the band contains members of the notable groups Steel Train and The Format). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. This nomination is a waste of everyones' time. WP:BEFORE would have avoided it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They've been getting a lot of buzz this year.--Remurmur (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow keep (given the unanimity of all others here), that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything listed both here and in the first nomination... come on now --Tflynn17 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipal elections in Winnipeg

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

I don't think it would be a wise idea to merge all those election articles into that one page. Therefore, this redundant page accomplishes what a delightful navbox would do much more effectively. @harej 00:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a straight list, and this is great and all, but for this, I think categorizing the articles would be more effective. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - this "article" is basically only a redundant list and not really an encyclopedic article. We should consider categorizing instead. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 03:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there already is a category for this: Category:Municipal elections in Winnipeg. PK T(alk) 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this page has become superfluous. CJCurrie (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum principle (mathematics)

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

Badly named. It's possible a rename, and creating a disambiguation page under this name (Minimum principle (mathematics)) would be appropriate, but, even if this principle is notable (I'm not convinced), it might be better to delete this one and start over under a more accurate name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to say it's likely not notable enough of a mathematical principle for an article, as per discussion below. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The related question is: Does anyone call it the "minimum principle", and what the appropriate context would be. It seems to me that it follows immediately from the unit ball in a Hilbert space being compact in the weak topology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are people that call it that. For example, elementary children call the combining of factored polynomials the FOIL method, whereas professionals (such as mathematicians) consider this a part of the Distributive property. It should be noted that some methods and principles are more notable than others, and FOIL is widely taught and used in schools. The minimum principle, however, likely is not as widely taught and therefore likely doesn't merit an article. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Our own Hilbert space article contains a much more thorough discussion of this principle and its applications. That said, I am reluctant to vote delete, since I feel that the article could potentially be expanded beyond the setting of Hilbert spaces. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The name is misleading since it doesn't provide context. It seems to be taken from a section heading in the reference sited, but it's questionable whether it is a universally accepted name or that the name refers only to this theorem. In addition, there is no evidence of notability given. While it's possible to that the article could be expanded beyond the context of Hilbert spaces, keeping the article alive for the sake of a future expansion which may never happen is not appropriate. If and when someone can find material for such an expansion then they can easily start the article over again.--RDBury (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hilbert space. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete inner product space

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

The article seems to be about the theorem that the quaternions form a complete inner product space. It may be that something can be said about complete inner product spaces, but this isn't even a part of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with redirect to Hilbert space. A complete inner product space (in the sense that is nearly universally accepted throughout mathematics) is a Hilbert space. This article is an extremely confused take on things. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hilbert space, possibly after moving this article to a more appropriate title and rewriting it. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Concur with redirect, and the reference doesn't support the statement about quaternions, even if I could figure out what it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be fair, the book given as a reference does use the term 'Complete inner product space' instead of 'Hilbert space'. It should be up to the person creating the article to do the research to ensure that the subject is not merely another name for the subject of an existing article. Variations in terminology occur surprisingly often in mathematics so using a single source as a reference, which seems to have been done here, is generally something to be avoided.--RDBury (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hilbert space, which means the same thing. --Zundark (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mondo

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

Non-notable artist. No non-trivial coverage exists about him/her. Not a single source used. Damiens.rf 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Closest thing to a claim of notability is that a group he's in supposedly did remixes for some notable artists but their Discogs entry does not confirm this, nor does any web source that I could find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also did some remixes for some notable artists, in my basement. --Damiens.rf 12:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this DJ. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 00:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DJ on the club scene, is popular with the crowd. But that doesn't make him notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universe People

