Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 17

< 16 December	18 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 redirect to Barbie as the Island Princess. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tallulah The Monkey

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

Non-notable minor figure in a straight-to-video movie about Barbie. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to Barbie as the Island Princess.--Wipsenade (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barbie as the Island Princess (already has enough mention there, so nothing to merge) … doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{22:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
- Note - Take a look at the contributions of the article's creator, Fredermann (talk · contribs), and those of Federman11 (talk · contribs) and 60.229.13.232 (talk · contribs) … I suspect the latter two to be sockpuppets of the former … they exemplify WP:Single-purpose accounts. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barbie as the Island Princess as per 70.21.16.94. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 18:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez (band)

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

No reliable sources found beyond the interview. Has notable members but the notability doesn't transfer to notability for this band. Tagged heavily for sources, weasel words and COI. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Following WP:BEFORE would have found coverage at Allmusic (bio, review, review, review), Billboard, Trouser Press, CMJ New Music Monthly, Vail Daily, Las Vegas Weekly, New York Times. Please make more of an effort before bringing articles to AFD.--Michig (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As usual Michig took one minute to save a worthy article from an unfair AfD that took the nominator two minutes to create. This AfD should be speedy-closed as an obvious violation of WP:BEFORE #2, 9, and 10. This article needs improvement, not deletion. If this article is kept, I ask the admin to notify me on my talk page, and I will then add the sources found by Michig and expand the article appropriately. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, g4. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg McDermott (footballer)

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

Contested Prod fails WP:GNG and also WP:NFOOTY as the player hasn't played at the highest level Mo ainm~Talk 23:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 23:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. McDermott still fails the same criteria as before. --Jimbo^[online] 10:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashk Dahlén

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

Fails WP:PROF as this scientist is not "notable" enough. Fails also WP:BIO as there does not seem to be any independent coverage. DrPhosphorus (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence of passing WP:PROF in the article, and the subject has an h-score of 3, which is very low, probably partily because GS counts primarily English sources—but evidence of notability, if it exists, is outside my own ability to detect. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chavez (band). Courcelles 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better Days Will Haunt You

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

Non-notable album has never charted. Lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Rednevog (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chavez (band). Fails WP:NALBUMS. Include in "Discography" section to expand the band's article. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chavez (band) as suggested above. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chavez (band). Courcelles 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ride the Fader

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

Non-notable album has never charted. Lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Rednevog (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chavez (band). Fails WP:NALBUMS. Merge with "Discography" section of the band's article. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chavez (band) as suggested above. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. extransit (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Math 55

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

Non-notable course in mathemathics Sandman888 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources don't even mention the subject. what the heck? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very famous, probably the most famous math course in the United States; is there any more famous one? Well known people who have taken it---and that is certainly related to their later success---include Bill Gates and Richard Stallman. As cited in the article; which sources "don't even mention the subject"? Hga (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 00:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References look fine to me, I am not sure why this is nominated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see enough references to establish notability. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - I wouldn't usually advocate keep an article about an individual university course - or even a university department, but having read the article and checked out the references there is such a strong case for notability that we have to keep this article.Kudpung (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The lack of satisfactory sourcing since the last AfD is somewhat disappointing. Ideally, the article should have more references besides the Crimson. However, as an influential course, this passes my own personal notability threshold. It has been notably mentioned in passing, for instance, in Time's interview with Bill Gates and Richard Stallman's biography. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just happened to own a Math 54 book. I think this is an updated edition. T3h 1337 b0y 20:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closing admin. The above "math 54 book" vote is unrelated to the subject of this article. See [1]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup. I don't object to having some article about the course, but I do object to this article about the course. The article has parts with no encyclopedic merit, like where it lists a bunch of people who took the course. Why is it notable that Lisa Randall and Moon Duchin took the course? The only citation provided is to The Crimson; I'm sure The Crimson lists a whole lot of other people who took Math 55, so maybe the article should list them, too? Or consider the section on course content. Why is it notable that they were using Do Carmo's and Edwards's books? Is it even true? The citations are references to the books themselves, not to anything that would verify the claim. And would it be more or less notable if the course had used some other book?
There is potential here. Some of the content is good. I'd like more discussion of the course's use in gender difference studies; that's a really unique angle which I think establishes notability all on its own. Unfortunately, I think that the article is hampered by a lack of sources; most of the facts that can be sourced are not particularly interesting. What the article really needs is a good general-interest magazine article to draw from; kind of like how A Beautiful Mind made John Nash interesting to the general public. Ozob (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Notability requirements satisfied.—RJH (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Light fighter

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

Appears to be a neologism. All of the aircraft mentioned in this article except the Caudron C.714 (It's claim that it is a light fighter is uncited) are not called light fighters.The F-16 was born out of the Lightweight fighter program but is designated as a multirole fighter. Marcus Qwertyus 21:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the phrase "Light fighter" in Flight of 3 April 1953 and 15 May 1953 in referring to the Folland Gnat. Why that isn't in the article I don't know. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I wrote it in 2004, long before any of the current material existed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neologism? That'll be why the US Gov had the Lightweight Fighter program (referenceable up the wazoo) back in the 1960s. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the reference to infantry is the neologism. It is used only in the US, and generally refers to the 7th Division (Light) in the period between 1984 to 1993. The 7th kept the moniker until it was disbanded in 2006, but the term had already fallen from use after several attempts to re-start the concept with various Guard units fell apart. Everyone else, including the rest of the US, refers to this concept as "light infantry", and I can't image that this needs any more discussion than the fix I've already posted to the light fighter article... Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fighter aircraft. Not a neologism at all, but not notable enough for a stand-alone article IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to fighter aircraft. I don't think that there is enough to keep as a standalone article, but too much to delete outright. Sometimes classification is a bit subjective, but aircraft are surely known as light sometimes. I'll also note that in my mind, the term has a stronger connotation to highly mobile foot infantry than aircraft. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - happy for a merge though if references can be added. Anotherclown (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The F-16 only became multitole after major changes from the original lightweight design. It is clearly spelled out in the article there are numerous light fighter designs throughout aircraft history, right until today. It is as distort from fighter as light bomber is from bomber. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 05:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fighter aircraft - note light infantry potential confusion problem as per Bahamut0013. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and disambiguate merge to fighter aircraft, and disambiguate between the class (described in "fighter aircraft") the program that the F-16 evolved from ("lightweight fighter program") and light infantry. 65.94.46.54 (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are the results of 2 minutes searching of the term "light fighter" in wiki articles. These include examples of aircraft that were referred to by their sponsors or builders as "light" or "lightweight" fighters, as well as (in the modern examples) aircraft that are referred to in that fashion by the industry press. Many of these links include such terminology in the first or second sentence of the article. WWII-era examples: Caudron C.714, Arsenal VG-33, Bell XP-77, Tucker XP-57, Douglas XP-48, Miles M.20, Martin-Baker MB 2, Ambrosini SAI.207, Ambrosini SAI.403, VEF I-16, [2] Cold war examples: Aero L-159 Alca, Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet, Cessna A-37 Dragonfly, BAC Strikemaster, Aermacchi MB-326, Aermacchi MB-339, Folland Gnat Modern examples: Sukhoi S-56, AMX International AMX, KAI T-50 Golden Eagle, Soko J-22 Orao, Soko G-4 Super Galeb, Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master, Yakovlev Yak-130, [ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/08/air-force-to-get-new-light-fighter/], [3], [4], [5], [6] So: clearly not a neologism, widely used by everyone involved, clearly many examples even if the current article doesn't include them. Type the term into Google Books, for instance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term has had a fair amount of use for some time; it's not just a neologism or a label for a single aircraft type. The article does need some work but deletion is not the answer. I would have said "merge and redirect" but I think there's enough material out there for a modest standalone article. bobrayner (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—a search shows this term to have sufficient usage in aviation-related publications to be considered notable.—RJH (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juneau, Alaska, regular election, 2008

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

A borough in Alaska is roughly the equivalent of a county in the rest of the States. This was a local government election with little to no impact on anyone living outside the Juneau Borough. None of the candidates for any of the positions could be considered notable by any reasonable standard. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Keep if any of the candidates belonged to the emergant 'Tea party movement.--Wipsenade (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if anyone who identified as a Tea Party candidate got elected to a local school board anywhere in America that is automatically notable? Even if we were to accept that rather odd premise, these elections are so low-level that most candidates run just as themselves and are not affiliated with any organized party or movement. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the candidates are redlinks. If one of them meets WP:BIO later, their 2008 success can be mentioned in a sentence in their article without the need for a stand-alone article that's currently an orphan. Separately, is there a reason to single out 2008, and ignore the four other articles on annual Juneau elections? THF (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is best to test the waters with a single nom, but since these all share the same problem it probably is appropriate in this case, so I am now co-nomming these as well:

These were the only other ones I found in a search, but if there are more like this I have no objection to anyone adding them to this debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is Juneau, Alaska, special election, 2007 and {{Juneau elections}}. Delete all per my comment above. THF (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Beeblebrox. Notable candidates, if any, could (and should) be noted in the Juneau, Alaska article as appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chickamauga Indian

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

This article for the most part merely repeats information included in Chickamauga Wars (1776-1794), adding a list of pseudo-tribes from another Wikipedia article. The sole intent of its existence is the author's attempt to further the pseudohistorical notion that there was actually a "Chickamauga" tribe seperate from the Cherokee Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—None of the page content has been challenged with tags. It appears to be at least partly cited. There are web pages and books covering Chickamauga indian history.—RJH (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as a "Chickamauga Indian". Self-published sources, such as webpages that are not subject to peer review, do not meet Wikipedia criteria. ALL of the material within the article ia published elsewhere. The sole purpose of the article in question is an attempt to prop up the pseudohistorical notion about "Chickamaugas", and I know this because the same editor made changes to at least one other article aiming at the goal (Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee). This is merely the latest in a long line of attempts by various persons to establish some sort of crediblity for fictional entities which do not deserve it, such as the person who is currently trying to insert Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky into several Cherokee-related articles. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - KEEP A comment such as "there is no such thing as a 'Chickamauga Indian' " is a historical, factual error. There were Chickamauga Indians (originally called "Lower Cherokee"), whether self proclaimed or not. The fact that the frontier U.S. citizens battled the "fictional "(as you say) tribe for several decades bear this out, as does the very Chickamauga Wars (1776-1794) article you cite. Nothing fictional about that.
    As is mentioned in the article, the tribe (yes it was a tribe, with its own elected chiefs) did not stay specifically Cherokee —taking in others —including other Native Americans, blacks, Tories, and even euro-Americans. As such, there was an obvious (to me) need to address the Chickamauga People, not just the wars they were noted for in standard American histories. I wrote the article to fill a void I noted while editing other articles, as is the Wikipedia way, not to "prop-up" (as you say) anything. While I was editing other articles, I was surprised to find that the Chickamauga were, indeed, originally an off-shoot of the Cherokee, a point I had either missed in my history lessons or that was ignored by historians. I wrote the article to fill in this gap of knowledge —one that I am sure I was not the only one to have missed. I have given facts in the article, and have not attempted any subterfuge, or in any way attempted to claim the Chickamauga tribe was anything other than what the article says it was.
    The accusation you make that "the same editor made changes to at least one other article aiming at the goal (Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee)" makes me wonder how you arrived at this ability to read minds? The changes I have made to that article were to correct factual errors regarding the Chickamauga section as was then written (this can be seen on the discussion page and history for that article) and have nothing to do with this article. (See: Talk:Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee#Principal Chief as opposed to "leader".)
    By the way, there are still several groups (as listed in the article) that currently claim descendancy from the band. Who are we to judge how they identity themselves?
    If you require more citations, tag it as such, and let me and others take a shot at beefing the article up; but deleting it is total overkill. GenQuest (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have your shot now. It's source citations where your talk page claims are time. What history books and other reliable sources document this? Cite them. So far you've cited a only self-published WWW page by one James Billy Chance, whose credentials as a genealogist and historian are unstated. Where are the historians and genealogists documenting what you claim? Point to them. Now. Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Cherokee referred to by the white frontiersmen as the "Chickamauga" were never a seperate tribe from the Cherokee at any time. Dragging Canoe himself met with the national council at Ustanali on more than one occasion or sent his representatives, sometimes John Watts. After Dragging Canoe's death, his brother Little Owl attended a memorial for him at Ustanali. In the Penelope Allen manuscript in the archives at Chattanooga-Hamilton County Bicentennial Library, one of the Moravian Brethren reports that he asked Richard Fields, who fought under Dragging Canoe and John Watts, about what kind of people the Chickamauga were, Fields replied, "They are Cherokee, and we know no difference." The spurious idea that there was any difference that's so popular nowadays abut a seperate "Chickamauga" tribe began with John P. Brown in the late 1930's. The groups that list themselves so are already listed on the page for unrecognized groups. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason for creating a seperate article "Chickamauga Indian" using, for the most part, information culled from other Wikipedia articles is to try establishing that such a tribe existed. It is apparent that this is your intent from direction of the changes you made to the Principal Chiefs article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, the groups you list as Chickamauga in the article date as no earlier than the passage of the Indian Gaming Act, most of them much later. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know any of that? Cite your sources that document this knowledge of Chickamauga that you are claiming. Uncle G (talk)
  - Do you need a lecture on the impossibility of proving a negative? It's a positive assertion that needs to be proved. But since you are asking, see Chickamauga Wars (1776-1794). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You didn't assert negatives, you made several, positive and concrete, assertions. I ask you again, since you are as bad at this as GenQuest. What are your sources for your several assertions, above? Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, the article is not a candidate for deletion although it could certainly be improved with better sourcing and referencing. I suggest that those who have reservations add their comments to the talk page. There must be a very large number of new WP articles that bear similarities to existing articles, as is the case in any encyclopedia. But this is not a sufficient reason for deletion. - Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not alone, in and of itself, but the fact that no such tribe as the "Chickamauga" ever existed is grounds for its deletion. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the word "Chickamauga"--and the Cherokee name for which it is directly derived, Tsikimagi, do NOT mean "River of Blood". That bit of misinformation first appeared when the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park was first opened in the 1890's. The word isn't even Cherokee, it's either western Muskogean or Algonquin. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will echo Uncle G's request that either side provide reliable sources for their assertions. I will also emphasize that this AfD is NOT the place to discuss whether the "Chickamauga" "tribe" "really" "exists". The claim that "there is no such thing as a Chickamauga" is beside the point, but on the other hand, so far I don't see that any reliable sources have been identified to support the page. Verifiability, not truth, is the watchword here: not whether the subject is "true", but whether it is sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the standards of verifiability you mention, it is a verifiable fact that the Melungeons are descended from Carthaginian sailors. I do know where I can find documentation, including court records, to support that. It is not, however, true. As for documentation, I've already recommended Chickamauga Wars (1776-1794). I suggest you go there, read, and note the extensive sources and citations. Or, I suppose I could copy the whole thing and paste it here. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the only alternative yet proposed is deletion. Although not all of the publications of Facts on File have impressed me, the firm seems reputable and its eleven-volume Encyclopedia of American History (2003) does not seem something that should be dismissed lightly. For the item Chickamaugan Nation, the index of this encyclopedia points the reader to four articles within its third volume (which covers the period 1761–1812). I only looked up one of these references and this does not clearly say that there was a "Chickamaugan Nation", although it seems to imply that there was (according to my very hazy notion of what "nation" means in this context). For all I know one of the other three articles may say that the notion that there was any "Chickamaugan Nation" is mistaken; I don't think that I need to look, given that WP writes up Reptilians, Tooth fairy, Xenu, and miscellaneous other tosh (and rightly so) in addition to historical fact. ¶ I know nothing about the personal motivations, if any, of anybody who has commented above, and I am surprised by the certainty with which such motivations are inferred and the vehemence of certain remarks. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS AND NEVER HAS BEEN A TRIBE OF INDIANS CALLED THE CHICKAMAUGA. Since I have more than once provided a link to an article that should make that evident yet no one has bothered to read it, I am reproducing the enitre relevant portions here, complete with in-line citations and reference list. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Read:[reply]

I have deleted this. Link to it. Don't think of readding it; doing so would be disruptive. ¶ Putting an assertion in FULL CAPITALS does not add to its effectiveness. ¶ Reptilians, Xenu and the tooth fairy have never existed, yet Wikipedia has articles about them. ¶ You have not commented on the use in a recent, large encyclopedia of the term "Chickamaugan Nation". -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support Hoary's action in deleting Chuck Hamilton's inappropriate reproduction of the entire contents of another article. Again, this AfD is not about whether the Chickamauaga Tribe actually existed, the question is whether the subject is a notable topic. (This is the same point that arose at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls, another AfD about a topic of disputed existence in which Chuck Hamilton participated.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the tenth time I've had this argument. I repeat, there is not and never was a tribe called the Chickamauga, not ever. "Chickamauga" is merely a convenient label frontiermen used to distinguish the militant Cherokee from the non-militant Cherokee, so-called after the central town of the new settlements called Chickamauga, which lay in the modern Brainerd Hills-Brainerd Heights area of what is now Chattanooga, Tennessee. Later they were called Lower Cherokee, not because they came from the original Lower Towns (most of those inhabitants had relocated to north and central Georgia) but because after their move west from their original base of operations there first settlements were known in the frontier settlements as the "Five Lower Towns". The historian John P. Brown is the originator of the idea that such a thing existed; with that exception his book on the subject is excellent and usually reliable. After passage of the Indian Gaming Act in the '70's several groups cropped up all over the country of white people claiming to be "Chickamauga"; an abundance of like groups suddenly appeared once it was legal for Indians to have gambling establishments on their lands. More groups calling themselves Chickamauga appeared in the '90's. The reason there are so many who claim to be "Chickamauga" is that they feel they can claim to be descended from Cherokee who stayed behind after removal to continue resistance. In fact, is was the leaders of the former Chickamauga/Lower Cherokee who were the strongest advocates of removal. Everything these these groups claim is pseudohistorical and an embarassment for Wikipedia to endorse. The historical information in this article is already covered entirely and much more extensively in Chickamauga Wars (1776-1794) and the rest, the so-called Chickamauga tribes, was culled from the List of unrecognized tribes. These "Chickamauga" groups are no more notable than any of the other fake Indians in the second article. Chuck Hamilton (talk)

Thank you for your calm and informative response. If groups of people did indeed pop up in the 90s with deluded or cynical claims that they were "Chickamauga" (an assertion that would need sourcing), then this might be encyclopedic. Where would it go? Not in the article that you referred to, but perhaps in this one. WP does not "endorse" the ways of thinking that it describes; on "racial" matters, see for example its calm summary (when not vandalized) of historically significant twaddle in "Negroid race". -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first article on the Chickamauga as a tribe that I've recommended for deletion, and the other times were all successful. All these groups are listed in List of unrecognized tribes, along with hundreds of other such entities claiming American Indian/Native American identity, and that is all the notability they have. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs lots of sourcing work, whatever the outcome of that may be. Whether or not this is an historic root tribe of Cherokees, the topic is straightforwardly notable if only because there are so many claims to Chickamauga tribal background, however meaningful such claims might be. As an aside, the notion of European-Americans claiming ancestral kin within a tribal branch of what is now called the Cherokee nation isn't startling, many Cherokees melded more or less smoothly into the European-American population early on and a lot more European-Americans have Cherokee ancestors than is widely known. As for List of unrecognized tribes, "recognition" by government bureaucrats or politicians is fairly meaningless. Sources have sway and these need not be from peer-reviewed anthropological or historical journals so much as those which are reliable as to reporting that such claims are being made, which seems quite verifiable and notable, even somewhat widespread. If there is any sourced criticism of such claims, citing it would also be helpful to readers. That any of this may/could have something to do with market outcomes owing to sundry tribal casino laws makes this topic even more notable, not less. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant fact are this: the historical material in the article Chickamauga Indian is repetitious of that elsewhere within Wikipedia; i.e., there is no reason for a lengthy article Chickamauga Wars (1776-1794) and one that amounts to a summary of it, Chickamauga Indian, unless, perhaps, there actually WAS such a tribe, which there was not. Also, the so-called Chickamauga pseudo-tribes in the article are no more notable than any other in List of unrecognized tribes and do not deserve special recognition. Also, "As for List of unrecognized tribes, "recognition" by government bureaucrats or politicians is fairly meaningless"...a legally unsupportable statement and one in conflict with Wikipedia policy on the matter which is that actual tribes are those recognized by the federal government. No, Gwen, reality is not whatever you say it is, reality is what reality is. It doesn't conform to individual fantasy and whims which too many of we Americans seem to be fond of, for example, how seriously the film Birth of a Nation was taken as history, leading to the foundation of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we can agree that Americans are inveterate fantasists. (Here as in so many other ways, they resemble the populations of other nations.) A significant number of them believe in Xenu, etc etc; I venture to guess that neither you nor Gwen does; I certainly don't (I'd never heard of it till I used Xenu's Link Sleuth), and neither does anyone in the reality-based community; but cultists do believe in it to a degree that's significant (or at least amusing) outside the cult, and therefore it gets an article. Now, you have asserted above that After passage of the Indian Gaming Act in the '70's several groups cropped up all over the country of white people claiming to be "Chickamauga"; an abundance of like groups suddenly appeared once it was legal for Indians to have gambling establishments on their lands. More groups calling themselves Chickamauga appeared in the '90's. The reason there are so many who claim to be "Chickamauga" is that they feel they can claim to be descended from Cherokee who stayed behind after removal to continue resistance. You thereby made the claim to be "Chickamauga" seem significant within the murky world of fleecing fools. The suitability of such material for "Chickamauga Wars (1776-1794)" is not obvious to me. Have a significant number of people ("white" or other) claimed to be "Chickamauga" or haven't they? If they have, sourcing would help; if they haven't, I wonder why you brought this up. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A mere twenty-one groups out of literally hundreds like them but fraudulently claiming the identities of other tribes? No, not so much, not really. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I read this last night, didn't understand it; woke up and read it this morning, and still don't understand it. Perhaps you could rephrase it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There are 21 groups claiming "Chickamauga" as some part of their name. There are hundreds of other groups attempting to rip off the identities of hundreds of other "non-Chickamauga" tribes or likewise inventing fictitious tribes from whom to be descended. The 21 are much less than notable. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you; I understand now. I'm surprised that 21 groups would claim this or that Amerindian (or pseudo-Amerindian) word/name as part of their own name. The recent demise of Joe Miller reminds me of tea parties; there are (I think) only two American groups calling themselves that. -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn -- but consensus that article needs to be torn down and rewritten from scratch--Hnsampat (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lumbergh

