Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

436th Transportation Battalion (United States)

436th Transportation Battalion (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This deletion debate is the result of earlier comments at WP:MILHIST about notability of military units. The previous standard is that all units of battalion level and above were usually considered notable. Yet comments have been made, including at the previous 3-319 FA AfD, that some larger units might not really be notable, depending on the circumstances. Looking at this unit, I am hard pressed to read any particular notability into it; a reserve, non-combat military unit which has done only a single, very recent tour, as part of the Iraq War. What do others think? I am inclined to believe that not all battalion level units are notable; to give another example, individual Soviet rifle battalions, part of brigades. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: in this case I'm inclined to agree. The article would need to be more than just a list of dates to indicate notability, I feel. I'm willing to reconsider if significant coverage can be found (e.g. is there a book that mentions the unit in some detail, or some journals?), without this I don't feel it meets the notability requirements. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As it stans, this article doesn't seem to be worth keeping. If it were fleshed out some, and had some good sources, I'd reconsider. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The unit has entries in U.S. Army heraldic crests. The sources only support a stubby entry currently but this is no reason to delete as the entry may be expanded or merged. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an invalid argument. If we kept every military unit with an insignia we'd have every company with it's own design from the last 300 years or so. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy that

Wikipedia is not paper and so we have room for any number of military units. We already have about a quarter of a million minor planets. Click random article a few times to get a feel for our huge scope. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

A planet is a large physical object. It deserves mention. Not all groupings of 150 (or 600) people in history do so.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete References not sufficient to meet
  WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of True Crime: New York City characters

List of True Crime: New York City characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) -Teancum (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge what can be merged to the game's article, delete otherwise. The True Crime series never achieved the same level of significance as GTA, and thus it is difficult to justify anything about these characters. The TC:NYC article is not too long to contain an abbreviated form of this list. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is almost entirely fictional information, which belongs in the plot synopsis of the game. The strength of the voice casting might confer some
  WP:WAF credence, but unless there's a huge amount of coverage about this, it's nothing that can't be included in the game's article. Marasmusine (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell's thermodynamic surface

Maxwell's thermodynamic surface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No evidence of notability or of reliable sources that discuss the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This museum exhibit certainly exists. Here is the picture from the Cavendish Laboratory Museum virtual tour. Unsurprisingly for a museum exhibit, it's documented, too. Here is the ACM SIGGRAPH article on it, for example. Here's an article from Virginia Tech, which also has an annotated version of the sculpture. This sculpture is documented in books, too. Did neither of you look at this article's talk page? Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this topic is just under the wrong title and written from the wrong viewpoint, since the graphical method is notable (that's the subject of several sources), while the plaster object that illustrates the method isn't. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Important enough, with enough sources, for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is plenty of evidence for this such as Mere Thermodynamics. The material should perhaps be split/merged with Phase diagram#3D phase diagrams and given alternate titles such as Gibbs' surface and P-V-T surface to help our readers find it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a single sentence in the Phase diagram#3D phase diagrams section would work, saying "An early example of a 3D phase diagram was constructed from plaster by James Maxwell, based on Gibbs' geometric method of representing thermodynamic quantities." It isn't that the thing doesn't exist, or that the topic it illustrates isn't important, it is just that the thing itself isn't the notable part of the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tim, you've been on your Jihad against my contributions for how many years now? Maxwell's plaster surface is famous among thermodynamics students (and thermodynamics professors), discussed in at least a dozen of books I would guess, and the three existing models are on display case exhibits at Yale (physics department) and Cambridge (Museum at the Cavendish Laboratory). In order to understand the very difficult concept of Gibbs free energy one must be able to understand its interpretation as Gibbs defined it by section AB on figure 3 and as Maxwell sculpted that section on his 3D surface figure.