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

Does not meet the WP:ORG criteria for notability. I can find no matches in Google News and general Google search results seem to be circular or based on the universe-people website. Google books produces two references, both seem insignificant tangential references to the website. The study quoted is a special study of cults and a mention in this paper provides no evidence that the "cult" has any significance or impact besides being an exercise in self-promotion and an associated website. The video links are doubtful evidence of notability and on their own are little evidence of notability apart from being an amusing news story of the "duck on a skateboard" sort. Ash (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I'm not even seeing good assertions of notability for this group. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, !vote changed per Jan's addition below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not as much about WP:ORG as about WP:BIAS, and about how some policies and their overzealous enforcement is harmful to Wikipedia.
- the group is mostly Czech and Slovak phenomenon, searches in Czech and Slovak would reveal better references
- some time ago, the article explained The group's enthusiastic propaganda on the internet (a large website in garish colours) including spam, naivety of their recorded "messages" as well as attempts to comment on every aspect of life and appropriate any popular notion (life in The Matrix, for example) has built it a "cult" following who make fun of it, visit Benda's frequent rambling public lectures to try to catch him in the discussion part etc.; even beside this hard core, the Universe People have managed to become the embodiment of crackpots for Czech public.. In fact this is the main cause of notability - thanks to the self-promotion and weird belief system, they managed to become prime example of "UFO cult" and crackpots in general. Obviously, it is hard to find a good source stating exactly that they are "prime example" - the group is just used this way. So, it was tagged (30s work) and than deleted (10s work). --Wikimol (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bizarre sect, but they're known in the Czech Republic. Here is evidence: a provocative article in the Czech magazine Reflex, indicating connection between the sect and singer Daniel Landa, another article at the website Novinky.cz, describing a hacker attack on the official website of the organization, and an interview with the founder of Vesmírní lidé in Czech television from 2001. It is possible to find out more. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google search result for the great "Aštar Šeran" provides further informations, this article calls Universe People "Czech Star Wars" (...Czechs don't have their Star Wars, but they have ing. Benda and Aštar Šeran...). --Vejvančický (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this still appears to be self-promotional material though as I only read English this is hard to confirm. Are there any reliable sources such as national newspapers or published books in the search results (I was unable to find Reflex magazine in WorldCat so I am unsure of it's status)? Trying the Czech Google News there do not appear to be any matches.—Ash (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources I cite are independent on the article's subject, Ash. I consider both Reflex and Novinky.cz as sources with national significance, therefore I added red links. I don't trust Novinky.cz completely, they've a lot of errors in their articles, but it is an important and reliable Czech online source. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For good if short info about Reflex try Wikipedia. Article in Reflex mentioned by Vejvančický is hardly promotional - in fact it could be used as a source for opinion (deleted form Wikipedia article previously) that Ivo A. Benda is mentally ill and his lectures consist of his personal delusions. --Wikimol (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the translation seemed pretty good. At first glance I thought that Reflex might have been an online gossip site, but from the history given in the article it obviously has a more reliable background. Given the promotional nature of this group, one would naturally be cautious but from the analysis of sources you have given here I think the article has potential to be reliably sourced. Certainly if there has been significant cultural impact, then the article could focus on that as a rationale for notability (and meet WP:ORG) rather than as a notable religion.—Ash (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some information from a paper published online by the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. The paper says they are the most distinctive UFO religion in the Czech Republic. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go with that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note also the discussion at the article's talk page. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manila local elections, 2010

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

Article is supposed to be covered into more specific [[63]] where same procedures in electoral process does held. The "notability" of facing off of former mayors and incumbent mayors during elections are not new. The process of election in Manila is also the same of local elections held in the Philippines all throughout. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should be easy. The subject has and will ~~probably~~ have tons more sources in the coming weeks. Wikipedia has articles on local elections. See New York City mayoral election, 2009. –Howard the Duck 13:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there will be tons of news ahead as election comes. But remember that it is not a great news event to speak.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Great news event" ≠ Notability. P.S. The "facing off of former mayors" is not the "claim to fame" of this article. It was simply a hook for WP:DYK. –Howard the Duck 13:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Typically, such an article already notes a notable event, and given the nature of Manila, I'd say this was over the line. Crystallballery did not enter the nom's argument, but in this case, it's moot - it will happen, and we know when. Just sayin'. I'd say let it lie (and here, I'll do a blanket invocation of WP:IAR if I'm missing something), and as time goes on, material should be added by the maintainers of this article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This article meets WP:Notability and I don't see a reason to delete this page. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep per WP:BEFORE - these are de facto provincial elections, as Manila is the capital city and a province of millions of people, in a country of over 80 million people. This election is different, in part, because Manila was hardest hit by the recent Typhoons. Politics in the Philippines is a national blood sport, and everybody there watches the elections in Manila. The reasons given by the nominator are essentially WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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