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

The article is 100% plot summary and contains no real-world information or evidence of real-world notability, other than being the primary antagonist of a notable film. Previous AfD contained claims of notability that were never backed up or had WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments. Absolutely no need to have a separate article for this one character. Hnsampat (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As asserted by many in the first AfD, Lumbergh is an iconic character, and a real article could be written about him. He's become a stock character in management texts (see all the hits at Google Books [7] for examples) and he is invoked frequently in the media (see the many hits at Google News [8] for examples). However, I agree that the current article does very little of this, other than presenting a couple of quotes. This discussion reminds me of the recent AfD we had about a similarly plot-heavy article about Mr. Potter from It's a Wonderful Life, and I come out in a similar place--keep the article but strip it down and start rebuilding. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article currently has 2 non-trivial and 1 trivial independent RS references (one masquerading as an EL to NPR), and thus passes the GNG. No argument raised by the nominator requires deletion; any deficiency in the article can be remedied through the editing process. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator - I went ahead and significantly pared down the article per the discussion above. Based on the arguments presented thus far, I think I agree that perhaps drastic editing and sourcing is the best approach for this article and not deletion. I originally thought that this character was not notable enough to merit his own article, especially since all other Office Space character articles simply redirect to Office Space, but I think a good case can be made for keeping this article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shining (novel) . Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Hotel

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

Unreferenced in-universe article about the hotel featured in The Shining. Individual subject is not notable, and all pertinent information related to the hotel in the works of fiction is covered in The Shining (novel), The Shining (film) and related articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with Sottolacqua's rationale here, but I would prefer a redirect to The Shining (novel) since the term is evidently a logical search term (the article gets many thousands of page views each month), there are more than a dozen links to this article from other articles, and a quick review suggests that there might be shard or two of useful material in there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google books and scholar links above, and you'll find plenty of sourcing. It's remotely possible that the sum total isn't enough, but not likely and proving that is the responsibility of the nominator in any case. What's clear is that redirection or merging is also not a preferred outcome, because the hotel appears in both a book and movie, so there's no clear unified merge target. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—A fictional location appearing in both a movie and a novel are not valid reasons to keep. Sottolacqua (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you deliberately ignoring the major part of that rationale, which is that plenty of sources analysing this plot element exist? They certainly appear to. I did those searches and found ISBN 9780299209742 pp. 96, ISBN 9781557420701 pp. 54, ISBN 9780930261146 pp. 64–65 and several places in ISBN 9780313352287, just for starters. What effort did you put in to looking for sources for an unsourced article? If it was no effort at all, as it certainly seems to be given your complete lack of response here to someone pointing out that sources can be found with a search engine, then that was wrong, and not in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Policy requires that no sources exist from which an article can be written, not that an article doesn't cite any sources. If you didn't even look to see what sources existed, then you didn't put policy into action correctly, and you certainly cannot claim that your deletion rationale has a policy-based foundation. Put the effort in to look for sources and write without mercy. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then come play with us Odd for this to be here, since I am watching it now on Netflix while editing. That is a spooky coincidence. So, reference better, there appear to be hundreds of references between the news archive and the books online. While there is no single reference work on the topic, the reviews of the book, and movie, and tv series all devote material to the hotel itself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Your reason is WP:ILIKEIT. Clearly not a valid reason to keep. Sottolacqua (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Xe didn't actually given a reason at all. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia national under-17 football team

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

I almost speedied this as an A1. I really have no idea what this article is trying to be about. It consists of an ambiguous title, a small table of statistics (which are all zero), and an improperly configured infobox. It appears to be a statistics list for a national teenager football season that hasn't even started yet. I think it can safely be deleted. SnottyWong ^babble 17:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of content. However, I don't see the problem with the title. Georgia (U.S. state) is not an entity that can have national teams, so it must refer to Georgia (country). And football in the context of Georgia (country) must be association football, not American football or another football code. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my recommendation to neutral because the article has since been improved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs improving, not deleting. Name is fine as well, it meets standard conventions. Giant Snowman 21:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm with Snowman on this. I'll agree that the article is poorly written, but the subject is quite clearly notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is about a European country's national under-17 association football team, just like all the others in Category:European national under-17 association football teams. The table refers to the 2011 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship elite round, a qualification tournament for the 2011 U-17 championship, which will kick off in March (hence the zeroes). Per current convention the title is not an issue (see Georgia national football team) and if the two potentially ambiguous words are a problem ("Georgia" and "football") the matter should be taken elsewhere. The article has potential for expansion, perhaps by adding something about Georgia U-17's record in previous European championships and a squad list. Timbouctou 21:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable, and the article seems to have been significantly improved which hopefully satisfies the nominator's concerns. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome 2 Venice

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. All references are Myspace. SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found one semi-review here and even that's not much more than a track list. Otherwise the album has not graduated beyond the social networking sites used by its own compilers for promotion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of SCUBA magazines

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

I tagged this article for help almost two years ago and not a thing has been done, and the reason is quite clear. This article is a spamhole: removing all the links that fail our guidelines and keeping the entries with Wikipedia articles would leave a "list" of two entries. As it is currently standing, this page needs to be deleted as we are not a repository for external links, nor do we function as a directory. Them From Space 17:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a classic WP:LINKFARM: very little encyclopedic value, with no prospect for ever having any (and I've looked several times for entries that might be notable). Only purpose seems to be to maintain an ever-growing list of links to external sites. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete kind of amazing that there are this many of them, but this is definitely an external link farm. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-League 2010-2011 Players Statistics

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

Wikipedia is not for excessive lists of statistics. This is excessive and I'm not aware of a precedent for a list like this. Also, it is completely unreferenced. SnottyWong ^confess 17:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This is a quite clearly excessive list of stats. Useful information, and there isn't much of it, should be merged 2010–11 I-League, club, and player articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Christmas number one singles (UK). Courcelles 18:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas number two singles in the UK

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

With the number one list featured there is really no need for this article to exist. It's almost like a "not-quite" inclusion. f o x 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of records reaching no. 2 is a different list to those reaching no. 1. On a similar basis, should all people receiving silver and bronze medals at the Olympics be removed? This subject is often asked in quizzes, games etc. - and can be a source for settling arguments with friends, colleagues. Annabelle1976 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really for an encyclopedia, though, is it? This ain't IMDB or allmusic. f o x 19:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly inappropriate topic. #1 singles are important by definition, but #2, #3, #39, #112, whatever aren't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: in any other case, a list of number twos would not be noteworthy, but this is the Christmas chart (which, for the past three years, has been the subject of intense media speculation), and the fact that bookmakers started taking bets on this market indicate there is enough public interest in the topic that may translate to notability (which the Telegraph article seems to convey too). Sceptre ^(talk) 23:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they take money on the number two? f o x 23:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they do. Paddy Power and other bookies are taking odds now on number 2 and have done for a few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleslaw (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Boleslaw (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How bizarre. f o x 00:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not really; after the third X-Factor series, reality shows were assumed to have such a lock on the spot that bookmakers thought it'd be more profitable to take bets on the runner-up instead. It's a common practice with bookies, especially in Britain, to run "without the favourite" markets. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aye, I know, "without the big four"'s a popular one in sports betting. But we don;t have an article on 'what season x would look like if there were no big four', do we? Seems daft to keep this for the same reason. f o x 11:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Because for most sports markets, this can be inferred from the normal season articles. For example, there's a "without the big four" market for the Premier League (Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool) which can be easily found for last year; i.e. for last year, the article makes it clear it would've been Spurs. So any article for these other without-the-favourite markets, they'd be quickly merged... but probably not for this article. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This list shows many of the songs that have come to be recognised as "greatest hits" of Christmas, and, because the race for Christmas number 1 is highly publicised each year, it is noteable who came second in that race, because the comparison between the two lists shows to the reader the vagaries of the record buying public. It does this much more effectively than a list of number 1s alone. It is inherently interesting, given the highly noteable acts at Christmas number 2, and is noteable. The Chrismas week is almost always the highest single selling week in the year, so a list of number 2s gives a much better idea of the UK's music taste each year than number 1s alone, which so often have been highly marketed "gimmick" records. Boleslaw (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're basically saying "Keep because not all the entries are them off X Factor"? Seems a bit petty. f o x 01:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There's a bit of an arbitrary line to draw here, but if the bookies are taking odds on this, I think I can assume the Christmas no, 2 is getting enough attention to scrape notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Christmas number one singles (UK). I accept that the #2 spot is of interest, but the interest is purely derivative of the #1 spot (by definition!) so it's best to merge. TiC (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Merge? And make a Featured List twice as long (and therefore twice as clumsy?) f o x 10:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only 62 items in the current list, and anyway there are

technical measures

available if desired. TiC (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree that this could be merged with UK christmas number 1s, with a chart shoeing the Christmas number 1 and 2 each year, as those who are interested in Christmas number 2 each year will almost certainly be interested in the Christmas number 1 for that year. I don't know how to do this with the article though. Boleslaw (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Maybe instead of having the Christmas number two singles in the UK, have the Christmas Top 10 singles or Top 5 singles in the UK? --SATURDAYmight. (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 December (film)

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

Cit helper (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would help if you state why this article should be deleted. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This film has not yet been released and has no listing in the Internet Movie Database yet. While future films may qualify as notable before release under WP:NOTFILM, the only source cited in this article has insufficient information to justify creating an article yet. The article can be re-created in the future once more information has been located to indicate that this movie is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the nominator's incomplete nomination. I believe this one may go per WP:TOOSOON and be recreated if/when it begins production and gets coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus reached on the separate question of whether to rename, but that's of course best taken up at the article Talk Page. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of kidney stone formers

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

Lists of disease victims are perhaps notable when it is a dominating factor in their lives, and yes, years ago kidney stones were a major problem. These days, not so much (not that I'm planning on having any, mind you). I think this could be better served by inclusion in the main article of particularly notable cases (e.g. Giovanni Gabrieli's death) than by a "every person whom I can get out of Google" list. In any case the name of the article is questionable. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—None of the criteria mentioned are a reason to delete; in fact the nominator suggests a merge rather than a delete. The members of the list are all notable individuals and the article is solidly cited; there are even papers and lists in published books of such things. We don't just maintain lists that are relevant to the present, and kidney stones were a significant historical impactor. The main kidney stone article is huge; too large to include such a list. In short, this is a nonsensical and highly dubious nomination. (P.S. the article was recently renamed without prior debate; it was previously called "Kidney stone formers".)—RJH (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My doubts concern the notability of the intersection. I accept that there are some cases which are notable enough to be mentioned in kidney stones. However, what we have here is those plus a dose of calculus (as it were) trivia plus a lot of celebrity gossip. There are extremely few people in this list for whom kidney stones has anything to do with why they are notable; indeed, the span of the list emphasizes how common the malady is (or was). Inclusion of everyone for whom we can find some documentation that they suffered from stones is too indiscriminate a category to justify an article. Perhaps you can suggest a better title which would justify a more limited scope for inclusion. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we disagree. The notability has to do with the ailment being significantly life impacting for notable individuals. Even in the modern era where most people survive the condition, kidney stones can have a major impact. Kidney stones of some notables have even been sold at auction. Lists of notable kidney stone formers are virtually obligatory in all the literary texts I checked on the history of kidney stones; it seems very encyclopedic information to me.

Beyond that, the list as it stands now is fairly comprehensive. It's not that easy to find additional notables who have not been included here. Hence, it's fairly self-limiting.

As you agree this list has at least some members worth retaining, it might have been better to discuss this first on the article's talk page.—RJH (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then you can suggest a better name for it? "Kidney stone formers" gives me a mixed picture of people molding uric acid lumps and high school students. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name is accurate and fairly terse. List of reknowned individuals who have formed kidney stones and suffered much agony thereupon, seems a tad wordy.—RJH (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Have you even read the article and its talk page? This is the epitome of a Good Article - well-cited, worked up, edited well, with lots of information and images. It's currently rated C-class. There is no assertion that this is not notable, only that it's poorly titled. Well, folks, send that discussion to WP:Requested moves, because AfD is not the place for that. For disclosure purposes, I have had kidney stones. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was skeptical until I actually saw the list. Mangoe's concerns that kidney stones have nothing to do with why the listed people are notable are really irrelevant and I think nonsensical. Lists that this not only function as an index of people who have a shared biographical fact, regardless of whether that fact defines who they are, but in this case this list further serves to illustrate the experiences different people have had throughout history with a particular medical condition. Notable individuals are included here not because their bout with this condition was why they are notable, but because notable people are the ones who have been written about. I agree that the list's title is...odd, but I can't suggest a better one. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Well sourced, instructive and enjoyable.Racconish ^Tk 15:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Notability and Lists, this list meets our notability guidelines perfectly. The operative condition here is that the List topic (ie. Kidney stone formers) has been discussed by reliable sources as a group. Ref #7 (as I am sure others in the list) does just that. Additionally, although I agree that Kidney stone formers is at best an unfamilar and confusing phase, it is indeed mainstream. A quick google search returns a lot of hits on the phrase so a rename is not really necessary. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audio-to-visual Transcribing

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

Article initially proposed for deletion as a non-notable neologism, used exclusively by the purveyors of this particular arts instruction method, which caused the article to border on spam. Article's author (by username, assumed to be one of the creators of said instructional technique) removed prod with only the edit summary correction. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, non-notable neologism. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-gress

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

Unreferenced BLP. I can find no indication that this musician is notable; no books or news coverage. Internet presence seems to be social networking and .mp3 download sites only. pablo 15:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any indication that WP:MUSIC is met. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Biffa

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

I cannot find any coverage of this person to demonstrate the basic notability requirements for biographies. (This was previously PRODed and a reference added, but it was about his grandfather, not him and even that was not sufficient for an article) SmartSE (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Biffa. His role in the his company is certainly worth mentioning in the article about the company (and could potentially be expended), but can't find any signficant coverage about the man himself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's adequate source material to be found (I couldn't find much beyond his appearances on the Sunday Times Rich List) then material about him might be added to Biffa. But this wholly unsourced article in its present form is little better than a resume. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerşom Qiprisçi

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

Notability not established after more than year with the notability template Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DrPhosphorus (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find an sourcing in English language sources. If sources exist in other languages, they have not been applied to the article. WP:N WP:PROVEIT. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom- no sources, none likely. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no sense. David Able (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Navarro

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

Musician whose most popular song was chosen as the theme music to a beauty pageant and "won several music contests". I have been unable to find any sources that confirm that the guidelines at WP:MUSIC are met. Thanks. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing anything credible to establish notability. Gigs (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial (American band)

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

There is evidence of notability. There are no independent sources listed. The only sources are the band's MySpace page and an ITunes track listing. There is, in fact, no plausible claim of significance, and this should have been speedy-deleted under CSD A7, but the speedy deletion tag was removed by an IP editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no apparent notability whatsoever. Their only album appears to have been "released" on iTunes (and should be speedied {{db-album}} after the band is deleted). The two musicians in the band who have articles about them also appear to be completely non-notable, and I went ahead and PRODded them. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable promotion, wp:spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article about them, but on its own that would not be enough for the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. TN X Man 16:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Arzulu

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

The article fails the WP:AUTHOR guidelines. I find no matches in Google news or Google books and the only relevant matches in general searches appear to be other language wikis. He may be famous in Azerbaijan and unheard of internationally, however some quality sources would be required and my searches reveal little prospect of improvement in the near future even accounting for WP:BIAS. PROD quickly removed, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete All the article tells us is his name and that he "is Azerbaijan", presumably meaning that he is Azerbaijani, neither of which is a claim of significance by any stretch of the imagination. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aflitunov Albert Ptolemy

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

Not sure if this is a non-notable person or a hoax. The only ref is a link to an as yet unused web sub domain. I can't find any reliable sources, academic journals or frankly anything that doesn't look like self promotion/publication. The same applies to the two bodies he is founder of. NtheP (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Seems a likely hoax. Google ain't never heard of him. He is known in academic circles as a co-founder of The World Intellectual Movement, a founder of The World Intellectual Elite Union(WIEU), The World Platonist's Academy of Sciences and Arts(WPASA), since 1994 President of WIEU and WPASA. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's not a hoax -- and it sure reads like one -- it's not notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His seemingly self-awarded titles and accomplishments fail WP:V as there is no record of them in reliable third-party publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a hoax and there is nothing to suggest that in reality this is not one. Nergaal (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aroa Fine Chocolate

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

non notable company, only reference makes no mention of article subject WuhWuzDat 13:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. One Ghit news ref is a review of a Boston shop which doesn't mention the subject of the article and the one Ghit book ref is to a Fodor's travel guide for the shop in Boston named after the chocolate. Neither of these are appropriate references on which to base an article. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no sources. looking at yelp, it appears to be a small bakery that was never very popular and has now gone out of business. extransit (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CRAPPs

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

Non-notable award created as something of an in-joke between the British public relations community and the British press. The extent of coverage can only be attributed to two facts: 1. journalists are involved, so they will blog about the event; and 2. public relations firms are involved, so they will get the media machines moving to provide coverage. However, as only a single "award event" has occurred, it is unlikely this award will have any historical significance. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an 'in-joke', it is a light-hearted way to highlight something prominent in both industries (the often fractious issue of media relations) - not entirely dissimilar to the Golden Raspberries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Raspberry_Award. The fact that it is an essentially closed 'industry-only' award scheme should not detract from its significance - as the British Press Awards show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Press_Awards.

I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind the fact that journalists and PRs are involved, hence it 'will' produce coverage. We are asked to prove notability through authority sources - not provide rationale behind said authority mentions. The awards are to return next year and continue as an annual event.

How do you propose we move forward with the page?

Thanks Goodandbadpr (talk)

Comment Please refer to WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that this event generated a burst of topical coverage does not indicate long term notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for citing that Wikipedia page for my attention. I do not agree, though, that a one month sustained period of publicity is a 'burst'. Next year, when the awards return, there will be the same reaction by the media. I feel it is an opinionated reaction to the awards that concludes that they are not notable, rather than looking subjectively at the fact that they gained a sustained period of authority interest.

Movember - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movember - is an example of a month long campaign that gains significant coverage during the month - something that does not make it any less notable.

Goodandbadpr (talk)

Comment The difference, of course, being that the Movember movement has been active for six years now, whereas the Crapps have only been awarded once. Lots of awards get presented once, and forgotten by the next year. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But that does not make it any less notable in the long term - where The CRAPPs will be awarded annually. I don't feel that helps us come to any sort of conclusion with regards to the entry. If we can't agree - and I feel that I'm genuinely countering within Wikipedia rules - I would very much like other admins to both review the page and this deletion page.