• We also might like to note that Maxwell's drawings for this "non-notable thing", as Vickers calls it, were deemed important enough to be put into the design of the 2005 Gibbs stamp in their series of great American scientists. --Libb Thims (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in my mind, having a concept, person, or work of art on a stamp of a major country denotes
  found good sources. They just need to be added and the article fixed up, for it to be rescued. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please note that the stamp illustrates Gibbs' idea of a thermodynamic surface, not the piece of plaster constructed by Maxwell. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
  Phil Bridger (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think all of those sources deal with Gibbs' concept of a thermodynamic surface and some mention in passing the fact that the concept was also illustrated in plaster by Maxwell. I think the main problem here is that the article is wrong, Gibbs' surface is a concept (and a very important concept in thermodynamics) it is not the same as the piece of plaster formed by Maxwell to illustrate Gibbs' idea. Perhaps moving the article to Gibbs' thermodynamic surface might solve this problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful to include in that list only sources that cover the model.

Phil Bridger (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Keep. No evidence of notability; unsourced article. It seems to me that, as is noted above, all that is really needed is a sentence (in the article describing the surface) pointing out that Maxwell built a model of the surface. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It does seem odd, though, that the effort going into this AfD discussion is an order of magnitude greater than the effort going into the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is quite normal. If you make a contribution to the AFD then you may sure that it will be preserved for all eternity. Make a contribution to the article then it may well be lost because editors like yourself are demanding that it be deleted. The process is quite stupid and wasteful and so sensible editors soon tire of it. This then just leaves zealots and those with axes to grind. See
  WP:SEP for more comment on this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. I've added some references that explain the importance of Maxwell's sculptorial exercition and contain further scholarly references. They appear to provide ample material for whoever is so inclined to elevate the article above mere stub status. Having somewhat of a love-hate relationship with thermodynamics (except that the love is missing), I'll gladly leave this work of love to other editors.  --Lambiam 03:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That almost convinces me: the first of those references is indeed a non-trivial mention of the sculpture itself. After all, this article, being about the physical plaster object rather than the equations, is a "history of scientific modelling" article, not a "thermodynamics" article, so the sources have to be about the sculpture. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that source "almost convinces" you then why did you !vote "delete" after I had already presented it, along with several similar sources, above? Don't people even read the previous discussion and look at the sources presented before giving their opinion? If not it's a waste of time even looking for sources.

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What finally convinced me was some additional sources I found myself. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article is essentially useless without a picture of the model: either a photograph taken at Yale or Cambridge, and uploaded to commons, or a 3D-rendered reconstruction. I've added a sketch of the lines he drew on the surface, which is not quite so good as a picture of the model. I've also fixed some factual errors, and added references. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone might have to check on the appropriate license tag, but the first photograph that I know of, captioned as “The Surface” (photo by James Pickands II), is on page 203 of Muriel Rukeyser’s 1942 book Willard Gibbs American Genius: File:Maxwell thermodynamic surface.png --Libb Thims (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really great photo. I've added it to the article. The licensing may still need checking. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To assist with that: how did you get the image file (was it from the book?) and does the book have a photo credit giving a date for the photo? And do you know if it's a photo taken in Yale or Cambridge? -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image scanned from book. The photo credit is "James Pickands II" (no date), who seems to be noted for photos in the 1920s. The photo possibly came from the Gibbs collection at Yale, as that is where Rukeyser did most of her research. --Libb Thims (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Another photo I know of is on page 87, entitled “Thermodynamic Surface for Water”, showing the surface from four different angles, of Lynde Wheeler’s 1951 book Josiah Willard Gibbs: the History of a Great Mind. --Libb Thims (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a persistent myth that Maxwell's surface is the thermodynamic surface of water, even though he says it isn't, quite. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable topic, well written, well sourced, nice illustrations. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gandalf61 summed it up pretty nicely. Jenks24 (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~

List of Oregon wineries and vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

Article consists mostly of redlinks for wineries that are unlikely ever to meet

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Just a comment, as I'm unsure my final feelings. For one, an article shouldn't be deleted because it simply needs cleanup. e.g., not everything on the list needs to be notable to make it a notable list. (somewhat addressed at
  WP:STAND). For instance, an article about "parks in oregon" would stay even if some of the parks would never have their own article. The links can be cleaned up simply by wrapping them in reftags. tedder (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Keep Maybe the list needs some pruning and defense from PR/spammer influence, but a list of wineries and vineyards in one of the world's premiere viticultural areas is clearly within the scope of the encyclopedia. Not to mention it's easily verified using an array of reliable books and periodicals. As for the "we have the category" argument, they're not equivalent in content and readers generally don't browser categories like they use lists. Steven Walling 23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a compelling argument to keep such a list. Granted, this list isn't as bad as
    talk) 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • We do not delete articles because they need to be cleaned up, instead we simply clean them up. And your analogy is an
      WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and we tend to avoid those. Also, red links basically by their definition fail corp, as there are no sources in the article, well, because there is no article. Many of the red links in this list would actually pass CORP if someone took the time to write proper articles. But these really has little baring on the merits of this list, as we can lists that have no links at all if we wanted to, or we could pair this down to just the blue links. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Aboutmovies' comments pretty much speak to my feelings regarding your rebuttal. Steven Walling 07:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your feelings are irrelevant. Policies and guidelines are what matter, and have not been addressed so far in the comments. However, if a cleanup to the point of having a nearly-useless short list is acceptable to conform with policies and guidelines, I'm happy to withdraw this deletion proposal. ~
          talk) 17:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Don't be snide. Saying "my feelings" was just a way of saying that I agree with his opinions about the application of policy. Steven Walling
• Keep since a list can include redlinks with citations to show notability, thus showing in this case wineries that would be likely to have articles written about them, that makes it a reasonable alternative navigation aid to the category. I checked the blue links, and only one is not adequately sourced, so thats pretty good, we dont have a walled garden here. of course, all the redlinks must be removed immediately (ill try to remember) unless someone takes the time to collect a few citations on them. A list of 8 items in a category which can only likely expand (and global warming may increase oregons wine industry if they are lucky :)), is to me not too small a list. ps im not connected in any way with the oregon wine industry, as my edit history shows.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable as may be seen in Pacific Northwest: the ultimate winery guide : Oregon.... Categories do not supersede lists and one advantage of them, per
  the relevant guideline, is that they support redlinks and so assist our work. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Finally, Colonel Warden presents an argument that makes sense to me. Closing as "keep". I'll help out cleaning up the article. ~
    talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Yarnell

Malcolm Yarnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This subject of the article, who google indicates is an associate professor, seems to fail

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Keep - Having the information on Wikipedia harms nothing, deleting it helps nothing. Not selling anything or pushing POV. Is he worthy of inclusion? Borderline. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Weak delete. - Arguments made below are, ummmm, borderline compelling. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would hardly call the article neutral, though it certainly is not selling any product. If it fails
  WP:ACADEMIC does he borderline meet? Novaseminary (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:PROF, no independent reliable sources, virtually no GS citations, no other indication of notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Sources seem from reliable journals and independent. Young but notable. Academicwalker (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC) — Academicwalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are no journal sources about the subject, merely some publications by the subject. That doesn't satisfy

WP:PROF. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Academicwalker has only edited this AfD, this article, and the article's talk page (which Academicwalker improperly blanked).

Here is more on how to discuss AfDs. As Radagast3 noted, the articles need to be about this person. Novaseminary (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Not interested in debating technicalities, but the journal reviews are about and not by the subject. Just offering an opinion that he is a scholar worth noting. Really not my concern otherwise. On a different note, if the subtle questioning of motives is how newcomers are treated in editing Wikipedia, not so sure it is worth participating. Make your choice as you see fit, Novaseminary, but please temper any personal evaluations. Academicwalker (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Academicwalker, your blanking of the article's talk page was a significant violation of WP policy, though I assume you did not mean harm and just didn't know better. Whatever the intent, the result was to temporarily remove criticism of the article--as that is all that appeared on the talk page. That, along with the fact that your account is a

Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, tell us which notability policies or guidelines you think this article meets rather than just stating your opinion. This discussion is not a vote.Novaseminary (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong Delete There is insufficient references to third party, reliable, and independant sources (particulary non-baptist sources) to establish Yernell's notability. The article relies heavily on his many writtings and not on what experts say about his writings or on him. (Being a prolific author is a common trait among mon-notable and fringe religious leaders.) Substantial POV: Many staements not to mention whole sections lack citations - this makes for POV. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A source doesn't need to be "non-Baptist" — just independent. Carrite (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to be an academic with a modest publihsed output (so far). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with both those facts. He is an academic, and he does have a modest published output so far. How does that satisfy
  WP:ACADEMIC, though? Novaseminary (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Google Scholar gives his published output a
  WP:ACADEMIC. I don't see how he satisfies #2 to #9 either. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete This guy is hardly Martin Luther or even Billy Graham, although I'm sure he's a nice guy. His publications are modest, at best, and could be matched by hundreds of other minor theology historians. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically, not yet. 1 relatively minor book, some articles. I do point out that our cutoff is substantially lower than the above comment indicates. And the h-index is pretty irrelevant in theology. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that was aimed at me, what I meant was that our thresholds have varied with the field (adjusting both for typical citation levels, and for the degree of capture of citations by indices such as Google Scholar), but I've never seen anyone fail an AfD based on

WP:PROF #1 with a h-index over 20, and I've never seen anyone pass with a h-index below 10 (unless there was a single work with an enormous number of citations). The h-index is of course as relevant in theology as in any other academic discipline. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It was aimed at the general argument; several people have used it at AfD. All agree that the h index has to be seen against the citation practice of the field; it's not reasonable to use any citation measure without field normalization of some sort. But there is still a limitation: I have never seen any published work or even any posting validating its use --or the use of any citation measure whatsoever -- in theology, nor do I know of any work in progress in that area (I just rechecked the SIGMETRICS list and confirmed my memory; but I did find what I consider a authoritative posting from a key researcher [11] ) If you want to say that "of course" it's relevant, can you find some evidence that anyone in the field uses it at all, let alone demonstrated its validity? I make the stronger statement that I do not remember ever seeing its use in any field of the humanities validated either, but I have not checked with an actual search. I'm not prepared to say it's never been used in the humanities, for probably some academic bureaucrat believing in quantitation without regard to validity has tried. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "validity" in this context. Apart from the normalisation issue, why would a h-index be less valid in one field than another? And what alternate measure do you have in mind to validate the h-index against? -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Taste of Johns Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

Local food festival. No doubt it's great fun, like they all are - but it certainly doesn't meet wikipedia's notability requirements. Coverage is restricted to the immediate area - nothing even at State level - so it completely fails

• Delete as per above. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Fails
  WP:N since there is nothing but local coverage.Griswaldo (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Smerge to Johns Creek, Georgia. Coverage is limited and local, but the coverage does exist. That's not enough to establish standalone notability, but a severe trim and merge to a culture section on city would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What Whpq said. We've done the same for other local festivals in the past, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitmore Lake Harvest Festival--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Johns Creek, Georgia, per User:Whpq.--PinkBull 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Arann

Susan Arann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No notability, she is a presedent of a company that doesn't have a wiki itself. Possible sockpuppitry between

• delete, seems like vanity page. More importantly, no sources listed. PamelaBMX 21:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per
  WP:Afd#How to discuss an AfD: The accusation VANITY should be avoided [12], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Ty 17:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete No matter how many sources you add, it would fail to meet notability requirements. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added some sources and I'm also working on the page of the company. Sorry but I need time to edit it. Lucykamp —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete 'Vanity, vanity, all is vanity' or something like that... There is an article (equally brief) about the company - but it's tagged for SD. Peridon (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per
  WP:Afd#How to discuss an AfD: The accusation VANITY should be avoided [13], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Ty 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

OK. The article may not be vanity. Someone totally unreleted might have decided to write it (and the one about the company) out of the goodness of their heart. It's still not notable and deletable on that ground, in my opinion. Peridon (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also at: Susan Arann (disambiguation) and User:Susan Huckvale Arann edited by Susan Huckvale Arann and LucyKamp. Can these be added to the nomination? I've tagged the 'disambig' page for SD. Peridon (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, COI. Hairhorn (talk)
• Speedy delete No evidence of significance or notability.
  talk) 10:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete because I can't find anything online that she's done of any importance. There are literally zero news Ghits except for her activity on the Women's Committee for the NSO. There are some Ghits, but they don't paint much of a picture. She's a designer who has given some money to St. John's University [14] and other charities. How is that notable? Bearian (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 04:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dameans

The Dameans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No notability claimed in article. Unable to find verifiable independent source to support an article for this group. Fails