Goodandbadpr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete or Userfy. If the CRAPPs do run as an annual event and get a decent amount of media coverage each year, we might be able to consider an article then. But Wikipedia is for things that are notable now, not things that might be notable in the future. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can we call an event that was inaugurated this year an annual event. There is absolutely no guarantee that they will run next year. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you userfy, it doesn't matter. If it does become an annual event as intended, we can consider putting the article back. If it doesn't, it's no great loss for some text to sit in someone's userspace. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your looking at this Chris. You're right, there is no guarantee although it is absolutely the intention for The CRAPPs to be annual. But you can surely appreciate that it is notable now - especially - having just had the winners announced? I am concerned that even if it does return next year, is even more popular than this year and gains the same amount of, or more, coverage than this year, it may be said that two campaigns don't make it 'notable'. It is then still in your court - where you could argue the number of years it would have to be active as an annual award to be 'notable'. I feel that, given the provided references to authority mentions proving its current notability and prominence within the industry, the awards at least deserve to be allowed an entry this year.

Goodandbadpr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABaCUS College Of Engineering,Guindy

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

I am proposing this article for deletion because

The entire second paragraph appears to be copied from this.
The first paragraph is merely information transcribed from the lead paragraph of an earlier version of the main atricle.

I feel the article should not be merged because it is a non notable snippet of information, more akin to a press release/advertisement. (See line "With amazing opportunities and a huge prize chest on offer, aBaCUS is already proving to be an event which is looked forward to by every student related to the field of Computer Science.").
This is merely one event for a department of the college. The college has about 35 such departments, making the addition of details of each dept's event unnecessary and un-encyclopedic. The main article already has a list of such events here, and passing mentions of these are more than sufficient. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 12:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CEG has numerous departments and each one has an annual technical symposium. Abacus is one of the biggest among them, but that doesn't make it notable. Usually there is no secondary coverage for these events except brief mentions in the local editions and educational supplements (that they are happening). At best it merits a single line mention in the main article--Sodabottle (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per • Gene93k - without merging.--Kudpung (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean delete per Sodabottle? Salih (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sodabottle Srikanth (Logic) 19:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Antonellis

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

The article fails to address WP:BIO. Being a president of technical operations is no guarantee of encyclopaedic notability. The most used quote from Antonellis has been about copyright but previous non-neutral text claiming to be "one of" the industries leaders on this issue is not supported by definitive sources and it seems unlikely that sustained impact on the historic record will be demonstrable in the near future. Previous maintenance template for notability deleted and so pragmatically skipping a PROD and raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found several newspaper articles about the subject, discussing her in much detail; See the Daily Variety's "DARCY ANTONELLIS, exec VP, distribution and technology operations, Warner Bros. Technical Operations; senior VP, worldwide antipiracy operations, Warner Bros. Entertainment" and "Warner Bros. technical ops ups two exex", along with The Daily News of Los Angeles' "NEWEST WB HERO REAL PIRATE FIGHTER". I will attempt to rewrite the article now. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After much wailing, gnashing of teeth and going "OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE" (see the edit history) I think I've resolved any notability and spam problems. Two emmy awards, a string of high-profile appointments and a Society Fellowship seems to qualify one for notability - particularly when backed up by reliable sources. Ironholds (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - With the new sources for awards added by Ironholds, I suggest this AfD can be safely closed. Fæ (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Sexual harassment lawsuit. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly sexual harassment lawsuit

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

Failed WP:N Soxwon (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lawsuit plainly satisfies WP:N. There are many, many articles, chapters in books, and so forth dedicated to the topic. It has received coverage for a long stretch of time, too. Croctotheface (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary WP:UNDUE weight given to a scandal. What is in the main article is a paragraph in length, which is a sufficient summary of the matter. Remember that we're not here to debate the tired canards of "its reliably sourced!" and whatnot. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:POVFORK. THF (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search of Google Books for o'reilly mackris harassment indicates that there has been quite a bit written in reliable books, so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem to apply and the notability criterion is met. *** Crotalus *** 21:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because books like "I Hate O'Reilly" and "The man who won't shut up" are obviously neutral and totally one-hundred percent fact driven. Soxwon (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the other 48 books? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced, it's got lots of history, the people are real and notable, but I see no reason why this should be an article in its own right. Do the logical thing, and merge it into Billo's article. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 10:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two keeps, three deletes, one merge, so six !votes, which is a fairly decent turnout for an AFD, but it's just not a real high-quality discussion. Can we get some more commentary? Thanks. Courcelles 10:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh Sure it could be merged into Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator), but it would be totally valid to then split it off in to a new article per WP:SPLIT. However the article is quite short, and I'm not sure much more could be written, so it might be WP:UNDUE to retain it. It's one of those borderline cases. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm no fan of O'Reilly, but I don't see a need for a separate article, and the main reason is that the O'Reilly page has had a section about the lawsuit since 2004. If it appeared that there was a problem of fans trying to erase mention of anything negative from Bill O'Reilly's article, that might be different, but a review of the history says otherwise. Wikipedia is more of a "no spin zone" than the O'Reilly Factor. The other consideration is that there isn't much more information here than there is in the O'Reilly article. Bottom line is that she sued him, and there was a large settlement, the terms of which remained confidential, and there are links that "inquiring minds" can follow to learn more. Mandsford 13:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to include information in main article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meerge to the article about O'Reilly. The present section in the article leaves out important details that numerous reliable sources have included, such as the expressed longings relating to the female and his "loofa" and "falafel." Edison (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that other important details can be added without the usual merge discussion and the "merge to" and "merge from" tags that get placed on the talk pages. People can argue the need for loofah fantasies and falafel code words on the talk page. Only one of the links seems to work [9] and its already at Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)#sexual harassment lawsuit; the thesmokinggun.com links for loofah and falafel simply lead to today's pages [10] and [11], so someone who cares might want to fix them so that they can be added. Mandsford 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Clearly a sub-topic page. The subject is sufficiently notable.—RJH (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in all the biographies, and too big for the main article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, adequately met. Merges can be always discussed later but it has no bearing in an AfD. Arguments based on WP:UNDUE make no sense, because UNDUE relates to content within an article, not to content between multiple articles. If anything, the existence of a split article helps to ease WP:UNDUE concerns in the main O'Reilly article, while allowing us to enter into the issue in detail. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Sexual harassment lawsuit. The original article is not very long, it seems it could easily cover the topic, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Sexual harassment lawsuit as per Joy. Not nearly too big for the article and nice compromise between deleting and keeping. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul PDub Walton

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

Despite an impressive array of 'technical' credits as a sound engineer, I cannot find any evidence that this person meets WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. I'd appreciate your thoughts, thanks. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 10:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 10:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I made a couple of searches online, and can't find any reliable sources -- mostly inhouse sheets, fora, linkedin, and the like on Google and Bing. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Farahani

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. I couldn't find any reliable source for him in Persian. Farhikht (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Farhikht (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and unsourced. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know about sources in Persian, but the Google News archive search linked in the nomination finds some reliable sources in English. The question is whether these constitute significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't think there's significant coverage here, but my preference would be to redirect the article, to Islamic Iran Participation Front or some other suitable target. Ray^Talk 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meade Emory

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

This article of a recently dead person is quite simply a Scientology-related WP:COATRACK. Proded, but contested by User:Cirt.

The individual is not notable. The bio tries to pad out anything approaching notability (including putting nice but cliched remarks from obituaries in the lead) to justify the article - in order to have somewhere to put the Scientology bit.

Looking at the facts:

Fails WP:PROF. He was a professor at Washington school of law, and wrote a couple of articles in journals. That's just typical.
He was the first president of the Seattle Chamber Music Festival. If you check the source, you'll find him mentioned once - and although he was the first president, he was not the initiator of the enterprise. Our article on this local group of concerts rightly doesn't even mention him.

Now to the Scientology stuff.

He was not a Scientologist - so the link is weak.
The obituaries on which the article's notability is based DO NOT EVEN SEE FIT TO MENTION IT!
One book (a recored of US tax cases) [12] lists him as one of five people who founded and "incorporated" the non-profit, which holds some of Hubbard's copyrights. That leaves his involvement unclear - was he acting simply in a legal capacity, a tax advisor, or just for profit? How long was he involved?
The Scientologist (so not a disinterested source) makes clear that the CST is not a religious body. Only really of any note because it came into the possession of some L.Ron Hubbard's copyrights.

Some of this stuff may belong on other articles, none of it justifies a biography.Scott Mac 09:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His main "claim to fame" in the article is sourced by a website run by people in Free Zone (Scientology), who are Scientologists who reject the official Church of Scientology. This is hardly a neutral or reliable source. As the nominator said the article, and this source as well, seem to be using Professor Emory as a "coatrack" for conspiracy theories. He does seem to have been a somewhat distinguished person, although probably not up to the level of WP notability. If the article is kept the information on his minor connection to Scientology should be removed since it is not covered in any depth by any reliable secondary sources. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with comment - as rewriter. The nomination is flawed, as is the above. However the article may have started, the subject's main claim to notability is not the scientology matter which is fringe to his biography. It is not his academic status and legal accomplishments either (lawyers, tax advisors and professors are ten a penny, so are local festivals and their board). It is the recognition in reliable sources that he was considered a significant individual in the life of Seattle. Very few people comparatively get an obituary in a mainstream newspaper (Seattle Times), that is a good sign his life was noticed by the wider world. Being a lawyer, professor, and tax expert does not get an major paper obituary. Not many get a second obituary authored in these kinds of terms by this kind of individual. The conclusion is that he was noticed for real by the wider world, and he gained significant attention in multiple reliable sources independent of him as a result of this - classic WP:GNG. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, no. This is a coatrack on a (at best) marginally notable person that has existed for POV purposes since its creation five years ago. Throughout that five years it has had badly sourced information on a (then) living person - maintained by Wikipedians with agendas. In five years no one has challanged that or cleaned up the article. You now want to argue that because of a few local obituaries we should keep the article? What? So we can under-maintain it for another five years? Experience has shown we can't maintain this. Evidence shows it is remotely notable at best. The sensible thing is to delete it as being too insignificant to be maintained properly on Wikipedia. It is time for us to allow marginal stuff like this to go. We can't maintain it, and it can be abused - and in this case we haven't maintained it and it has been abused. Strong delete - a few obituaries isn't enough.--Scott Mac 18:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. An article's origins don't carry weight. It's irrelevant whether an article was started as a neutral page, self-promotion, or coatrack. If the topic subject meets our criteria for inclusion and sources we clean up and include it, if they don't we delete it.

"This article started as a coatrack long ago" is not a reason to delete.
I like/don't like scientology is not a reason.
"It gets edit warred" is a very poor reason, for extreme cases only, and often the reason it was edit warred was that it was badly written. A rewrite often fixes that. We don't delete just because of possible warring. (Also noting its page history this article was not edit warred much if at all, ie no evidence of a maintenance issue)
"A few local obituaries" does not characterize the evidence. The obits in this case are both good evidence of the exact spirit of WP:GNG - that the subject was noticed in the truest sense by the wider world, where most were not.

Leaving it there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, that the origins of an article ought to be irrelevant. However, five years of experience says this is unmaintainable due to its low level of interest. It is quite simply irresponsible to keep an article in view of that, and unnecessary at this low level of notability and interest.--Scott Mac 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "unmaintainable". It wasn't highly edited, which is the same as most articles. It was poorly written then left in that state and there wasn't much editing or edit warring so it stayed in a poor state. Now it's fixed. But it was never a contentious edit warred article. Just never properly checked out and written. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PROFESSOR, the subject has been a professor and academic at multiple institutions, with influential published works. Passes WP:NOTE, subject has received significant coverage from multiple WP:RS secondary sources. Excellent work by FT2 (talk · contribs) to research, source, and improve the article. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. His academic credentials were high caliber but I can't see our criteria being met. (Which criterion were you thinking that he meets?) WP:GNG is the key here, not academic and not scientology coatracks. His ordinary life, and the significant evidence of exceptional notice being taken of it by the wider uninvolved world was the key. That notice was not due to his academic skills or any cult coatrack, but due to his activities in Seattle culture and society. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of compiling his additional publications. -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we do not need more Scientology coatracks. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the scientology sentence was removed, it wouldn't change his meeting WP:GNG. I think scientology's a minor and red herring here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - In the midst of doing some additional research. Meade Emory contributed multiple articles to The New York Times. Over 30 results for secondary sources showing up in LexisNexis. -- Cirt (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added some additional secondary sources to the article, as well as expanded the list of a sampling of the subject's published works. See this version. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, per his activities, writings, positions, and coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too much about far too little here. It's a strained attempt at an anti-scientology coatrack, and that's about it. (The only "source" making the sceintology connection is "Tax Notes Today" a trade publication.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're writing a biography of someone, and the obit in a taxation journal (of all things) says that's what he was probably "most widely known for" in his profession, it might just be worth noting without being a "coatrack"? If there is a coatrack issue, can you point it out and let's fix it. But that's content not notability. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What it's saying is he was involved in a court case that got a flurry of publicity. So if he was known by the general public for anything at all it might have been that. Of course, he wasn't known for that. And how do we know? No one, anywhere, outside from the scientology obsessives, has ever seen fit to comment on it. This man lived a fairly private life, the obits should be allowed to speak for themselves, without the wikipedia defamation machine wielded by a few priviledged editors allowed to grind on over the living and the dead. The whole thing is sickening. I just paid a visit to List of Scientologists and I want to hurl. Are there any grownups left in this place?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Set your personal "hurl" aside (not salient here). This is an obituary, written nearly 20 years after the "flurry of publicity", and it's in a tax journal written by taxation professionals not media hacks or "scientology obsessives". And this obit, written in 2010, says of his professional career, that his work as a tax lawyer for scientology organizations (1980's and 1990s?) was what he was most widely known for. Other sources (IRS included) also make clear he was not a scientologist. Nobody here is trying to say that he was one.

Regardless of any editor's personal views, and regardless how many articles are coatracks, this appears to be the rare case that is genuine - someone who was noticed for their social involvement and life in Seattle, and also noticed by fellow professionals for their professional work with a contentious client organization. We might not endorse scientology but I can imagine its tax exempt status would be a major case as seen by fellow professional tax lawyers. As a reliable source this obituary confirms that they did see it that way. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After all that rewriting, the main source remains a paid advertisement in the memorials section; the second-most important source is a blog entry. There'd be nothing but a stub if it was removed as it should. Even searching the blogs, his death went completely unnoticed by the specialized tax blogs and normal RS. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR for writing quickly outdated books on specialized legal subjects. This seems to fall pretty much under WP:NOT unless somebody finds something I didn't find. THF (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I looked through the article and sources without looking at the ongoing scientology-related drama. Definitely does not pass WP:PROF. For criterion 7, the subject was quoted a decent number of times in newspapers, but not that much considering a career spanning 30 years. With respect to the other criteria, this article falls far short. The relevant notability guideline is then WP:GNG, which I think the article fails. Obit in the Seattle Times is good, but it looks to be of the paid variety, so not so good. crosscut.com is an interesting source that is right on the border between personal blog (not RS) and newsblog (is RS). Given the lack of clearly reliable sources about the article subject, I cannot support a keep at this time. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed any evidence the Seattle Times obit was paid (ie not independent) - where are you looking? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 100% clear, but the lack of a byline certainly causes me to lean towards that interpretation. A lot of newspapers are doing this sort of thing nowadays. I did a quick search and found my grandfather's obit, which was paid for and published in the Washington Post on that same website in the same format. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a statement that the obit was paid, but it looks very much like a paid one. First, at the very bottom, there is the statement that the obit was "Published in The Seattle Times from October 12 to October 14, 2010". The same obit ran for three straight days. When does a major newspaper write an obit and then run it unchanged for three days? If they thought the person was significant enough to receive three days of coverage, wouldn't they write three different stories? Second, a lot of the details seem unlikely for an official obit. For example, "He was an avid book collector, especially books about Western Americana and the Pacific Northwest". This is a private detail which doesn't describe his public life in Seattle. It seems a lot more like something that is found in a paid obit than in one written by a reporter. Because of all these extra details, the obit is long, and seems way too long for something the Times would have written. Third, the wording often seems more typical of a paid obit, such as "many beloved nieces" and "Meade would have liked to express deep gratitude to the people of Bayview Manor in Seattle, who cared for him daily and whom he truly appreciated, as well as the courageous people from Providence Hospice of Seattle". For these reasons, I'd be very surprised if this was an independent obit writtten by a reporter rather than a paid one. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call and have to agree with the reasoning, especially the 3 day publication which I think you found the more likely meaning of. In which case yes. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Since the Seattle Times obit does not appear to be a reliable source, do you (or anybody else) object to removing that obit from the references? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS cites are 33, 18, 16, 6, 2, 2, 2, 1 which is not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Does not pass any other categories either. General notability is too slender as well. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete per comments by Sailsbystars, THF and Xxanthippe. The Seattle Times piece sure looks like a paid obit which no more represents the views of the Times than would a paid ad by Microsoft. It's interesting that Emory wrote a few pieces for the New York Times, but I don't think that's enough for him to be notable per WP:PROF. As far as the obit by Ted Van Dyk, he and Emory seem to be old friends, so it's not surprising that Van Dyk would write an obit, and that also means that Van Dyk is not in a good position to objectively report Emory's significance. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has been a good-faith and successful effort to make this biography what it should have been in the first place, while the subject was alive. But looking at it, notability is just too slim. --JN 466 14:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think his writings make him notable as well as being a professor and holding a couple of midlevel government positions in my mind combined make him notable. Independently I would say no but together I think makes it to the low end of the notability scale. --Kumioko (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floating breech

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

Non-notable form of breech. I can only find one patent that mentions a floating breech, which suggests that it is in fact not notable, perhaps a misuse of another term? For the patent see it on google Sadads (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blowback (firearms)#Floating chamber which is the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neosurrealism

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

An unreferenced essay on a nonnotable art movement. This article has been tagged as an essay for 3+ years, but no sources have been added or improvement made to the writing. I can find no indication that this "movement" even exists. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve through normal editing. A one minute effort with Google Books shows dozens of mentions of this art term. Clearly, some are better than others. The solution is to incorporate good references into the article, rather than deleting it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been referenced since 2006.[13] Any debate as to whether or not the references are satisfactory should be held at Talk:Neosurrealism since so far this does not seem to have been done. Thincat (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neosurrealism as described in the article doesn't exist. The term primarily refers to a tendency in 1970s Argentine art, which isn't mentioned in the article. Or it describes poetry [14] [15]. Or Freddy Got Fingered [16]. Unless you're talking about Argentina or poetry, it's just a word.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thank you for finally nominating this. I'd spotted this years ago, but couldn't be bothered to put it together. This entire article is a farce written by non-notable artist User:Artsgrie, or George Grie to spam his work. Neo-surrealism has nothing to with the content of the article, which does not explain how it is remotely different to surrealism, or why it can't be covered as a tiny non-spam paragraph in the main surrealism article. - hahnch e n 14:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These two clearly well-informed contributions after my "keep" have set me rethinking. The current article indeed appears to show considerable lack of balance, possibly due to a conflict of interest. However, rather than merely deleting the article it would be so much better to expand it by adding information on other meanings of the term and by pruning some of the existing material. My own knowledge is insufficient for me to attempt this. A merge to surrealism might indeed turn out to be appropriate. Thincat (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is effectively a WP:OR essay. Its mooring to the supplied references looks dubious, as neither Riffaterre nor the Tel Quel group are particularly known for indulging in fantasy imagery. Nor does it look salvageable by merging content to Surrealism, as its 2nd paragraph effectively says this supposed movement does not have the same interests as surrealism. Arguably an alternative would be to merge to Fantasy art but does nailing one minimally referenced article to another compound a problem? AllyD (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking further at the article's two "references", from what I can see on the public side of the paywall barriers (Ref1, Ref2), neither concern the topic of this article. At most, they might be said to be relevant to one sentence in the article "Any art movement is defined as a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time." but that is merely a generalist statement. AllyD (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may have been something in Latin America that might qualify as a movement. There are lots of people using the word to mean pretty much any old thing from surrealism itself to anything weird and po-mo. An essay that tries to pull it altogether is not what we need here. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Ethico, AllyD & Mangoe. No beef in this sandwich. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of references, and plenty of non-trivial ones. It doesn't seem to be particularly well defined, but I've found that to be true of more than one artistic category. I agree with Cullen328. The Steve 11:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic, non-notable, sorry...Modernist (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mangoe. WP:COI as shown by Hahnchen. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosso Corsa Sales Limited

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

fails WP:ORG. An unrelated story about the managing director, a one-line quote in a car magazine and a load of primary sources does not notability make. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is notable because the company (and its owner) is still discussed regularly amongst owners of prestige cars^[1]^[2]: the principle reason for publishing the page is to bookmark the fact that the company is no longer trading, despite it having a still-active web site ^[3] and to provide the reference material of the public-domain Official Receiver's Report.

The "one line quote in a car magazine" was actually a whole page of commentary regarding a specific car, and the sole former director of Rosso Corsa was quoted extensively throughout the page, and the first of the series of reference links at the end of the article pointed towards the company that was started up after Rosso Corsa was dissolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltone (talk • contribs) 10:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Registration of the RossoCorsa.co.uk domain has been refreshed 2 years after the company was wound up ^[4] and the address of the registratnt is the original business address of another car dealership (Fiorano Cars - since moved to another address again) which is operating in the same business model as the failed Rosso Corsa. I believe it to be in the public interest that anyone looking for information on Rosso Corsa can be pointed to these pieces of irrefutable information, such that they can exercise the principle of caveat emptor. Daltone (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English commercial law is exercised under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, particularly Sections 12-15 (as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and relatively recent European legislation) and enforced through the courts, not through Wikipedia. Indeed, the provisions intended to maintain a degree of caveat emptor so as not to bias the law against businesses mean that a claimant being aware of flaws with the purchased products may invalidate their right to rescission. In addition, modern consumer and commercial law is based not on caveat emptor but rather on caveat venditor, taking note of the limitations put in place by SOGA and Wilberforce's judgment in Reardon Smith Lines. Wikipedia does not exist to provide legal advice or an aide to purchasers (and it is a particularly bad idea when, as noted, the advice given may actually limit the remedies available to the buyer) but instead includes or excludes articles based on notability and importance. The relevant guideline is WP:ORG; you must demonstrate how the article's subject meets that standard. Ironholds (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

OK, point taken on Wikipedia's role regarding offering legal advice. As for notability, I'd reference the secondary sources of BBC News and Daily Mail (Jan 4th 2007) ^[1] regarding an incident of wrongful revenge.

The principle of caveat venditor is only applicable if the seller wishes to stay in business; the history of Rosso Corsa indicates that there is a pattern of companies being dissolved and operations transferring to other, associated, companies. eg. the currently operating FIORANO GROUP LIMITED was previously known as RNR GROUP LIMITED.

An associated company of RNR GROUP LIMITED, was RNR COACHWORKS LIMITED which later became ROSSO CORSA COACHWORKS LIMITED, which in turn was an associated company of ROSSO CORSA SALES LIMITED. The pattern here is for the operators of these companies to set up a web of sometimes dozens of interlinked companies (ie Company Secretary of Company A is Company B, Director is Company C. Company Secretary of Company B is Company A, and Director is Company C. Company Secretary of Company C is Company A, Director is Company B), and over time, elements of the web of companies have been dissolved and new companies incorporated.

The key point is that this company failed (in a similar vein to Farepak, which collapsed around the same time, albeit with a wider impact), but its operations appear to be continuing to trade, and a series of interlinked companies (operating the same business model, with much the same staff, at a different premises) surrounds Rosso Corsa and Fiorano Cars, its latest apparent incarnation. These facts, the subsequent losses that individuals who were selling cars on a sale-or-return basis via Rosso Corsa suffered (eg several owners reported losing £20,000+ where their car was sold and, as Mr Lukins admitted in the Official Receiver's report, the balance of cash was not paid to the owner prior to the company being wound up), and the interest that surrounded Rosso Corsa's operations (via print media concerning the David Higgins/Richard Lukins incident, and by commentary on online forums) makes this company notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltone (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. WP:ORG demands third-party, reliable sources covering the subject in significant detail. Online forums are not reliable sources, and a brief news discussion of a businessman's activities does not create notability for the business. Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about a failed automobile business. Someone has taken the trouble to upload copies of legal pleadings out of its insolvency as images. The whole thing seems to be at minimum soapboxing, and possibly an attack page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. The BBC and Daily Mail articles provided do not contain significant coverage about the company. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Courcelles 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Russell

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

~~Insufficiently notable,~~ insufficient independant refs available.. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First two Google hits are in-depth articles in The Times (London) and the San Francisco Chronicle. This photographer traveled on the Rolling Stones 1969 tour that included the debacle at Altamont. This tour was arguably the most historically significant by what many music historians describe as "the greatest rock and roll band in the world". Indisputably notable- just add readily available references. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ethan Russell was also the photographer for the final photo session of the Beatles when they broke up in August, 1969. He is described in several books about the history of rock music. Cullen328 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claims that he's related to various notables don't confer notability and neither do the verifiable claims that he has photographed various commercially successful musicians. What does is that he's recognized for the latter and (although I haven't yet looked) perhaps more. So when HuffPo wanted a piece about Lennon, they called Russell (with the result here). -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added 8 solid references to the article and rewritten it significantly. I think notability is now well-established. I've also removed spammy references from the body of the article, and will rework and trim the spammy external links in days to come. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panchavarnam

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

Non-notable municipal official and minor local figure. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and I can't find any information that would make be believe he passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant press coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mart Calamba

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

Non-notable, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL shopping center, created by a user whose edits all consist of heavy advertising for shopping center chains. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I tagged it last night under the CSD A7 criteria and the user failed to use {{hang-on}} tag The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, though in my opinion the page was more about the structure than about the corporation that runs it, and thus not speedyable on that basis. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The article creator Penaamiel (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for competence issues. I don't know how that will affect the deletion, but there are probably copyright violations (like many of these SM City mall "articles" have been plagued with). Doc talk 05:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shopping malls are not inherently notable. in fact, this one fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liquor Awareness Month

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

I declined a speedy on this article myself because I don't believe it fits any of the criteria, but I still don't think it's worthy of an article, despite being a worthy cause. I can find some Ghits for "alcohol awareness month", but every hit I found gave a different definition of it (and a few of them listed April as the designated month, not October). I found less than twenty Ghits for "liquor awareness month" (and who is Mary Knoll, anyway?). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As CSD nominator. It is either a advert or a hoax. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This advocation was raised as an encouragement for the youth of today to avoid going to Mary Knoll. The reason behind this is that it had been said that mysterious and intense things could happen in this powerful place. So in order to prevent the youth from becoming mortified, this advocation was commenced and spread all over the globe. Hey kids! Party at Mary Knoll! Let's get mortified! Few people are my equal in awareness of liquor, and I have never heard of this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, though, WP:IDONTKNOWIT isn't withstanding. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My recommendation then is to drink till you're mortified. Then you'll not know it just like I don't. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Porter (Advertising Executive)

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

Spammy biography of a PR man, article is a clone of a userspace draft edited by an IP from the firm headed by the article subject.The 2(?) editors working on the article are both SPA's, as is the (3rd?) editor who created the userspace draft. WuhWuzDat 07:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of the sources even grazes notability. Mangoe (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree there's not enough here to pass WP:BIO test. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. We need a lot more sourcing to satisfy policy, and I'm not finding any. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - reposted spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exotissimo

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

WP:SPAM -- this is a page created by a WP:SPA who has changed his name from "Exo admin", which suggests strongly WP:COI. Is totally sourced to the subject's own sources. Subject was previously speedy deleted when created by same user. Nat Gertler (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not affiliate to this company. I'm am former employee, nothing else. Just because I choose a bad name in the past, doesn't justify the deletion of this article. And what about all the other companies? Do you guarantee 100% that who wrote the articles are not their employees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecuriousguy (talk • contribs) 09:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to distract the discussion won't wash. This discussion is about this article, that you created. Uncle G (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I based my article on this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_Adventures. Now could you kindly point out what I did wrong to deserve to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.46.156.3 (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Goetan people

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

POV fork of Wu-speaking peoples, and its POV portions are not supported by the only source that was cited in the article. Further, by basically being otherwise a copy-paste (along with POV portions) of Wu-speaking peoples, it is of questionable GFDL validity. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. Also possibly a hoax, as the phrase (and I will admit that the pronunciation is not implausible from a Wu-dialect standpoint — while I do not speak the dialect, I am sufficiently familiar with the general phonology that I don't see the phrase as itself implausible) yields 0 Google hits of any kind. --Nlu (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://bbs.cnlangs.com/simple/?t695.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuhsuohwey (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An unidentifiable person employing a pseudonym, whose reputation for fact checking and accuracy thus cannot be determined, posting without peer review or editorial process on a WWW discussion forum is the best source that you can point to? Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, too, that that person is probably the same person who came to Wikipedia at the same time back in 2008, and tried to write the same claims into Wikipedia directly, using the pseudonymous account Criterion118 (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Since then, the user has added two more articles in the same vein; Goet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Goetan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which further suggests that this is disruptive editing given the concerns that I've brought him/her already. I've added a level 2 warning. I am not going to speedily delete yet as I'd like further comment on this, but I am close to doing so if this behavior continues (which I think would be further evidence of this being a hoax). --Nlu (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Thong

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

I don't see this as notable enough for an article D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and tear into bits and pieces. No notability and completely inappropriately written. --Nlu (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What everyone else in the world calls a bodysuit or leotard, just with alot less material. Non-notable on its own in every way. Nate • (chatter) 08:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is that what it is? Seriously, I had no frickin' idea. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to bodysuit. There seem to be enough products sold under this name (going back at least to 1993, to my surprise) that it would be a plausible search term. I'd suggest a merge/redirect to a subsection on the variant, if anyone could find a reliable source that mentions it instead of just advertisements. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two weeks of listing, there is no consensus that the weather event is "routine news". Delete !voters validly point to the frequency of such events; keep !voters validly point to the depth of news coverage and severity and impact of the weather. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT are always difficult policies and guidelines to apply, especially during or just after the event concerned. In this AfD, there is nowhere near a consensus that NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT should be applied in such a way as to delete this article. This is the kind of AfD that could be re-visited a few months down the track when the questions of enduring notability and impact can be better answered. Mkativerata (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Snowfall of Late 2010 in the United Kingdom

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

Title says it all; clearly a page on a minor weather event. Violates the WP:NOT#NEWS Policy and the WP:Notability (events) guideline. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you want to delete this then you should delete February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall too as that is the exact same kind of article that this is. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, did this snowfall cause all London buses to stop service, and close 4,500 schools across the United Kingdom? Did it cause over £1 billion in economic damage? Abductive (reasoning) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not those specifically, but it had pretty much stopped all trains in the London and South East area not to mention the7,500 school closures. As for the economic damages, we can't work that one out untill it's over to count the costs. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the £1 billion comment a joke? Its been reported that damage was US $2 billion per day.[17] (see bottom portion of NY Times article).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Certainly not a minor weather event if you live in the UK. Sure it needs expansion, but not deletion. ConnorJack (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator. Nobody died = minor. There's nothing to expand, as nothing much happened. Abductive (reasoning) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia is now only a place to maintain death tolls, I think not. A lot has happened. 11:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're happy now. People have died. Major event yet? ConnorJack (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable in the sense that it's rare for the UK to experience snowfall on this scale so early on in the season, and it certainly has the potential to become more notable depending on how it plays itself out. The article will need some attention, but I don't think I want to do it myself. I worked on last year's and it kind of takes your life over. Also it's getting a lot of airtime. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination does not rely on a lack of notability argument. It relies on a policy that Wikipedia is not a news source. Your opinion should be disregarded by the closing admin. Abductive (reasoning) 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to decide whether or not that editor's opinions are valid or not? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. I think it is rather disingenuous of you to say one thing in your opening statement, then to claim you didn't actually say it, and to argue it has no relevance. I read your nomination as making two points; a) that Wikipedia is not a news service, and b) that the event lacks notability. Others will probably read it likewise so there is merit in both arguments. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Rely". Abductive (reasoning) 12:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And besides that otherc**pexists that you linked to is neither a policy or a guideline but mearly an essay which are not valid reasons for deletion The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point made was not that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS was an argument to delete. Obviously it is not. What Abductive was saying was that your argument, that the article should stay because similar articles existed, was not a valid keep reason per WP policy. I thought that was fairly clear.--Korruski^Talk 14:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the snowfall is unusually early this year. It's having significant effect on travel across the whole of the UK. Early days yet, but it could approach that of the 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods and 2007 United Kingdom floods. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Every year or two, we get some snow. The country grinds to a halt and everbody acts surprised because it's so early/late/heavy/cold. The media covers it in mind-numbing detail because the pictures are pretty. A few 'experts' get propped up on TV explaining why it's incredibly unusual, because that helps the media pretend it's news instead of weather. It's happened before, it'll happen again, and in a years time nobody will care. It's not notable.--Korruski^Talk 14:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Every year or two, we get some snow: My part of England in most winters in the last 20 years or so has NOT had snow which settles and lasts, or enough ice on the road to force me to go to work on a bus, with the global warming. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough verifiable and reliable sources to warrant an article. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 14:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is because it is currently in the news. However, that is not sufficient reason for inclusion, per WP:NOTNEWS--Korruski^Talk 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is notable event, due to effects on travel. It's not just snow. --Saulbeza (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage of this unusual meteorological event on reliable and verifiable sources establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sitting in it, and it really is just weather. It's a little unusual, as it's happened in November, I'm not seeing any assertion of this being a notable snowfall. There is a lot of news reports about it from UK sources, but that's because it's what is playing on people's minds. It may become notable, if it keeps up, but that doesn't look likely, and we shouldn't be guessing that it will. Worm 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It passes WP:RS and therefore WP:V. It even may seem to pass WP:N for now and for the UK.... but does fall into the catagory of WP:NOTNEWS. Not opposed to recreation if at the end of the winter there are some other WP:RS's that bring it into encyclopedic territory. - Pmedema (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Newspapers cover every weather event; encyclopedias are selective, and cover those which have enduring effects. So it snowed a lot, more than in the past several years for this part of the season. Sometimes it rains a lot. Sometimes it is foggy, or sunny. Weather happens, and there is some statistical variation in how much. When it snows, travel is delayed. This does not seem a transcendent event such as a great flood , blizzard, or hurricane which kills people and has enduring effects on society. This is just weather, in its normal variation. Edison (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BBC News Channel has just called it one of the coldest starts to December in 20 years, perhaps adding weight to WP:N, but in any case, I've been looking around this evening and found Global storm activity of late 2010 and Winter of 2010–2011 in Europe, both of which cover this subject far more comprehensively than does the article under discussion. If the consensus is to delete then redirecting to one of those seems sensible. It can always be split into a separate article for the UK if the adverse weather continue as it did last year. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ongoing major notable event in the UK. The article's name is an arse though. Lugnuts (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly in the North East of Scotland, this is the heaviest snowfall we've had in decades, certainly since the 1970s. This is outside the normal routine weather reporting, and qualifies as a notable event. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful to Winter of 2010–2011 in Europe#UK. This could well become notable if it continues, but at present it really hasn't had the kind of impact that WP:EVENT seems to require. So put what we do have somewhere else for now, and recreate if and when that happens. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but rename, please. Seems to be an event of notable severity. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep - it's the heaviest snow for between 60 and 100 years (or at least it is in Sheffield)! Rename it though to something like Winter of 2010-2011 in the United Kingdom. Ggoere (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescue - major weather events generally are kept. Still ongoing, people may yet die because of it. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 04:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too early. This is news at this point. Wait until something actually happens. The sentiment here appears to be "if you were here you'd know how bad it was, people are probably going to end up dying and schools are going to close in a few days and reports will come out later about how many buses were cancelled". If there was an article about every time a few feet of snow fall somewhere on the planet, we could start a separate 3 million+ article encyclopedia on that topic alone. SnottyWong ^prattle 04:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge/Keep with Winter of 2010–2011 in Europe. It does not matter whether or not it is news at this point. As it stands it is currently breaking records, and fatalities have been recorded, albeit in the Republic of Ireland which has been affected by the same weather event as the UK. The point about whether or not is news is irrelevant. This event started on the 24th November in the UK, earlier further east of Britain. At what point is it no longer news? We are nearly 2 full weeks into the event. Do we have to wait an undefined period into the future before we are aloud to inform people of it? The article, if deleted, would only end up being recreated, due to the fact that this event is record breaking. Why bother deleting in that case? That's just wasting time and effort on an article that will inevitably be kept/recreated. Simply tag the top of the article as something that is documenting current events and information may change. I have a feeling Mr Snottywong and other deletionists are not from the British Isles - a few feet of snow may not be noteworthy in the USA or Canada, but it certainly is in these parts. --MacTire02 (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am from the UK. I recall the last time it snowed, and the time before that, and they were more or less exactly the same. It breaks some record somewhere or other, and the media loves to report on that. It stops people getting to work because our infrastructure is diabolical and noone has cars equipped for these conditions, but it's not a significant weather event.--Korruski^Talk 12:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about the snow though. The timing, duration, temperatures, etc. on top of closed airports, interupted land transport routes, fatalities etc. all add to the event. For example, the event included the coldest recorded November temperature for the UK, the coldest recorded November temperature for Northern Ireland, fatalities in the ROI, etc. Snow may be heard of in the UK (after all Scotland is sufficiently located North and at an elevation), but there has not been snow in the ROI in November for decades. Temperatures are on average 10 degrees below normal. What is your definition for a significant weather event? Is there a panel of experts in Wikipedia that determines what is, or what is not, a significant weather event? Do we have to wait before there are thousands of people killed in a June snowstorm in Saudi Arabia before it qualifies as a significant weather event? --MacTire02 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no panel, there are AfDs where people discuss these matters. That is what I am doing. I can't comment on the ROI, but my personal view is that, paradoxically, 'unusual' weather happens all the time because any given incident is unusual in some respect or other. Every time it snows heavily (or is very hot, or very cold, or very rainy, or very dry), the media find something unusual about it, because it helps them to justify their extensive coverage of it. This snow may be a couple of months earlier than is usual in some places, but in all other respects it is just the same heavy fall of snow that we get every few years (and more often lately) and which everyone gets incredibly excited about. Does it seriously justify an encyclopedia article on it?--Korruski^Talk 13:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does justify an article on it. At the end of the day we have an article on the Winter of 2009–2010 in the United Kingdom, we have an article on the 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods, etc. These all document events that can occur just as you described above. Yet we do have articles on them, yet you are trying to justify deleting this one? There is no logic to that. Is this current event significant - record temperatures: Yes; fatalities: Yes; Unusual time of the year: Yes; Extended duration: Yes. -16.4 C according to RTE news just now in the ROI has just set another record - coldest temperature in Ireland for December in recorded history. So that's 4 records broken just for temperatures alone.--MacTire02 (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid. As it happens, I would gladly assess the other articles and, very possibly, propose them for AfD. However, one discussion about the notability of snow falling in the winter is depressing enough, so I don't really want to set myself up for another one just now.--Korruski^Talk 14:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this weather event has cost an estimated €7 million per day according to the Irish Times yesterday, while RTE reported on the radio that it is estimated that it will have cost approximately €500,000,000. And that's just for Ireland. What about the UK? This all adds up to a significant weather event. Also, you mentioned that you remember each and every snowstorm. In Ireland, we had snow in the last few weeks, plus last January, but apart from that I do not remember the last time snow fell in Ireland. We don't get snow here frequently. --MacTire02 (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for calculating the costs for the UK, let's try it like this. It cost the Republic of Ireland €500,000,000 and that's for 5 Million People (approx). The UK has a population of 60 Million (approx) so if we multiply that half a billion Euros by 12, it's looking rather expensive and that's without the currency exchange of 0.86 to make it into Pounds and we have a large hit to the economy. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Korruski. ~Asarlaí 14:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "earliest case of widespread snow since 1993"? WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies. At any given moment, I suspect somewhere in the world is getting their most extreme weather (snow/rain/drought/whatever) in the last couple of decades. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just making a couple of observations really. We don't have articles on every snowfall that happens in the UK. Certainly we don't have one on the February 2007 snowfall, but that's because it only lasted a couple of days and didn't cause much disruption. This (and last year's to that matter) have been ongoing for quite some time, and as stated above, are significant in many respects. Several people have said in this discussion that this sort of weather is unusual for the UK. One thing I heard yesterday (on BBC News I think it was) is that countries such as the US and Canada can generally predict when and where they will have snowfall each year, whereas here our weather tends to be more eratic. I also think a lot of articles are created because of stuff someone has seen in the news, but at some point it goes beyond being just news. I tend to think that has happened here. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. Notability guideline in a nutshell says: "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This easily receives significant non-routine coverage over a period of time that is national in scope. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses until this winter has finished and we can know how long the cold weather lasts. This article may need to be moved to Winter of 2010–2011 in the United Kingdom. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, winter hasn't even started yet. We're still in Autumn until 20 December. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Winter, "Meteorologists in the UK consider winter to be the three coldest months of December, January and February".Worm 12:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winter begins with the winter solstice, on 21 Dec. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people say that winter in England starts on 1 December. Or whenever winter-type weather starts. I have been in Russia, and in some places there the land is under snow from November to March. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the definition used by meterologists, December 1 through February 28 is winter in the northern hemisphere. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weather related guidelines should probably be made to save time on these sorts of discussions. The news coverage for the events listed in the article, are all related to the article's subject. Dream Focus 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The NY Times devoted coverage to this event[18], which struck me as making it well above the ordinary weather event.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot see why this would even be considered for deletion; it notable as it is very extreme weather for Britain - and has caused severe disruption to the Economy, Transport, Education and everyday life.--SUFC Boy 22:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