• Are we looking at the same article? "their music "dominate[d] the publications scene" is certainly a claim to notability, and there are two sources cited.
  talk) 21:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete And that dominance of the "publication scene" meant what, exactly? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator argues that no claim of notability was made when there is one, even though it is admittedly a bit vague. My reading of it is that they were known for the songs they composed, which were published so that others could preform them at their own churches. And what of the two sources attached? What is the problem with those exactly?

talk) 23:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a lousy article with a clear claim of notability. As for sources, here's an article in Billboard: [15]. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry my article is lousy, Gavia, it's just a poor little stub waiting for someone to come along and show it some love. BTW, the Billboard reference you've given is unfortunately an advertisement, not an article.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I swear I checked that more closely... — Gavia immer (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I'm the article's creator). What a bizarre nomination, as Beeblebrox said it's like the nominator was looking at something else. Anyway, I've added two more references, and if anyone has composer Ken Canedo's recent book Keep the Fire Burning: The Folk Mass Revolution, which isn't indexed online, you'll find the Dameans significantly covered there. They're discussed quite substantially in the podcasts that accompany the book, but I didn't feel like citing to online audio files (though they would surely constitute
  reliable sources) and I no longer have the book on hand. Anyway, this verges on a speedy keep.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Nominator went through a little drive by tagging phase and nominated a bunch of articles that didn't deserve it. This is one of them. Notability is definitely met through the use of multiple sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walking in the Air (album)

Walking in the Air (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable self-released album, only source is eBay. Any meaningful content can be put in the artist's page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a demo album that was not meant for general release. All of the content in this article exists at the artists article so I see no need for a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Considering this an expired PROD. Shimeru 22:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Album (The All-American Rejects demo CD)

The Blue Album (The All-American Rejects demo CD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F1 (BBC)

F1 (BBC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article about BBC coverage of Formula One, contains just a list of presenters and an infobox with basic production details. This is not a notable subject for an article, as there is little information to include, and there are no such other articles on Wikipedia. Please note, a similar article with another name was deleted several months ago, following this discussion. QueenCake (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and as much as I dislike syaing "per nom", I've nothing to add so... -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The BBC's coverage of Formula One is notable, being a national broadcaster of a major sport. For an example of a source for the current content, please see this article in the Daily Telegraph - a national broadsheet newspaper. The claim that there are no similar articles is false - see Category:British sports television programmes. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you could see the previous article deleted, it included that information, and was still essentially a copy of this page. There just isn't the notable information beyond basic details. Those articles in the category are actual programmes, rather than a page on a sports coverage, and I'd question the notability of several of them anyway. QueenCake (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cs-wolves(talk) 14:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sometimes certain sports programming gets a bit of a life of its own - whereby the program itself becomes independently notable. In UK terms, this would include, for example, Match of the Day and Test Match Special. But this is not the case here. Pfainuk talk 14:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civiq Society

Civiq Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Civiq Society was previously tagged for the proposed deletion process, as shown by the edit history, and the

1. Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
2. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources,
3. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
4. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline

I have made my own search for reliable sources on this organization, and have found none. It does not appear that any fact about the organization can be verified by an independent reliable source. In particular, there is no indication whatever that the organization is notable enough to be an entry in an edited encyclopedia for general readership. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There needs to be a "delete all" app with a provision to uncheck the less obvious articles. This one wouldn't be unchecked. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:ORG. Not only does the article not assert notability, it basically confirms non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Avengers (2012 film)