Delete. Wikipedia is not for news reports, which is all that this article is. Such content is more suited to Wikinews. Sandstein 07:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, until the storm can be shown to have lasting impact into the future, as with the Blizzard of 1977. WP:NOTNEWS was made for this sort of article. Powers ^T 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And at which point the article will just need to be recreated, right? Why not just leave it for now, then later, if it's determined not to have a lasting impact, it can be AfD'd. WP:CRYSTAL works both ways. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's up for discussion now, and right now I don't see any evidence of lasting impact. I can't predict what will happen in the future. Powers ^T 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How long must verifiable and notable events be excluded from wikipedia before we can be certain that they have enduring notability? A week? A month? A year? The longer the delay, the more out of date wikipedia is. We're not about to run out of ink and paper through covering events which have, in other respects, far exceeded our usual thresholds of notability &c. Having read WP:NOTNEWS, I'm confident that it does not mandate the exclusion of any content simply because it's in a news article.
  - Lacking any visibility of future notability, feel free to come back and put the article on AfD if at some future date reliable sources have lost all interest in it. I would oppose any deletion argument based on an assumption that the article might not be notable in future. bobrayner (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Still in favour of keeping for all the reasons I listed above. This afternoon has seen the resignation of the Scottish Transport Minister following criticism of the way he handled the situation north of the border. More news, perhaps, but something else to add weight to the reasons to keep. Certainly a lasting effect for him, and I'm sure he'll wish he'd played it differently. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just found an article called Winter of 2010-2011 in Great Britain and Ireland which seems to have more information, but no references. Anyone want to start another AFD? I actually think we could merge some of that information into this (with a few references of course). TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a classic example of exactly the type of topic Wikipedia is NOT for. Highly depressing that so many people have devoted so much time and effort into creating (and debating) such an almighty trivial topic, when Wikipedia lacks even a stub on thousands of important topics. If we really must cover such things, can we not merge the content into a set of topic artcles, eg. European weather in 2009, European weather in 2010, European weather in 2011, etc, etc, etc--Mais oui! (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have some of those. Check out Winter of 2009-2010 in Europe and Winter of 2010-2011 in Europe. I'm not sure it's highly depressing exactly. An encyclopedia should include all sorts of important facts, whether it be notable weather events or a breakdown of this year's football season. Moreover, if we can include information on each year's Atlantic Hurricane Season (which we do quite comprehensively) then there's surely a place for European Winters. And, as I think I have said somewhere, because of our mild climate (the Gulf Stream and all that) weather of this nature is unusual for the United Kingdom. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* I came to Wiki to find out the level of significance of this year compared to previous years. As such it provided useful information even if it was that comparatively it was not that rare. Having said that, I have not seen this much snow in Edinburgh since 1977 not seen it lasting so long and as such it is significant. It would seem useful to keep while people will still be looking to ask that kind of question. If at the end of the winter it seems insignificant then that would be the time for deletion. GSAckerman (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons in previous discussion. People have died in it, it is hitting around about the Christmas shopping period which is causing economic damages as well as physical damages. The rarity of snow coming in this quantity this early is a notible issue. And it looks like there may be more this weekend as well as the stories where it's so severe in certain areas such as Scotland where it's getting almost impossible to get food in. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NEWSEVENT says "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope". I think this subject passes that threshold by a country mile. bobrayner (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title is a misnomer, there was no heavy snow, just snow period. Why not create Rain of summer 2010 in the United Kingdom as well? How about Heavy insect breeding season of summer 2006? If this is kept then my advice would be to copy Winter of 2009–2010 in the United Kingdom and change 2009-2010 to 2010-11, we could also do that for Winter of 2010–2011 in the United Kingdom as well and so on. I'm sure the people reading in 2035 will be fascinated to hear how the snowfall of 2010 caused up to seventeen schools to close in the Norwich area. There is nothing notable about this snowfall, this is a highly northern country, not the Sahara.--Echetus Xe 15:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discarded a !vote from a banned sock - consensus otherwise is to delete Black Kite (t) (c) 00:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IDPPPA (S.3728)

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

The IDPPPA (S.3728) is the "The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act", non-notable proposed legislation that has not even made it out of committee and has no hope of becoming law. There is one month left in the current congress. To become law, this bill would have to 1) get out of the Senate committee; 2) be brought to a vote in the Senate; 3) passed in the Senate; 4) be sent to the House; 5) be harmonized with HR 2196, which is also stuck in committee; 6) be brought to a vote in the House; 7) get passed in the House; 8) in all likelihood, be subjected to a conference where the differences between the House and Senate bills are worked out; 9) bring the hammered-out bill to a vote in the House; 10) pass in the House; 11) bring the bill to a vote in the Senate; 12) pass in the Senate -- all in a lame-duck Congress in its last month.

I PRODded ([19]). After some edits that did not address notability ([20]), the PROD was declined by the article's principle editor, with no reason given ([21]).

This is the latest in a series of bills to provide for design protection, going back to at least the disco era (S 1361 was introduce in the 93rd Congress in 1973, during the Nixon administration) and consistently failing. Other similar failed bills include:

93rd Congress: S 1361, HR 8186, HR 14922, HR 15522
94th Congress: HR 2223, S 22 (Title I of S.22 turned into the 1976 Copyright Act, but only after the conference committee sliced off Title II, the Design Protection Act of 1975);
96th Congress: HR 2706, HR 4530;
97th Congress: HR 20;
98th Congress: HR 2985;
99th Congress: HR 1900, HR 3776;
100th Congress: HR 1179, S 791;
101st Congress: HR 902, HR 3017, HR3499;
102nd Congress: HR 1790;
105th Congress: HR 2281 (this bill later mutated into the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that is now Title V of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998; its generalized design protection provisions went nowhere);
109th Congress: HR 5005;
110th Congress: HR 2033, S 1957;
111th (current) Congress: H 2196 and S3728.

The article also needs cleanup and renaming if kept; but my nomination is based on lack of notability, not those issues (which could be fixed). TJRC (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chuck Schumer - I think we don't have articles on legislative proposals unless they are particularly notable. If this one gathers rather more coverage, it should have an article; in the meantime it's best placed alongside the legislative record of its sponsor.... The Land (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom, Merge to Fashion#Intellectual_property or some other such article if it exists. See also Design Piracy Prohibition Act, which should also be deep-sixed per nom. THF (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was written in accordance with the WP:USPP project, as I have just reflected on the article's talk page. It could be merged into the fashion IP page if necessary, but it's certainly notable enough in the current landscape of IP cases. Maximilianklein (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple questions... First, why do you believe it's notable? That's the ultimate question to determine whether to keep, but you don't indicate how you reach that conclusion. Do you believe that it's more notable than the other couple dozen or so failed bills? If so, what is different about this one? Or so you believe that all of the bills are notable and each ought to have an article, despite never having been enacted? In which case, what is different about these bills from the other thousands of bills that are never enacted?

Second, what do you mean when you say it's notable "in the current landscape of IP cases"? Are you suggesting that it's notable right now, but not permanently? That suggests mere newsworthiness, and runs counter to both WP:NOTNEWS (most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion) and WP:NTEMP (notability is not temporary).

Also, not to nitpick too much, but this isn't an "IP case" at all; it's proposed legislation. If it were an actual litigated case construing actual enacted legislation, it would be much more likely to be deemed notable. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (albeit, with a more informative title). All proposed legislation is notable. Indeed, given the coercive nature of the enforcement of legislation, it is obvious that all legislation (and, by implication, all proposed legislation) is notable. Even if the Bill is doomed to failure, as the nominator believes, the article (and the Bill) are notable for their insight into the work of elected representatives. I would be happy to see Wikipaedia articles on all legislative Bills, ("Democracy in action"), from all representative Democracies, regardless of whether they are passed or rejected. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 12:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea that all proposed legislation is inherently notable. Many draft Bills are written but never even debated, let along enacted; many attract little comment and have no lasting impact, which are the kind of criteria we noramlyl use to judge notability.... The Land (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, strongly disagree that all proposed legislation is inherently notable. There have been over 4000 bills in the Senate alone this Congress; another 6000 or so in the House. Can one really argue with a straight face that 10,000 bills per Congress are notable, within the meaning of Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I'm not saying it's a bad idea to track proposed bills; but that's not the role of an encyclopedia, and existing resources already do that. See THOMAS ([22]), GovTrack ([23]) and OpenCongress ([24]) for a few examples. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would strongly disagree with any argument that all legislation of a particular status (proposed, enacted, drafted, whatever) is inherently notable or nonnotable. To decide on notability we really need to see substantial coverage from third parties; some items of legislation will have it and some won't. In this case, there seem to be enough ([25], [26], [27] etc) to satisfy the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that coverage is simply because it's currently in the news, and WP:NOTNEWS; and notability is not temporary. Three weeks from now, this bill will be just one more unenacted design bill, like all the other unenacted design bills before it, will no longer be newsworthy and no longer be covered in the news. This is the distinction between mere newsworthiness and notability. TJRC (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure I would claim that everything that is passed is notable, but unpassed bills surely are not innately notable. After that,m a textbook example for WP:NOTNEWS. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - The Senate yesterday adjourned its final session of the 111th Congress, without bringing the bill to a vote. Until then, it was at least theoretically possible (although practically impossible) that it could go through all the hurdles described above and get enacted. But now, it's officially just one more dead design protection bill on a very large pile. TJRC (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Article states that this proposed bill got killed, never passed into law. So it's completely dead and pointless info. WP is not a repository for proposed legislation. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by original nominator. Non-admin close. JDDJS (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Kidney in Town

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previous redirected due to lack of information. Now without any new references, it was recreated with just a brief plot summary that can be in Family Guy (season 9) JDDJS (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I know when I have lost. I withdraw my nomination JDDJS (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The same reference provides the plot information. This information was previously unavailable, and was the only reason given by the two users who voted to redirect the article to the main list. Additionally, your citing of WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevent, as this article does nothing to violate any of the guidelines given. Simply adding redundant references confirming the same information is not necessary, and the deletion of an article that will be expanded regardless is inessential. Gage (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the entire point. The plot summary is in the season 9 article. There is no info on the page that can't be found on the season 9 page. Plot summary alone is never enough to justify an entire article about an episode of a tv show, JDDJS (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the entire point of the article. It doesn't exist to have two sentences in a plot summary, it exists to be expanded. Information is always released leading up to the episodes's air date, and it is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that. Simply deleting or redirecting the article to save face for a week is the true definition of ignorance. Gage (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The episode doesn't air till like 3 weeks. JDDJS (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information isn't released in three weeks. Gage (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy redirect to Family Guy (season 9). This article has been redirected before, now this time the article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 05:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has the same amount of sources it previously had, with the new information being referenced by the same exact source as was previously available. You made no mention of references in your last anowball attempt to redirect the article, and your involvement in this project is, and has always been, unwelcome. Gage (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gage, you are making this way too personal. JDDJS (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done nothing of the such. Gage (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like you and all Gage, but I have to agree with JDDJS, plus your comment s/he or JJ98 is unwelcome in WP:FG is not cool...having said that I now think a...

Keep is in order, due to a plot summary, to me that is enough for a stub, especially when the episode airs in 3 weeks CTJF83 chat 12:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same reasons already mentioned above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJ98 (Talk) 21:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JDDJS, please stop being disruptive with the multiple nominations for this article. This is your second in under 4 days. Let some time pass and withdraw. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um it's not disruptive. The first one ended in a redirect. Then Gage recreated the article anyway. JDDJS (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still disruptive. Four days after the previous discussion, this could have and should have waited. Withdraw and if you feel it needs to be addressed, take it to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, per everything above + common sense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P7S

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

This acronym can refer to a bunch of stuff. The file extension this stub was for already exists, and since people don't only look on wikipedia for computer file formats, a redirect is not the best option. the fielextension .P7S for me turns up on google's first page anyway, while a deeper look reveals that P7S can refer to P7 sensitive in multiple science articles (whatever that means). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment .p7s goes elsewhere... 184.144.167.193 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a file suffix isn't really a thing that would be worth its own article. JIP | Talk 07:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gonsalves

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

Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The award seems possibly notable, do we have a specific guideline on where, say, a UN award handed out to 500 people becomes so? I've quickly added URLs (not full cites) to three sources regarding that award. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Seems to have (co-)authored a dozen odd books[28]. Not sure if they are notable though. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see reasons for inclusion as presented above.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which reasons? LibStar (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin according to this user's log, this is the part of 5 keep !votes undertaken in 5 minutes. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know that I didnt read trough them all before? and then proceeded to write them down in this period only. Assume good faith.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

turning up and voting with minimal explanation like "meets minimum requirements" or "as per reasons above" doesn't seem you even read the AfD and article. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horihone Saizō

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

No significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. Biography has been unsourced for over two years. —Farix (t | c) 17:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 17:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article is lacking in references, the author is far from unknown or unestablished; a google search for 掘骨砕三 shows around 35k results, a search on amazon.co.jp gives 16 items or so, etc. I've commented on Farix's page about the conundrum of reliable sources in regard to Japanese authors. --moof (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any significant coverage by reliable sources on the author or any of his works? Simply getting a few hit on Google does not allow one to pass the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. And just because someone gets a manga published doesn't mean that they pass WP:CREATIVE. Just because some of his works sell on Amazon doesn't mean his is either well known or notable. Amazon will just about sell anything that has been published, even self-published works if the author has the right contacts. If the author nor his works hasn't received any coverage, then it fails Wikipeida's inclusion guidelines. You have to prove your claim that his is "well known" via reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of references supporting notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of references and notability per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Kev

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

Only sources found were unreliable websites or one-sentence mentions. Has worked with almost no notable acts, is on a non-notable label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Tip: most of the time for music articles "underground" is a secret code word for "non-notable". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. TPH, do you actually click those "find sources" links when you nom these? 'Cause when I click the "news" link, I get a New York Times profile, a Miami New Times profile, a wired.com story, and an LA Weekly interview, and that's just on the first page (of four)! What... what's going on here? 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The sources found by 28bytes above are definitely legit and get Mr. Kev fairly close to notability in his own right, but so far he's been covered mostly in conjunction with other artists and events. If those people and things achieve their own WP articles then Mr. Kev can be mentioned there. However, I fully back 28bytes's very relevant question to the nominator. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Checked the sources shown by 28bytes, and added one of the references, as I think he meets WP:MUSIC. Cheers, The Steve 12:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Stacy Meyer (née Stacy Meyer)

AfDs for this article:

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

The only thing the notable is dying in a Scientology building Failing WP:VICTIM WP:GNG. Only sparse local coverage from the local paper. No controversy like Lisa McPherson, There was an investigation by state agency but only one of 500 investigation simlair investigations carried out that year. Previous AFD seemed to be astrroturphed by the SPA POV-Pusher on both Anti-Sci and Pro-Sci who were all banned by WP:ARBSCI. Lets see if we can have a rational discussion this time around. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has been moved to from notability guidelines from Stacy Meyer where [WP:BIO]]/WP:VICTIM guidelines are to Death of Stacy Meyer so now is falls under WP:EVENT. It fails the WP:EVENT criteria as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. It's sad that she died, but I can't even see any notability asserted, much less proven, that would merit an article. 28bytes (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The new page title is a step in the right direction. I'd like to see an actual assertion of notability in the article, though. 28bytes (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page has since been moved to Death of Stacy Meyer. Has received coverage in WP:RS multiple secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stacy Meyer is the daughter of a notable individual tied to the organization, whose death resulted in a state investigation into the church of scientology's practices at Gold Base. there are multiple reliable sources which give detailed coverage of the instance.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out, the state due to regulations require them to investigate such workplace accidents [29] was cocvered singularly by the local paper and has a one line mention in a second source. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes but how many times has the Gold Base been investigated by that organization? it was significant in regards to scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with the nominator, there's insufficient coverage of this death in reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines. (Unlike, eg, Lisa McPherson.) I searched for additional RSs, and couldn't find any; there's some mention in anti-Scientology websites of course, but even they don't present any stronger grounds for notability. This death gets a brief mention in Gold Base, which seems appropriate; but I'm not convinced it deserves a separate article. Robofish (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 04:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe article itself contains a large amount of relevant information regarding the incident. The fact that it still hits anti-scinetology rhetoric 11 years later proves longevity.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a death-oriented spinoff of missing white woman syndrome; pretty girls that die tragically may get an inordinate amount of tabloid coverage, especially when connected to Scientology. But we still have to separate the wheat from the chaff here and see if the coverage is truly lasting or significant. In this case it is clearly not, just another run-of-the-mill WP:NOTNEWS that this encyclopedia does not need. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Her death is mentioned in her father's bio; Stacy Meyer could redirect to the relevant subsection of that BLP. --JN 466 02:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable - Scientology related WP:COATRACK.--Scott Mac 15:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to agree with Scott Mac. Despite the many and various reasons to criticize the Church of Scientology, this particular death seems to have been genuinely accidental -- the result of negligence and incompetence. There's nothing here to do an article about, honestly. Delete. DS (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, neither of Stacy Meyer herself, nor of the circumstances of her death ("..The Coroner determined that Stacy Meyer's death had been an accidental death.."). --Stormie (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be fairly clear here Black Kite (t) (c) 00:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Harry Potter series

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (2nd nomination)

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

Although based on a notable work of fiction, this article a derivative article, which is frowned upon by Wikipedia, the chronology does not meet notability by itself and lacks real-wold notability. The references used fail to meet the criteria for reliable sources and the sources used seem to be unreliable as only one or two are independent and even those do not treat in much detail the chronology, only allusions to events in a short form that can be easily integrated in the main Harry Potter articles. The chronology seems to be original research since there are no independent publications that mention an official chronology, only fansites which have created the chronology based on the books. The chronology itself is more in line with material for a fansite than for an encyclopedia and the article is written with an in-universe perspective. Reading the former nominations, I believe that the issues that were raised before are still prevalent and the article still has the same problems that were raised by others. It still lacks independent sources for verification and still seems like a synthesis of published material that advances a position. Any relevant material from this chronology should be kept in the Harry Potter articles per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. The article also fails to meet the criteria of fiction-related subjects and, in my opinion, this is an unnecessary content fork that falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion.Jfgslo (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the second discussion under this title. Discussions before renaming are linked on the talk page.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's incredibly trivial, holds no secondo or third party sources. It also resembles a ansite. and we shouldn't have that. If this were about the chronology of the books. then maybe it could've been kept. but this is mainly in-universe.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, unreferenced and in-universe. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to http://harrypotter.wikia.com and delete - someone did a good job constructing this information, and though it is OR their is no point in completely removing the content from the Internet, Sadads (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar content is available in chunks such as http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Events_prior_to_1800 etc, we would want to explore that more Sadads (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Derivative works are not frowned on. THis is a summary argticle that includes material that could appear in many other articles and is useful for Harry Potter fans. If fan sites include this sort of thing then we have a source, and a demonstration that the topic is valid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is against the rules to create articles that are only plot summaries, as is the case here, and fan sites are unreliable sources that cannot be used at all in articles, not even to demonstrate the topic would be notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly is it only plot summery, while the first half discusses the plot, it is not summary as far as I can see. Outback the koala (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong delete, per Jfgslo's arguments. Many of the entries and dates are original research by synthesis, and are often sourced to unreliable websites. The article also lacks real-world content. But worst of all, the article fails to establish its notability, why would we need it if there are no independant secondary sources dealing with the subject ? The chronology of the Potter world has not been covered enough to warrant an article here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep Looking back at the previous AfDs, which have not been listed here for reference. The same arguments apply then as they apply today; for notable fictions of a degree of complication, timeline articles are notable. The interweaving of past events in the various vols. of the series fully justify the virtues of an article like this. It's an article based on the Harry Potter books so the books themselves are quite reliable and even those have been written about in other books also based on ...the original books. The only issue I see here is editors having to work through any disagreements and writing the entire article to avoid in universe concerns. It is Notable and well-sourced. You might not like it, but Wikipedia does Fandom. Sourcing in-universe dates from the canon is just as good sourcing as taking hockey scores from the relevant league's yearbooks. Bottomline: It's encyclopedic and I disagree with the nom. Outback the koala (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outback, I think you're seriously mistaken. The plot of the Harry Potter saga certainly doesn't warrant such an article. It's not that it is particularly complex, only that it relies on several fictional past events, but even these are pretty straightforward and easily understandable in the plot summaries. Besides, most of the entries here are only birthdates and generic events not even tied to the main plots of the various novels, making this article mostly trivial. If, as you claim, the interweaving of past events complicates the plot so much, then do you really think this list would spend time on things like "The famous painting Gunther der Gewalttaige, showing the ancient broomstick game of Stichstock" ? The truth is, this list is mostly trivial, and stripped of all the useless entries it would just be very short and very similar to the already existing plot summaries.
That the original HP books are notable has nothing to do with this. Each article has to prove its own notability, which this list fails to do. This list is just non-notable because there is no coverage about it in reliable secondary sources. The article isn't well-sourced either since it uses unreliable sources such as fansites. And you might not like it, but no, Wikipedia doesn't do fandom. Bottomline, it's not encyclopedic (if it was, there would be secondary sources dedicated to the subject, which is not the case).Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folken, I disagree with your interpretation. When the topic is notable such as here with regard to the HP series, I would say that such a sub article is also notable. I strongly disagree with deleting the page, but I do think that some of it warrants removal, under a variety of policies. That said, that does not mean we should delete off the project all of this information! Deletion in this case is extreme when compared with alternatives like merging. Outback the koala (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The first part of the article is choc-a-block full of fan interpretation and original arguments put forth regarding continuity and canonicity. Wikipedia is not a producer of new theories. The second part is overly detailed trivia and plot summary. Reyk _YO! 02:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harry Potter with much summarization and cutting down. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, merging serves no purposes other than deletionism. We're not paper, and this cannot be covered in another article. Harry Potter is one of the world's best selling series of all time, if not the world's best. A chronology of the events spanning 7-8 books (or whichever) and several spin-offs is neither out of place, nor undesired. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. We're not paper, but we're also not a fansite, not a publisher of original thought, not a plot-only description of fictional works, not an indiscriminate collection of information. This cannot be covered, not only in any other article, but in any article here. It doesn't matter at all how well did the series sell, this is not a valid argument against conserns about notability and Plot-only descriptions of fictional works. There isn't a single independant secondary source for this article, meaning it is perfectly trivial and has nothing to do on Wikipedia. There are already very clear, helpful and comprehensive plot summaries in the articles for each of the books, there is absolutely no need for an additional timeline, which is so useless that the authors felt compelled to add stupid entries like "The famous painting Gunther der Gewalttaige, showing the ancient broomstick game of Stichstock" to artificially lengthen it. This article is completely out of place and undesired, it blatantly violates several policies, so it will be deleted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I'm aware that some fans have deduced the dates of the events in the books, I don't think any of them are RS. As for those dates provided by the author, they're all for trivial stuff. We don't even need to get into the issue of whether a chronology of Harry Potter is something we should have (for the record, I don't think so), because this fails on other counts. Roscelese (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK from Harry_Potter#Plot. Notability of a franchise does not allow the creation of multiple articles about the exact same thing with different presentation... especially when this one is entirely a plot summary, which is what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I came looking specifically for this, so it is wanted and needed. It would be inappropriate to add the extensive chronology to the main page. There are a great many articles on television programmes which have sub-pages, it is more appropriate for literature of merit and complexity. Verification is in the books. Not being able to see the need for particular information is a ridiculous attitude to elevate. Sources of information should not be based on populist desire but upon the existence of the information itself. There are a great many things that I have looked up on Wikipedia which have been deleted or marked for deletion. This information is wanted. Leave it there. There are millions of Harry Potter fans and they will all look this up at some point. If you delete it, someone else will create it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.7.231 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be aware of how Wikipedia works. I suggest you to have a look at various important policies, among them reliable sources, Notability and no plot-only articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this anon does bring up a good point that I had not thought of, namely take alook at the page view stats, this month alone there were 24000 hits to this page. Again, I dont see why the page cant be trimmed down, rather than merged or deleted outright. Outback the koala (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember why we are here, which is to build an encyclopedia, not to follow policies. The policies are just a tool to help us create a good encyclopedia, but if a policy results in deleting a valuable and popular article, then there is something wrong with the policy and it should be ignored or changed. I asked several people who only read Wikipedia, and they thought this was a good topic to have. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment

Per DRV, this article is being relisted for additional deletion discussion so that consensus may be more clearly established. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original closing rationale was: The result was delete. Usefulness and popularity are not reasons for keeping a page. Synthesis and original research, combined with the lack of demonstrated sourcing, is a reason to delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I consider this relisting particularly scandalous as consensus for deletion was clearly established (7 to 4, claiming that "arguments here are split almost equally" or "consensus read incorrectly" is just wrong, blatant manipulation and consensus denial), and as all the arguments in favor of a relisting consisted in trampling the established policies according to which the article was deleted the 1st time. Seriously, since when "don't meet GNG" and "no RS" equates to "I don't like it", as JoshuaZ claimed ? If these guys want to change the rules they should start a community-wide discussion, and not relist AfDs over and over until they get the result they want.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - blatant OR. Start a Harry Potter Wikia site if there isn't one already. dramatic (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not actually OR, as there are many timelines for the topic around like [30] [31] [32] [33]. They may not be reliable sources, but it shows that the Wikipedia article is not original. Field Guide to Harry Potter a book has an Appendix on the topic. the book The Harry Potter Companion has a timeline. There was a court case on the topic Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. & J. K. Rowling V. Rdr Books. So there is plenty around to justify the existence of the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All your links are unreliable and you know it, so what's the point ? You think unreliable is better than original ? No it's not. And Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_series#Timeline_basis and Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_series#Contradictions are OR. As for the books, chronologies relegated to appendixes (= trivia sections), or simply "having a timeline" doesn't make it "significant coverage", which means "sources address the subject directly in detail [...] more than a trivial mention".
Also, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. & J. K. Rowling V. Rdr Books has absolutely nothing to do with this.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the links is that this is not original research, so that removes one of the arguments to delete. Several books with apendices or chapters on the exact topic count as significant coverage, these are not trivial. If a small part of the article is inappropriate it can be edited off. But that part may be OR is not a reason to delete the whole topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of OR (by synthesis mostly) in the article, particularly in the "basis" and "contradiction" sections. Original research is anything "not already published by reliable sources", thus, that fansites also mention chronology is absolutely irrelevant because they're unreliable sources, so it's not "published" material, and above all because fan-writers are highly likely to be the same persons on fansites and on Wikipedia (thus merely copying here what they themselves wrote previously), or to be influenced by Wikipedia itself, etc. Sourcing to fansites = OR. And no, one book mentionning chronology in a trivia section (thus not in detail) is not "significant coverage".Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard aid for a large fictional series. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't supposed to be entirely "standard aid", they're supposed to be encyclopedic, which this article is not. If you want to understand the plot, you have Harry_Potter#Plot](and "The famous painting Gunther der Gewalttaige, showing the ancient broomstick game of Stichstock" isn't an aid at all, in my opinion).Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's excellent rationale. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Harry Potter Wiki. This is not for Wikipedia, excessive detail and too much WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is excessive detail really a delete argument? We are not paper, we can be as detailed as we wish to be. And we should be a detailed encyclopedia. Check the citations, tell me how much of it is OR really? Outback the koala (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excessive trivia is a delete argument because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a fansite (something which I already told you when you invoked WP:NOTPAPER and to which you refused to answer). As for the citations, they're unreliable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:PAPER; "Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but we can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly" Am I misusing the WP:Paper agruement? Or is it you who is ignoring my arguements. I raised my disagreement to you opinion and interpretation of those policies above. Your use of NOTAFANSITE is not aplicable for this article because that is in regard to orginal research subjects; many of the figure on this page have not been calculated, but taken from the primary source (ie the book itself) or from a third party source. This is not a spatering of info. The intro tells us this. If we have to maybe we could cut out the lists because there is too much of a chance for random anon edits (and some have accumulated on the page and need to be removed) Outback the koala (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wouldn't hurt to quote the other parts of WP:PAPER, such as "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done [...] Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". Particularly, WP:PAPER is not an excuse to circumvent WP:IINFO which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion", and I think this is even more clear with WP:PLOT which directly limits the length of a plot summary (whether in prose or in list format). As for original research, it also includes synthesis from primary sources, and fansites are not reliable sources...But these are far from being the only issues with this article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so even if we completely cut out the lists of dates, do you still support complete deletion? Outback the koala (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A chronological list sans dates? I'm fascinated by such a thing, tell us more. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only suggesting the list format may not be the best form to use. I still see no reason to delete the page. Outback the koala (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep There's no OR and there are a large number of secondary sources which give parts of the chronology. Duriez's "Field Guide to Harry Potter" would be one example among many. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is OR: Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_series#Timeline_basis and Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_series#Contradictions. Since when does "one" makes "a large number" or "many" ? Where are all these sources you keep talking about ? And since when an appendix means "address the subject directly in detail [...] more than a trivial mention" ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You can easily find other dead tree sources that mention some of the issues (simply look on Google Books). Duriez is simply the one I'm most familiar with, hence the one I've mentioned. Whether something is in an appendix isn't relevant to whether or not the source is addressing the subject directly in detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is not original research is just cobbled together from what fansites have deduced from either the text or some JK Rowling's casual conversations about character histories. I was once rather deeply involved in the Leaky Cauldron among other fan forums, and had a hand in many of those "If X was Y years old at Z date, then..." conversations. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I wouldn't say this is necessarily as impossible to source as some of the comments above would claim, a detailed and exhaustive timeline such as this is better suited to a fan site. To counter claims that this is a useful or helpful article, I would say that given the many contradictions and anachronisms (as admitted in the article), the series is not meant to be strictly tied to particular real-world years, and thus presenting it as though it does actually hinders a reader's understanding of the series rather than aiding it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is totally redundant, pure in-universe, fan-cruft and unsourced. Chronologies should only be covered in the plot section of the books' articles and the Apperances section of the individual characters. --LoЯd ۞pεth 10:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article functions as a navigational aid among the many Harry Potter-related articles and I disagree with the nominator that the article is a synthesis that advances a position, I don't see what position is being advanced. The sourcing of the article definitely needs to improve, but there are plenty of books that should be useful (such as [34], [35] and [36]). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point; this thing is piece-mealed largely from unreliable fan sources. This should have closed 2 days ago as well, so hopefully this gets looked at soon. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the article does use independent sources, although it could use more. Much of it is from the the book themselves as primary, but many other books and websites are used here. I do see some fansites used as refs here and we should limit those as refs. That is not an argument for deletion though. Outback the koala (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Harry_Potter is the "navigational aid among Harry Potter-related articles", not this article. If that's your reason for keeping the article, then it proves we really have to delete it. And yes, this article proposes a synthesis of various statements from primary sources to try to prove there is (or isn't) a chronology in the HP universe. This is the very definition of OR by synthesis, and it's not up to Wikipedia establish a chronology or to point to "contradictions".
Also, I don't see the point of linking to books that we cannot even access to verify whether they contain a single word about the topic in question. For all I know, there still isn't a single independent, reliable secondary source here.
Finally, the people who relisted got the consensus they asked for, and even more days than necessary, when are we going to end all this ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 04:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

70% in favor of not keeping the article as it is wasn't clear enough ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vote... Outback the koala (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a vote, then you should have accepted "strength of the arguments" the first time.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't agree with the argument that this is "trivia" or "non-encyclopedic": Potter is important enough a literary property to justify the existence of a page like this, if it can be properly sourced. The question becomes whether the page is all OR. I don't think it is: at least a substantial portion of the content here does have legitimate citations, to the books themselves, to Rowling's comments, or to commentary by writers who could be characterized as legitimate experts on the topic. I also believe that that it would be a real shame to cut off public access to the extensive work that has gone into this page (especially given the thousands of views this page receives monthly), so if it is ultimately decided that consensus has changed enough since the 2007 keep result that helpful guides like this are no longer welcome on Wikipedia, the transwiki suggestion made above is vastly preferable to a straight deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each article must meet the notability guideline, and notability isn't inherited. Not all topics tied to Harry Potter can be included. That's why we're still waiting for "significant coverage". You don't agree that the article is trivia, but I don't see the relevance of knowing completely incidental details like characters birthdates either. There are already comprehensive plot summaries in the individual book articles, so besides the notability issue, we have a problem with WP:PLOT: the whole article is a plot summary in a list format. Then, as to OR, it has already been explained: this article proposes a synthesis of various statements from primary sources to try to prove there is (or isn't) a chronology in the HP universe. This is the very definition of OR by synthesis, and it's not up to Wikipedia to establish a chronology or to point to contradictions. And I don't see any commentary by "experts", remember, fans are not expert and fansites are not reliable sources. Deletion is also not a matter of how many people view a page, or how it would be "a real shame to cut off public access to the extensive work" (= ILIKEIT). It is a matter of whether articles "meet the relevant criteria for content". You argue that "helpful guides like this are no longer welcome on Wikipedia" ? But Wikipedia is not a guidebook.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is so much wrong with this article I can hardly decide where to start. It is an in-universe, indiscriminate list, full of fancruft, excessive detail, original research, and synthesis. It belongs on a subject-specific site, but the Harry Potter Wiki at Wikia already has all this and more, so there's no point in transwiki-ing it. gnfnrf (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, original closing rationale, and per gnfnrf above. Them From Space 15:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfounded conclusions; reads like a thesis constructed by a fan. Cactusjump (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft and WP:PLOT. There are plenty of HP fan sites where it belongs. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curries of Arran: A Brief History and Their Tartan

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

This article appears to be an argument for the validity of a particular Scottish clan despite a lack of historical evidence to support that validity, and possibly a promotion of a particular manufacturer's tartan as an authentic clan tartan. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTESSAY, smells distinctly of soap, too. Not sure about the spam, but overall this isn't the sort of thing that should be on Wikipedia (not to mention the title a. is horrendous and b. made me want Indian food!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, unless someone wants to demonstrate which assertion was made in which reliable source. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Rewrite. There is a Clan Currie and sources could be found to rewrite article once renamed and with the removal of unsupported information. I can look at this in the coming week. Delete should this timeframe not be timely enough. Newm30 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to check out. For an example of a source see The surnames of Scotland and for an example of a related article see Muireadhach Albanach. The article just needs wikification and improvement per our editing policy. The nomination claims "a lack of historical evidence" and yet the article contained 9 references and examples like The Book of Arran seem accurate. Please see WP:BITE and WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First of all Currie is not a clan, this seems to be confirmed in the article itself under the title The Lord Lyon King of Arms and A New Lord Lyon King of Arms. Note that internet sites such as electricscotland.com are not reliable references. the only ref that points to Currie as a clan is made by "noted anthropologist and author Dr. Micheil MacDonald", but I can not find what this anthropologist is noted for. Grimble is another matter, a very noted historian, however his references to Currie (not as a clan) is only via the name MacMhuirichs, he states (in pp. 56 Clans and Chiefs) that "his [Murach's] descendants attached themselves to the Lord of the Isles...That is why so many MacMhuirichs were to be found in the Hebrides in modern times, their name corrupted to Currie". Grimble goes onto note that MacMhuirich were a Scottish family (father to son type rather than clan), who (until the 18 hundreds) were professional literary men to various lords (Earl of Lennox and later Lord of the isles). is my view Currie is a sept of Clan Macdonald, see MacGorrie, Currie/Curry/McCurry/Godfrey/Jeffre at Clan Macdonald of Clanranald#Associated families or septs Macdonald. has hundreds of septs as many families were dependent, served, lived in the territory off, or were protected by this powerful clan. The question is, does Wikipedia need to list every family (Scottish or otherwise) surname and their individual histories? I placed McGhee Family for deletion as a test of this question, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGhee Family; there was "no consensus" there, so please try and discuss this issue here with clear guidelines so editors like myself know where to draw the line. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 04:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant case of WP:OR. We are not here to argue that so-and-so are to be considered as a clan. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to stub and Rename. The problem with most of these references is that verry little of what is said in the article is verifiable. GBooks confirms, The book of Arran does mention the Curries, but I didn't find anything similar in any of the other books. As such, it's impossible to tell whether the information in the article is really covered in the third-party sources, or just conjecture based on something else the sources said. Nevertheless, The Book of Arran looks sufficiently reliable to verify the clan exists, and I'm quite happy to assume that all Scottish clans have information about them somewhere to make them notable, so I don't see a problem with a placeholder stub. Any verifiable information can be added to the stub as and when someone finds it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. The article is in dire need of wikifying but I see no obvious sign of OR (although the style is peacockish here and there) and so far as I am aware there are no rigorous definitions of what can and cannot be classified as clan or sept. The title is indeed horrendous and Clan Currie or similar would be better, although quite what "curry" has to do with this discussion I am not sure. Is the problem that the books are obscure and not immediately available for on-line inspection the problem? This may lead to suspicions but as I am sure all concerned know there is no requirement whatever to provide this. I'll have a look at what web-based information is available if time permits. I know of a libarary that has one of the books quoted, but the snow here is making travel ill-advised at present. Ben Mac Dui 19:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't rush in to renaming the page "Clan Currie". A lot of debate has gone into the issue of defining clans. e.g here or here. Currie Family is a better name in my view if the article is kept. Yours Ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It amazes me that anyone could read this article and think it is an attempt to establish the name Currie as a Clan recognized by the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. If there has never been a Clan Chief of the Curries, and there never will be, then there is no tartan that will ever be an "official" Currie tartan. Just because one particular line of the family was in servitude to the MacDonalds, and there are no records to suggest that this line was the line of primogeniture, that does not make all the Curries in the world into a sept of the MacDonalds of Clanranald. The Murchard to whom Arran was given could very well have been the direct line, as could so many others -- it will never be known. Rename the article The Curries of Arran and be done with it. Much ado about nothing. Arran56 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quite take the point about clan definitions. "Curries of Arran" or "Currie family" are fine by me. I have added Category:Scottish families. Ben Mac Dui 10:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is really just about showing off a tartan and clan society. It's not encyclopaedic. It's just fluff. An internet clan. The article doesn't even mention a family seated on the Isle of Arran at all... What have they done? Why are they notable? Who has written about them? The notable family is the MacMhuirich family of bards who were employed by the MacDonalds. That's the article Wikipedia should have instead of this. It's easy to find scholarly works mentioning them when on Google Books and Google Scholar. Works that deal with the family and members of the family. One the MacMhuirichs was the author of the MS 1467 for example. I think that this article is something like a coatrack. It leans on the bardic family for their notability and ancestry, but the rest is all tartan-fluff and someone's disgruntled POV about being 'a clan in it's own right' and 'not a sept of another clan'. No source is given for the claimed "Murchard" ancestor of Arran. I think in reality this guy is considered by modern historians to be a MacSween (see third paragraph here: Clan_Sweeney#MacSweens_of_Scotland quoting G.W.S. Barrow). Czar Brodie noted how the Grimble ref actually deals with the MacMhuirichs rather than a Currie family from Arran. I think that ties in with the coatrack I mentioned. Colonel Warden mentioned Surnames of Scotland, this book only has a small paragraph (two sentences) on the relevant surname (p.194): 'A modification of MacVurich', and mentions one man named Archibald from Row, Dumbartonshire. Colonel Warden also mentioned the Arran Book, here it is here, it really only mentions the surname and how it morphed from the Gaelic form to Currie; I can't find anything about a noted family on Arran in the book.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started an article for the MacMhuirich bardic family, and an article for the Gaelic surname MacMhuirich. There's also one for the surname Currie. So the bardic family is covered, and the two surnames are covered. That leaves the clan society and it's tartan. Neither are notable in my opinion. I think the society's webpage should go as an external link on the bardic family's article, because the society was "originally formed in Glasgow, Scotland in 1959 to further the knowledge and appreciation of the MacMhuirich (pronounced MacVurich) bardic dynasty" [37]. The family/clan of note was the family of bards.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article implies that people with the surname Currie are descended from a sept of the MacMhuirich clan in the 18th century which in turn was descended from Muiredach O'Daly in the 12th century. That is untrue of the vast majority of people with that surname and may give offence to those Currie families of much longer standing. The surname Currie has a number of different origins. Four of these are given in the article Currie (surname). Others are given in Burke's Peerage & Baronetage, section Currie. The Currie Baronets are not descended from the MacMhuirich clan, but from the Curries of Annandale. Sir Walter de Currie of Annandale bore that name in 1296, well before the conversion of MacMhuirich to MacCurry in the 18th century. Philip Currie, 1st Baron Currie was not descended from MacMhuirich, nor were the bankers Curries & Co, nor Mark John Currie, explorer and one of the founders of Western Australia, nor James Currie (physician), the biographer of Robert Burns, nor the members of Parliament William Currie (British politician), Raikes Currie and Henry Currie, nor . . .

This being the case, it would be incorrect and unacceptable for the article to be retitled 'Currie Family' as suggested by Czar Brodie. The title 'Curries of Arran' is also dubious. Sir Piers de Currie of Arran, recorded in the Norse Chronicles, already bore the Currie name in the 13th century. His name may have been derived from his castle on the Isle of Arran near Corrie. In any case, he fought for the King of the Scots against the Norse. So he fought against “Murchard” or “Margad”. He was slain in the Battle of Largs in 1263, but if any Curries survived, they would be more entitled to be called the 'Curries of Arran' than the MacMhuirich clan.

The Clan Currie site gives an interesting and, I suspect, more accurate description of the transition of a sept of MacMhuirich to the Clan Currie. The Currie tartan granted to the new clan in 1822 is different from the one proposed in the article proposed for deletion. Two different tartans for the Curries stemming from MacMhuirich?

It would take a major effort to remove all the inaccuracies in the article and upgrade it to the quality people expect from wikipedia, so I recommend deletion. Apuldram (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InCOMMON Community Development

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 20:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I with a few others have helped create this wikipedia page for inCOMMON Community Development in Omaha, NE. I have helped contribute to the credibility of the page and its accuracy. If there are concrete steps I can do from keeping this page from being deleted please inform me.
Thank you, Calvin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smothersc (talk • contribs) 2010-12-08 20:44:50
Speedy delete G11 - clearly intended as an advertising page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I declined the speedy as there are at least two reasonable sources and I didn't consider the tone to be entirely advertising. Possible COI problem but if the article improves during the week of AfD discussion I would strengthen my opinion to keep. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely local organizations generally don't meet WP:CORP. I neither see nor found any references from outside the Omaha area. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Voller

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

The concern is Notability. This person is president of the SME Union, an organization of a European Political party; he is however not a member of European parliament. Looking for him in google evaluating according to WP:notability (people), I found only incidental mentions, or mentions in context of him presenting a lecture/becoming president of the SME Union. There are however no reliable sources in which he is the main subject. Although the SME Union probably/possibly would be a notable organization, its president therefore seems not... L.tak (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no non-trivial reliable source coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaConnection

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a promotional article about a nonnotable subjec that has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. It is puffed up quite a bit but none of the citations evidence much notability.

It was recently deleted via this AfD discussion, but the speedy deletion was declined for a bizarre reason (that there were too few participants in the original AfD for it to be binding?!) I still stand by my original deletion rationale that this is a nonnotable subject puffed up into an encyclopedia article, probably for promotional purposes.

The only reliable source added since the deleted version is [38] this document which only provides a passing mention of the company and a discussion of it "in their own words" (ie: not as a third-party source). Them From Space 03:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is on the borderline of notability, but the only source which could demonstrate the GNG is met is this but I would like to see more coverage by other, more main stream sources, before we have an article on it. SmartSE (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked around for some more info last month, expecting to be able to expand this article so as to make it read less like an avert but finally came to the conclusion that it is non-notable. Still looks non-notable.--Aspro (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the recent paid editing request on elance dot com regarding this article... Them From Space 15:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Brain Trauma Resulting from Roller Coasters

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

Essay/paper Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps some material could be salvaged for roller coaster but this is an essay. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a school paper. Not encyclopedic. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above - some parts of this may be appropriate to discussing risks of injury with roller coaster rides but this is hardly an encyclopedia topic. (Minceymeatypie (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Is "delete" how we're spelling "merge" these days? ;-)
If there is anything salvageable, would one of you please merge that into the seriously undersourced Roller coaster#Safety section, and let us know? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Combine anything useful into brain trauma Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, per nom. Not very encyclopedic. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodenough Mashego

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

Non-notable writer; fails to qualify in any way I can see. Orange Mike | Talk 01:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this reads more like a biography (probably an autobiography) than an encyclopedia article. No obvious claims to notability and no sources. JIP | Talk 07:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly any coverage [39]. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preconception

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

Essay; I suspect it's either a college paper or (more likely) a chapter from a textbook. Orange Mike | Talk 01:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTESSAY. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. Hairhorn (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody bothers to transform this essay into an encyclopedic article. Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay page. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabry Ponte

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

Reliable sources clearly asserting notability and confirming the claims are not offered, and further Ghits fail to reveal sources that comply with WP:RS. Appears to have no notable solo career. mepmbership of a band alone does not confer notability. Fails at WP:BAND. Kudpung (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - Notable musician. Sources are weak but I found this on the German wiki. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy keep, loads of stuff in Google news(much of it Italian) and some in google books also. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough reliable - secondary sources, as shown in the Google News search to warrant inclusion here at Wikipedia. I'll start citing and referencing the piece. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael David Nielsen

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

Fails WP:N as well as WP:BIO. Likely created via paid editing through this bid on elance dot com. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Them From Space 23:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rewrite, and Fix Clear assertions of notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add the mixture of the probability this is a blatant violation of WP:NOT and that it contains blatant misinformation (WP:HOAX) ("Nielsen's soundtracks for the movie Scooby Doo (2002) reached #4 on Billboards charts Top Soundtracks.", see Scooby-Doo (soundtrack)) and the lack of proper sourcing for a BLP. Scrap it and let someone start again if he is notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euntaek Kim

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

Long-term undersourced BLP of questionable notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: haven't looked too closely into this one yet, but she has been the subject of feature stories and a TV special in her region of the United States, so there's a decent notability claim to be made.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article contains several sources to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - plenty of claims of notability; the sourcing is a bit weak (several of the links are dead), but I think it's just about enough to pass our guidelines. Robofish (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Foufas

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

Long-term unsourced BLP of questionable notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Stelton

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

Long-term unsourced BLP of little or no notability. Local radio show host, doesn't seem to be very significant. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems marginal, haven't really looked for sources yet, but nothing big jumped out.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable local sports guy. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to alt.* hierarchy. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alt.config

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

Marked unsourced one year ago, has no sources. Tommy1964 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read pp. 291–292 of ISBN 9780761503866? Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to alt.* hierarchy because this is, or was, a newsgroup intended to bring order to the process of newsgroup creation in that hierarchy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally pointless article, non-encyclopedic. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of key moments in the Yankees – Red Sox rivalry

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate list of events. The Yankees – Red Sox rivalry should be contained on that page, ~~which needs some serious paring.~~ Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying, it needed serious paring, but with the removal of that content, the rivalry article is much more manageable. I had it in mind to go through that rivalry article to pare it down when User:SNIyer12 finally stopped his constant editing. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This rivalry does not need two articles... All the relevant information is already contained in the rivalry article... this is a perfect example of too much detail. Spanneraol (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before this is deleted (and it definitely should be, as this page is the effort of one lone editor going rogue without prior discussion), we need to make sure there isn't anything missing from the main article. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge This information is absolutely relevant and must be kept. However, I don't see it necessary for another article. In the interim, I don't mind keeping it temporarily until we can full incorporate everything into the main article. Many of these moments are key to understanding the constant intensity faced in this series. Arnabdas (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What in this article isn't properly covered in the main rivalry article? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEVERAL points of note. However, the point is moot now, I merged in the points that are not covered. We can delete this now. Arnabdas (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Yankees – Red Sox rivalry. What's that you say, someone's done both of those things already? Excellent! Glenfarclas (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Ponce

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

Long-term unsourced BLP with little notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has a section about him in this book. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some citations, a sampling of the many articles I found about other guitarists where the authors seemed to make a big deal of the guitarist having studied under "esteemed/acclaimed/etc Spanish guitarist" Alberto Ponce at the Ecole Normale de Musique in Paris. I found little biographical information about Ponce himself, but there is an entire section about him in the book The classical guitar: its evolution and its players since 1800. [40] Sadly I don't have access to the full text of the book, but still I think there's enough evidence of notability for a keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krav Maga in popular culture

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

Almost unsourced trivial mentions. Amounts to nothing more than "Work X said Krav Maga" without explaining how it's influenced popular culture. Sources are unreliable, such as Mahalo and Youtube. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query. These pop-culture articles seem to kept or deleted at whim. I love 'em, but some hate 'em. Did the community ever get to a standard or guideline for these, other than WP:GNG? Bearian (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have Verifiability, Neutrality, and No Original Research for starters.
  Read User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing for what happens time and again to these "list of instances of XYZ on television and in film" articles. Then see Talk:Krav Maga#Removal of Pop Culture Section, this removal of the "in fiction" section, this removal of the "in pop culture" section, this link, and this. This is a classic example of sweeping bad content under the rug into a separate article. The editor who did this even acknowledged that xe modelled this, in classic cargo cult article writing style, on another (bad) article, Muay Thai in popular culture.
  Don't be surprised if consensus here is to merge back into the not very long Krav Maga article, and we go around the cycle once again. That regularly happens, too. Merger has, indeed, already been suggested once.
  Uncle G (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm with TPH; I would love to see the "significant detail" standard brought to these "X in popular culture" articles. IMHO, a factoid in a book, movie or video game along the lines of "I studied Krav Maga," without that being a significant plot element discussed in detail, is no less a trivial mention than the "Feral Fuming Ferret is playing at Paul's Mall tonight at 8, tickets $12 at the door" references which we consider invalid sources for establishing notability anywhere else. Ravenswing 15:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TPH and Ravenswing. Inappropriate contents (ie: nothing but random trivial mentions). Them From Space 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. It's just a list of times Krav Maga is referenced in passing, which is entirely unencyclopedic. If the treatment of Krav Maga in popular culture could be shown to be notable in some way, then that might be a different matter.--Korruski^Talk 09:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larmenius Charter

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

Prod completed, article was deleted, and subsequently WP:REFUNDed three days after closure due to complaint from IP (with no other edits aside from complaint) on REFUND board alleging "self-serving" and "subjective analysis", so I have brought it to AfD. The article is about a non-notable hoax document with available "sources" having only trivial coverage saying it is a hoax. There's simply no way to make this an encyclopedic standalone article without OR. MSJapan (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source is not trivial coverage. It's an entire page and a half explaining the hoax story and what the reality is actually considered to be. And it's not the only source by far. Mackey explains that it's a forgery at some length, too, in his encyclopaedia entry for "Temple, Order of the". Robert Freke Gould discusses it as one of several "apocryphal manuscripts". Arthur Edward Waite wrote 22 pages on the thing, 6 in his encyclopaedia and 16 in Secret Tradition in Freemasonry. The latter (chapter 6 of the book) has been republished standalone as ISBN 9781425351533. Nesta Helen Webster cites Waite, saying "Mr. Waite has expressed the opinion that all this was an invention of the late eighteenth century, and that the Charter of Larmenius was fabricated at this date though not published until 1811 by the revived Ordre du Temple under the Grand Master, Fabré Palapat.". That seems a fairly concrete starting place. William Moseley Brown even handily documents both viewpoints on the document, attributing them to the people who hold them, on pages 53–56 of Highlights of Templar History.
I notice that there has been an even more extensive list of sources that can be used (Partner1981, Robinson1990, Baigent+Leigh1989, Knight+Lomas, and Picknet+Prince) cited on the article's talk page since 2006.
By the way: If you don't like sourcing a statement about the anachronistic Latin to a for Dummies book, you can try sourcing it to Joseph Gabriel Findel, who was the person who originally made that observation, and whom better sources than the Dummies actually cite by name. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And yet no one goes and finds these things for years (quite literally in this case) until an AfD comes up. Funny that. Anyhow, are you planning on putting those references into the article, or do you believe that proof of existence without addition is sufficient? Also, your ref finds need to be qualified - Knight and Lomas and Baigent are all pseudohistorians, Robinson is a throwaway ref (IIRC, if it's the book I think it is), and that's the problem - apart from referencing one other encyclopedia, there's just not a lot of substance there. The website that was sourced in the article was an OR .com. Sourcing is more than just existence. MSJapan (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might be funny if it were true, but it isn't true. By my arithmetic, the citations of sources on the talk page — which are not my finds, by the way — pre-date this AFD nomination by some 4 years and 1 month. Uncle G (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a keep per Uncle G,Sadads (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I addedd the for dummies reference - after the restoration and before the afd - because approximate in scope and depth to the current text, thus allowing for a quick cite of much content as well as the missing clarification of its presumed hoax status. Give that it is a summary text and there are more detailed sources for elaboration and qualification, I don't see why we can't have an article. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G. This historical hoax would appear to be the subject of commentary in multiple reliable sources, and as such meets the GNG. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Swivel

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

Unreferenced BLP which was created by User:Djswivel (WP:AUTO, WP:SPA) four years ago (to the day, oddly enough). The article has been unreferenced and has barely changed since 2006 (except for additions to the discography). Not finding any reliable sources or substantial news hits on the name. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 20:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From brief online searches, DJ Swivel seems to be a big deal in Atlanta, but fails most tests for WP:CREATIVE and WP:BAND. No evidence exists that he's had a hit, or that he's toured. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearian, autobio of a non-notable sound engineer. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Hong Kong

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/WWF Hong Kong (1st nomination)

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

This is not about the WWF, but about the Hong Kong chapter of this organization. No notability of this specific chapter has been established. A small notable event from them should fit in WWF, and only if more is found I think it would merit its own article. A references request did not lead to references for over 3 years which leads me to conclude that no refs exist or the community is incapable of finding them. L.tak (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be many sources available. I just picked out a few... [41] [42] [43] Johnfos (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnfos' sources. Even were notability not established this would be a valid spin-off of the main WWF article per WP:SS. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my reading of wp:ss this should (if needed) start as a section in WWF and could spin out as needed (or do you mean a specific section I missed?)... As for sources, only the first 1 was an outside source; enough to establish notability for a section but -in my opinion- not for a page... L.tak (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main organization's article, or to a new List of WWFN members (taking, e.g., the equally dubious stubs at WWF-Canada and WWF-India with it). Placing this information in the context of the larger organization is much more useful to our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources that Johnfos provided do not come close to satisfying our requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). The first one provides almost no information on WWF Hong Kong and the two other sources are clearly not independent. WP:SS does not in any way suggest that we can ignore WP:GNG in subarticles. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tabriz Abdullayev

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

Seems to fail WP:ARTIST. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wright (writer)

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

Apparently non-notable author/editor, no awards list, unreferenced blp. I can't find significant coverage via google news or books. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with Cavan Scott, I think he's written enough notable audio plays to pass for notability. (Okay, there isn't a specific notability criteria like this for writers, but if actors can qualify for notability through significant notable appearances in works, it's common sense to do for the for the writers.) Should this not be enough, I suggest a merge to Big Finish Productions where he seems to have done most of his work. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for apparent lack of sources on the person. The plays and the production company do not assert that much importance beyond the Doctor Who sphere either. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I still can't find any sources to establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British School of Boston

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

Contested prod. Article is about a school, but does not demonstrate any coverage in independent reliable sources. The only sources I could find were press releases and yellow-page listings. TN X Man 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found one source: *Brems, Lisa. "GRASSY DUNES." Boston Globe. April 9, 2000. South Weekly 3. "The British School of Washington D.C. plans to open a branch in Dedham in September The private school to be called the British School of Boston will occupy[...]" -- We may need to do a resource request to get the full article. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous consensus has been that high schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per common consensus that secondary schools are notable "except where they fail verifiability", which certainly does not apply in this case. tedder (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all mainstream secondary schools that provide full-time education to Grade 12 (18 years old) are de facto notable (WP:WPSCHOOLS). Kudpung (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British School of Houston

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

Contested prod. Article is about a school, but does not demonstrate any coverage in independent reliable sources. The only sources I could find were press releases and yellow-page listings. TN X Man 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least one newspaper article gives extensive coverage to the school. I found found a Houston Chronicle article: "British school to expand to accommodate demand." WhisperToMe (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And I added ~~two~~ three more secondary sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous consensus has been that high schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per common consensus that secondary schools are notable "except where they fail verifiability", which certainly does not apply in this case. tedder (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all mainstream secondary schools that provide full-time education to Grade 12 (18 years old) are de facto notable (WP:WPSCHOOLS). Kudpung (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Pedergnana

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

when an article commences with "curriculum vitae" and looks blatantly like one it seems very WP:AUTOBIO. don't see how he meets WP:BIO nor WP:PROF. yes he has authored some stuff according to gscholar but nothing substantial. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has published books, but their impact is not clear to me. Subject has almost nothing in the economics research literature though: WoS stats are 1 pub with h-index 1 and GS gives h-index 3. Website is unclear about his position. The article itself is a mess, mostly being a CV full of WP:OR. Also WP:SPA-created, so may be nothing more than a vanity page. Would help if persons knowledgeable in economics could weigh-in. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing particularly notable that might meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, furthermore article is also a SPA/autobio/advert mess.Sailsbystars (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British School of Washington

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

Contested prod. Article is about a school, but does not demonstrate any coverage in independent reliable sources. The only sources I could find were press releases and yellow-page listings. TN X Man 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the school exists according to NCES. Are you arguing that it doesn't exist or something else? There's a long-standing consensus that secondary schools are notable. tedder (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But doesn't the general notability guide trump that? I can't find any reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage. Is mere existence is enough to warrant inclusion? TNXMan 12:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Specific notability guidelines can trump GNG, people who compete at the highest level of a sport or win their nation's highest military decoration, for example. Edward321 (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that's because reliable sources can always (without exception) be found for those things. I repeat - I don't see any reliable sources for this article. TN X Man 13:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous consensus has been that high schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk)

The school exists, I was a student there. The information appears to be correct, though scarce. Word of mouth probably isn't that much more reliable. But I swear the British School of Washington is a real/functioning school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.117.20 (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT isn't a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per common consensus that secondary schools are notable "except where they fail verifiability", which certainly does not apply in this case. tedder (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all mainstream secondary schools that provide full-time education to Grade 12 (18 years old) are de facto notable (WP:WPSCHOOLS). Kudpung (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badee-uz-Zaman

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

Nonnotable recording — Bdb484 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nominator should have done what I'm about to do, explain why the album is non-notable. That's because it has not gained notice beyond the typical downloading and social networking sites. The existence of the album can be mentioned briefly at the artist's article until the album achieves its own notability. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. A stub without likelihood of expansion. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mazaheri

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

The page was created in a flurry of destruction by a vandal who used irrelevent sources to cite the player. He has not played a single league match and does not follow the WP:Football guidelines Kasperone 08:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep: Mohammad Rashid Mazaheri is a member of Iran national under-23 football team. See current squad of the team.Farhikht (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mohammad Rashid Mazaheri is a different player with Mohammad Mazaheri which plays for a different team (esteghlal Ahvaz)... and he has a different date of birth. Joojoo ra

If this entry is on another Mazaheri, I'll change my vote to delete, as per nom.Farhikht (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax, not listed on either of the two sources provided. Giant Snowman 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DrPhosphorus (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Rychlik

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

This is an autobiography originally posted by User:Rychlik. The subject has a fairly unremarkable carreer (CV). Solving the equichordal point problem does not seem to be something that has generated much notice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article may well have been started out of self-promotional intent. Yet, while the reason we discourage autobiographies is because of the obvious danger of neutrality and notability, the current one-liner can hardly be described as promotional tone, and the OP clearly fulfills our notability guidelines on academics. For notability on his solution to the equichordal point problem, see for example this book including its introduction. (Nonrespective WP:OTHERCRAP, I have been overruled with a keep vote in AfD discussions where I voted delete for much less notable persons, so I don't quite see why we want this one to be deleted based on notability grounds.) Nageh (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I dispute the assertion that he "clearly fulfills our notability guidelines on academics", and in fact that is precisely what I am contesting with this AfD. Could you please be more specific about how he fulfills them? He doesn't seem to have won any significant awards, and his work on the equichordal point problem does not seem to have been broadly influential. The book you cite mentions the subject, but only in passing. We also have the demands of WP:V, that even if a subject is notable, it still needs to be addressed nontrivially by sources. Further, if he truly is notable only for this one accomplishment, then there is no hope of an independent article about the subject, and (per WP:1E) the correct thing to do is redirect to Equichordal point problem. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:Academics: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

Whether you account the source I gave as indication for significant impact in the field of Plane Geometry may be subjective. At least, he solved one of their "unsolved problems".

I may have some preconception here, which is because I was overruled twice in my vote for deletion of Susan Scholz. But seriously, and non-respective of WP:OTHERCRAP, we need to be objective in our judgments. How can we keep an article on an associate professor but delete one on a full professor who delivered some notable theoretical result? Please help me understand our guidelines here. Nageh (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete MathSciNet citation counts are 57,19,14,13,10,6. Gscholar counts are 142,71,49,24,21,14,8,7,etc. The prizes listed in his CV do not seem terribly significant. I conclude that he fails to meet WP:PROF criterion 1 on the basis of citations (weak b/c his most-cited paper is very well cited), and do not see other grounds for notability. Solving problems is what mathematicians do - that he solved one makes him a respectable professional mathematician, but not necessarily more notable than your typical tenured professor. Ray^Talk 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rychlik's theorem Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think this is a good idea? In fact, Rychlik's theorem is a misnomer and blatant self-promotion. There is a single(!) Google hit that refers to the equichordal point problem by this name, the other hits refer to earlier results by Rychlik. And the total hits are so few that really Rychlik's theorem should be renamed to equichordal point problem and broadened in scope to discuss the general problem. This is not what this AfD is about, but shows that your suggested merge is not a good idea. Nageh (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A combination of how little there is under Marek Rychlik and how much of that is purely related to Rychlik's theorem anyway. As there's no personal bio in there to speak of, I see it as reasonable to include it with the theorem. This would of course change if Rychlik's theorem is a misnomer, or doesn't exist.

As to a rename to equichordal point problem, that sounds reasonable too (seems a bit odd that it redirects to the theorem at present), but that wouldn't change my comments above. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A merge entails leaving a redirect from Marek Rychlik to Rychlik's theorem/equichordal point problem. Provided that Rychlik's theorem is a misnomer (which it is), is that what you intend? (Just asking.) Nageh (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marek Rychlik and rename Rychlik's theorem to equichordal point problem. Although I recently found a paper on ZBMATH database (Wojtkowski, M.P., Two applications of Jacobi fields to the billiard ball problem, J. Differ. Geom. 40, No.1, 155-164 (1994)) which mentions Bialy's theorem and also Rychlik's theorem in the abstract, however I don't believe that Rychlik's theorem is an appropriate (universal) labeling. DrPhosphorus (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCAMPER (brainstorming)

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

The article was PRODDED, with the reason given as "None of the sources are WP:RS. This activity was concocted by one guy and has not appeared in any significant, reliable sources. The author of this article has basically reworded those other webpages into this non-encyclopaedic entry." The PROD was unchallenged, and I deleted it. I also thought it was written to promote the technique, and added that as an additional reason in the deletion log. An IP editor has now posted to my talk page to request restoration of the article, so I have restored it and bringing it here so that it can be discussed. The article still reads to me like promotion. The article is not adequately sourced. It is largely written as instructions how to use the technique, contrary to WP:NOTHOWTO, rather than as an encyclopaedic description. There is quite a lot of coverage of the concept, but most if not all of it is from practitioners of the technique, and to what extent it can be regarded as independent coverage is open to question. Certainly a significant proportion of the coverage is promotional, and some of it is in non-reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons as my original nomination. This is still a cross between a promotional article and a HOWTO. Google News returns zero hits for "scamper brainstorming" without quotes. There are no reliable sources that indicate any degree of notability -- the only mentions are on sites that say something along the lines of "Click here to see how YOU TOO can leverage the fantastic synergy of SCAMPER brainstorming to leverage your solutions!" I could write an article about the latest buzzword used in my organisation; it would look just as professional as this one and be just as much fluff. The IP editor's undelete reasons show absolutely no understanding of WP:NOTABILITY. She wants this article up on Wikipedia so she can translate it for her many Japanese clients? (1) That's not what Wikipedia is for. (2) That's spam. (3) She can find her own webhost and have someone translate it there. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up in a day. NOTHOWTO, etc. tedder (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A buzword today, but it may lead to something later. Let's wate and Google it up in about a month's time and see what happens then.--Wipsenade (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzada Akhund

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

Fails WP:BIO, completely based on one story. There are no other sources about this person, the only book listed at Google is a copy of Wikipedia articles[44], Google News archives give nothing[45], and regular Google has very few results as well(73, but only 4 left when you filter away Wikipedia). Fram (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. IQinn (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Still without a source. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cognate advisor

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

Completely without a source (other than some evidence that the term is used at those universities), little evidence that the term is not used for other concepts, and (if sourced) should be a section of doctoral advisor. (I can't decide whether the category should be S or T, so I'm specifically marking it as U (unsure).) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep How can something be "completely without a source" and at the same time a term used at "those universities". How many universities' websites have to use this term before it is sourced? If necessary, ask for whatever arbitrary number tickles your fancy (10, 20, 30) and I'll supply them. Heres some of many more examples not mentioned: College of Charleston^[2], University of Michigan^[3], Kent State University ^[4], Indiana University^[5], etc. etc. etc. etc. When this student explains in her dissertation she had a conversation with her cognate advisor ^[6], what she talking about?Edstat (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a student explains in her dissertation she had a conversation with her cognate advisor, who knows what it means. In the first link on google scholar search, the cognate advisor didn't know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't follow you. The first link of the google search that I see is the reference to wikipedia. Which link are you referring to? The point is, there are many universitys that differentiate between an advisor and a cognate advisor, each having forms and signatures required. There is a disseration of a student mentioned speaking with her cognate advisor, etc. Yet, you insist that such a thing doens't exist...So again, how many links to university web pages do you require. (BTW, many of these web pages define who is the cognate advisor).Edstat (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first link in scholar.google.com is to http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Farrell%20Annemarie.pdf?osu1147982213 , which is the one I was referring to. However, you've almost proved my point. If Wikipedia is the first link in google search, that's indication that the term isn't used on the web. Now, it may be used in other contexts, but that fact does provide evidence that the term may not actually be used in the real world.

If there were a definition of the term not restricted to a specific academic institution, I would be more inclined to believe that the term really does have a standard meaning, or that the concept was in wide use. I agree that you didn't invent the term, so it's not precisely WP:OR, but you haven't provided evidence that the term really means what you say it does. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found your link - under Google Scholar. Did you read the continuation, as would be required for good faith reporting? After the student told the faculty member what is a cognate advisor, the faculty member agreed! This only meant that faculty member had never served in that capacity, although her university had that role designated on the doctoral committee. Plus, under Google Scholar there are about 10 more references, and under Google Web about 80 more (e.g. U of New Hampshire^[7]) Here is a citation in a book:^[8].

OK, so if I understand you now, you want me to expand the article by quoting definitions from the various web pages? Wouldn't that had been better stated on the discussion page, instead of (a) trying to merge it or (b) trying to delete it?

In any case, I'll cut and paste definitons from the many web sites and put it into the articleEdstat (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found it, but I got "edit conflict"ed while you were giving the link. And sorry, being first on wikipedia only means google's algorithm searches wikipedia first. It doesn't prove your point, either the original one, or the one you are now advancing. I'm sure you know if you google George Washington, Tea Party, Russia, etc., they come up first on google.Edstat (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I was looking for is a reference which suggest the term is in general use, rather than being used it the specific academic institution(s). For a specific institution, it's a WP:PRIMARY (and probably WP:SPS) source, and we prefer to use WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here is another "specific use": University of Cincinatti, where even their piano program has a cognate advisor!^[9] Your argument seems to be that because dozens of university's use the term, that is WP:Primary?Edstat (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And U of Tennessee Knoxvile^[10]Edstat (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duquesne Univeristy^[11]Edstat (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kettering^[12]

U of Denver^[13].Edstat (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews University^[14]
WP:CHERRY? I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but there is no way for an objective observer to be sure whether your selections happen to have the same meaning because your search criteria select for that meaning, rather than it being a common usage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. So it is as I said above, you want me to cut and paste from some of them and put it into the article. If someone can find that there are multiple meanings, they can edit to so indicate. Edstat (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But as for Cherry picking, your allegations are now all over the board, is there any WP policy that I haven't violated. Intentional or not, which reference exists that you are aware of that I have failed to cite?Edstat (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically the point. Restating, the fact that institutions 1-15 use the term, doesn't mean that it's commonly used. All of your references that I've checked state only the definition (or sometimes, only use) at that institution. If all the definitions are essentially the same, that would provide support for the assertion that it's a common use, but a general definition, even from a tertiary source, would be preferred. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered I predicted when I was asked on another page to create this stub this would happen (i.e., it wouldn't last) as discussed here. {{subst:unsigned:Edstat}}

You still haven't provided evidence that the term is generally used, only that it's used at those institutions (and not necessarily with the same meaning.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'm on a wiki-break from editing for a while.Edstat (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Still" refers to "since the creation of the article", and "you" should refer to "Wikipedia editors". No offense intended. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sub-articles are a separate matter, but as pointed out, even the lede sources don't work here Black Kite (t) (c) 01:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felice News

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

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

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

I can't find any references that back up the claims in this article (e.g. of being the world's most popular positive news site, or having reporters in Antarctica). The Vancouver Sun link doesn't work and a search at the paper's web site doesn't bring up an article mentioning it. Google search for "Felice News" doesn't bring up anything helpful. ~~I'm also adding Max Jones and Lillian Wu to this AfD as related articles.~~ ... discospinster _talk 03:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; borderline WP:SPAM, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Invitrovanitas (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I called the Sun, they said that it was a valid article, but it had expired. Check out http://blog.bluehyppo.com/?tag=max-jones It's an AFP report. That is one of the article added to the references this morning. Also see http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-09-24-voa19-68709507.html. I am taking off Max Jones and Lillian Wu from your list, as they have valid references. Will search for more references on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.178.106 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can we resolve this issue? What do we need to do to get rid of the AfD? The article seems fine now, a number of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontonian333 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - A number of online sources have been added, indicating notability. More references can probably be found. I'll flag Felice News for Article Rescue. Invitrovanitas is no longer a wikipedia editor and has decided to leave. VivereInNY (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — VivereInNY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as to Felice News; I haven't reviewed the Jones and Wu articles yet). There are too many unsourced or poorly sourced claims in this article. The article claims that "Felice News is currently the world's most popular all-positive news outlet, surpassing websites such as HappyNews.com." However, this is sourced to a page where all the traffic data has been hidden by the owner. The article claims, "Felice News was the first news outlet to release the full features of an Apple iPad." This is sourced to a page on Felice News itself -- not an independent source -- and the page cited is blank. The claim that "A Felice News correspondent was on the scene at Bob Hope Airport on August 5, 2009, following the release of American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee from their 5-month imprisonment in the communist state of North Korea" is cited to this article which is datelined from Beijing and doesn't mention Bob Hope Airport. The claim that the site has a reporter in Antarctica is sourced to a page that doesn't mention Felice News. Finally, the article claims that the site features a news show called Happy All the Time, but I don't see such a show mentioned on the site. The only two videos featured on the front page of the site came from the apparently unrelated site Watchmojo.com. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not agree that Max Jones and Lillian Wu are two unrelated articles now? Can they not be removed from this AfD? And rather than completely deleting Felice News, why don't we just delete the sections that are not properly referenced? --Torontonian333 (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting the sections that are not properly referenced would help the article's verifiability -- but doing so would also remove several of the site's claims to notability. (As I was writing my comment, Discospinster agreed to withdraw the Jones and Wu articles from this AfD, so I am no longer commenting on those articles.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Max Jones too. It's early days for this site, but for someone so young to have already gathered the external coverage they have done, I consider that notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What external coverage is there for Felice News? That's the whole point. ... discospinster _talk 17:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yet more errors in the article. "Jones taught himself how to build a website with Weebly.com's online website editor, and started www.WNTLive.com (WNT for Weekend News Today) on January 1, 2008. Although, shows did not commence until a month later. ... Max Jones and his elementary school friend, Kendall Gray hosted Felice's first broadcast, introducing themselves and announcing the starting of a book club, which is still active today. The first book introduced in the book club was Trailblazer: An Intimate Biography of Sarah Palin." A picture caption says the first broadcast was on February 1, 2008 (consistent with the text, which says shows began a month after January 1, 2008). But it would have been very difficult for the book club to start reading Trailblazer, because that book had not even been written yet, and was not published until 2009. So either (a) Trailblazer was not the first book announced in the book club, (b) the book club did not begin in 2008, or (c) the book club was announced in 2008 but the article has failed to mention that no books were selected for it until almost a year later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After watching the video of the first broadcast, I see that it is dated, both by YouTube and in the video itself, as of April 3, 2009. Therefore, it looks like (b) is true in that not only did the book club not begin until 2009, neither did the "Weekend News Today" broadcasts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Monday Michiru. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moods (Monday Michiru album)

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

Album with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Look, I suspect the album IS notable. Monday Michiru is immensely popular in Japan, and there's a wealth of English language sources of the "it exists" or "not independent" variety, which makes me think there's probably Japanese sources testifying to its notability. But despite looking, I can't find them, and the article doesn't provide them. So delete, and it can be recreated at such time as sources are found. (Also, the article contains little more than a track listing, and should be deleted on that ground.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Potential Keep - Besides allmusic and some other database type site here, I think I may have found a site that says that the album charted at number 1? It can be found here, although on the album page it makes no mention other than launched a record 187. If this is not the case (the fact that it ranked high, although charting at 187 I suppose is something) I may change my vote to delete or disambiguate moods to redirect to her page. Either way, before closing I think someone who knows Japanese to take a look over. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even were it to have charted - which I know is a criterion of WP:NALBUM - we still wouldn't have sufficient in-detail discussion to write an encyclopaedic article about the album, and it would still therefore have to be deleted as non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is grounds to keep it, but she seems to be a pretty prominent artist; upon looking up for this album I found an album review for a different record of hers in BBC. What I mean to say is that IMO there is a high probability that RS's exist for this album but most likely in Japanese. If someone were to confirm that the record did chart, I think it is worth keeping. But I know probability isn't policy... - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only information obtained by this article that is not already in the discography is a tracklist of non-notable songs. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supachai Kamsab

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

Not notable--see this search. A regular Google search delivers more results, but I didn't find anything in there that would qualify as a reference from reliable source. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As regular player in the fully-pro Thai Premier League, he satisfies WP:NSPORTS and while my Google Translate skills are average at best, he clearly is mentioned in the Thai press on a pretty regular basis and is likely to meet the GNG too. Jogurney (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:ATHLETE and is therefore notable. Giant Snowman 13:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Townsend

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

Not-notable enough. The article itself admits that there is "very little is known about his biographical data, as he was in no major bands." No need to just list four songs that he wrote tracks for. NW (Talk) 04:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the refs and it's still a pitiful stub, but it seems we need improvement rather than deletion. WhatLinksHere includes the following legitimate pages:

<( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 21:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do more research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree fully with the user above.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. no explanation given just turn up and vote. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my explanation is that I fully agree with the user above me, with the keep reasoning if a good reason has been given by another user then I dont feel obligated to give one myself if I agree 100% with that reason sutch in this case.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are satisfied with the answer. And ofcourse assume good faith. As always.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. the current article is full of non reliable sources. even the article admits there is a lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Shahid Stover

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

A restored speedy deletion which doesn't seem to assert notability: writing a few articles and running a blog, so requesting input from a wider audience. Step hen 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability doesn't seem to have been met. Also note that the article's author is mostly interested in adding this book to other Wikipedia articles, suggesting possible promotion and/or conflict of interest issues. ClovisPt (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, the subject "A. Shahid Stover" meets the notability requirement because of THE BOOK HE WROTE, which you either accidentally or deliberately failed to mention. If it was only the articles and the blog I'd agree with you otherwise. -Cain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.214.224 (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE ARTICLE!!! The notability of the "A. Shahid Stover" article I wrote is self-evident. How many philosophical works on Hip Hop exist? Exactly. C'mon, this feels like a debate under false pretenses. I suspect the issue is more POV than Stephen is letting on, his concerns seem a bit trite really. Clovis makes a good point though I have been "mostly interested"(nice slight there buddy) in including what I consider a great book about Hip Hop into other relevant Wikipedia articles. That is what Wikipedia is about though right, contributing to "a free encyclopedia ... in terms of breadth and in terms of depth". The article I wrote about "A. Shahid Stover" contributes to both, period. I'm sure Stephen isn't into Hip Hop or critical theory, but that doesn't mean that articles which would interest those who don't look, talk or have the same interests as Stephen should be deleted on some bogus pretentious claims of somehow lacking notability.Anotsu9 (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given that there have been no further edits over the time listed to assert notability. --Step hen 05:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE, "further edits" were never a condition for "asserting notability". I agree with Anotsu9 who claimed the "notability" of his article is "self-evident". -Cain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.214.224 (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 71.249.214.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP THE ARTICLE part II~~ Look, I wrote an article about a man who is a radical intellectual, a philosopher and a social critic. I'm not claiming he is world famous pop star or a state sanctioned academic bureaucrat. What I am claiming is that by writing the book, HIP HOP INTELLECTUAL RESISTANCE, he has achieved that ever elusive quality of NOTABILITY. Stephen disagrees, but again, I think Stephen has other less objective reasons for eliminating my "A. Shahid Stover" article.Anotsu9 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't !vote more than once, if you wish to add further comments, simply put "comment" at the start rather than putting "keep" again. Thank you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero gNews archive hits. Lack of RSs means the subject fails WP:BIO / WP:AUTHOR / WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of documented notability. I appreciate that the subject may seem notable, and may even be somewhat notable in fact, but we must have sources that show this notability for it to count on Wikipedia. The article was nominated for deletion on 9 December; it's now the 21st and no edits have been made to the article adding sources (or, indeed, any information). No, you do not have to add sources to have an AFD closed as keep - but you do need to show that the nominator's concern is unwarranted, and that hasn't happened here. So, delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Apancho

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

Long-term unsourced BLP with little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep would appear to pass WP:ATHLETE (competed in the world championships for his sport) and I've added sources to verify the claims in the article. Hut 8.5 11:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of improvements to sourcing. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Enfield 1893 F.C.. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southbury Road Stadium, Enfield, London

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

Cannot find any notability guidelines for football stadia, but this demolished stadium doesn't seem notable. Echetus Xe 00:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Echetus Xe 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Enfield 1893 F.C.. Any notability of the stadium is tied up with the club, and it seems some real estate profit-driven management of it. We gain a better and much more readable article by placing this all together as one. There doesn't seem to be anything of architectural note here, but the redirect is probably worth keeping (categorized unde Places in Enfield, etc) in case of searches for local history and landmarks, rather than sport. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as above; no need for a seperate article, but deserves a mention on the team page (when built, capacity etc.) Giant Snowman 17:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted, per CSD G12. Nakon 00:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly baugher

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

OK, so she's on IMDB. So? There's no significant coverage of this person that warrants an article. — Timneu22 · talk 00:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Le Shok

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD is unsatisfactory; most of the votes were delete, yet the article made it through. At first glance (or any glance) this is an A7 band, with no reliable sources, no indication of importance, and no significance asserted. — Timneu22 · talk 00:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and that last AFD was stupid. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This band was the subject of a cover story in September, 2000, in Maximumrockandroll, a publication which is very influential in the punk rock genre. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't "count votes" in AfD debates as this is not an election. If ten editors say "delete" without applying policy properly, while one editor says "keep" and cites relevant policy, then the article should be kept. Referring to the closing administrator's decision as "stupid" does not impress me as persuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per being subject of cover story in notable magazine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328 and SarekOfVulcan.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.ferrarichat.com

[2] ttps://www.clubscuderia.co.uk

[3] ttps://www.rossocorsa.co.uk/

[4] ttps://whois.domaintools.com/rossocorsa.co.uk

[5] ttps://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/daily-mail-london-england-the/mi_8002/is_2007_Jan_4/oops-wrong-ferrari-revenge-didnt/ai_n38365525/?tag=content;col1

[6] ttps://advising.cofc.edu/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_1979BC5F6BD933CDD0FE3226D18A6911F5740100/filename/DISC_Organismal_Biol_BS_07.pdf

[7] ttps://www.lsa.umich.edu/umich/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=10fef9a0b8516110VgnVCM1000009db1d38dRCRD&vgnextchannel=14c5969e3a265110VgnVCM1000003d01010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=print

[8] www.kent.edu/ehhs/Schools/ldes/programs/itec/upload/PhDPoS.doc

[9] ttps://www.iue.edu/informatics/bs-informatics.php

[10] ttps://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Farrell%20Annemarie.pdf?osu1147982213 p. iv

[11] www.physics.unh.edu/pdf/handbook0405.pdf

[12] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=raoaAAAAMAAJ&q=%22cognate+advisor%22&dq=%22cognate+advisor%22&hl=en&ei=twEBTc6kEKDtnQeekpXlDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA

[13] ttps://www.uc.edu/courses/ccm.pdf

[14] web.utk.edu/~edpsych/collaborative_learning/phdplanC6.doc

[15] ttps://www.duq.edu/school-admin-supervision/course-sequence.cfm

[16] ttps://www.kettering.edu/registrar/docs/01-02_Course_Catalog.pdf

[17] ttps://www.du.edu/education/display/docs/handbooks/2009-2010Handbooks/HED_PhD_09-10_Final.pdf

[18] ttps://www.andrews.edu/sed/tlc/about/ci-program_handbook.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]