The Avengers (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Disputed redirect. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as separate article While the film fails
  Comic-Con coverage. SNGs like NFF do not take precedence over the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  Spider-Man 4 has been discussed since the release of Spider-Man 3, but without the initiation of filming, it continues to be just a project, just like this one. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep only as a non-film, reflected by the constant indication of being planned, no film infobox, and no film-related categories. I would much rather see this as a section but am willing to see how this works. I'm only concerned that editors will try to restore the infobox and the categories even though there is no film in production at this point. That was the point of avoiding a stand-alone article, to reflect that this is not something tangible, to make a clear distinction between a film and a plan. This blurs the line, IMO. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:NFF is not without cause, theres no reason to believe that this film will be immuned from setbacks despite media coverage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Avengers (comics) in other media#Marvel Studios films. Meeting the GNG is not a guarantee for a topic to have a stand-alone article. The Avengers is already included at the article to which this title redirected, and I think it should remain so until after the start of principle photography in accordance with NFF. Cliff smith ^talk 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: It's not ready as an article if it's not being filmed. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The film was already set back a full year, we can not garauntee a 2012 release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly why it's not ready. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per
  talk ~ contribs) 19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • So... just how many thousands more in-depth articles in multiple reliable sources over several years would be enough for you to belive there could be a seperate article? Think carefully, as there are a few hundred thousand existing articles being put in the crosshairs for AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a seperate article- There was just a front page story on this film on USATODAY yesterday (no link at the moment, apologies). There's quite frankly more than enough inofrmation at the moment that leaving it in the parent article would become unwieldy. Just because it doesn't meet
  WP:NFF doesn't mean it hasn't earned its own article by now. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The problem is that the article is presented as if The Avengers will come out. It says it's an upcoming film, it lists credits as if the film was set in stone, and it identifies a cast when nobody's performed their roles. This structure is misleading to readers when there is no guarantee that there will be a film. Like I said in my comment above, Justice League was a project of interest that had similar headlines attached, but it floundered due to a writers' strike. As a result, there is no film -- no actual credits and no cast. If filming begins for The Avengers, then it is a much surer bet, and there can be an article for the film until the end of time. Beforehand, though, it is misleading to claim that there will be a film when we've seen many examples of major-franchise projects flounder. In addition to the Spider-Man 4 example, Superman and Batman did not have films for long durations.
  Jurassic Park IV is still talked about, but nothing ever happens with it. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The 2012 date is not something we came up with, rather it is from reliable sources. If the date chanegs for some reason, the article title can change with it, its hardly set in stone. Problems with tense can be changed with editing, and hardly require deletion. A simple change of "will come out" to "is currently scheduled for release in/on", would work, with a note right after that the date has been moved back in the past. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be so "unwieldy" about keeping information about this project at its parent article? After all, if this doesn't get filmed, it should be there. Check out

Superman (film series)#Proposals for fifth film. We shouldn't assume that this is certainly going to be filmed and give this project its own article when it can be included at the article about its subject material (Avengers (comics) in other media) until filming starts. Then again, some of it could be integrated (and perhaps even should be integrated) at Marvel Cinematic Universe as well. Cliff smith ^talk 21:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to Avengers (comics) in other media#Marvel Studios films. This'll have its own article eventually - but we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Change it from (2012 film) to (Planned 2012 film) The name can be changed back to ints originalname once filming officially begins.--Dann135 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As stated above we can not even garauntee 2012 at this point.
  Wikipedia is not a cyrstal ball. Once filming begins a safer assumption can be made.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Then why not rename it just (Planned film) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dann135 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is as
  no rush.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Then why rush to remove, when it has such potential to be fixed? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixing comes with the start of production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardly. The "fixing" of an article "begins" with the first edit that acts to address a concern. See
  WP:ATD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I should have been more clear, the problem of notabilty and verafibilty will be solved in time with the start of production. In the mean time the parent article is more can capable of covering the topic. Also nobody is advocating deletion just redirection.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ??? And I should have been more clear too, as I must not have been.
  WP:ESSAYS. A once-widespread consensus for their use as beacons of notability is flickering and the beacons are dimming to darkness. Though they may have been once respected, the consensus herein being established is that they no longer speak for nor represent consensus of the entire community. If once-respected guidelines can now be so easily disegarded, they are no longer guidelines. In spite of the "guideline" wording that heads each of their pages, they are now effectively demoted and now exist only as defacto essays. And the new consesnsus, that once-important guidelines can be ignored, would seem indicative that the days of growth for Wikipedia may now at an end... as the arguments being used here in contravention to the once-respected instructions at WP:N and WP:GNG will, through the precedent apparently being established, allow these same arguments to be used at all AFDs, old and new, in removing information and shrinking the project. Once upon a time, arguments supported by guideline had strength... and arguments ignoring guideline had weakness. With demotion of guidelines, those once-strong arguments become negligable. What a switch. The new consesnsus has spoken: WP:N and WP:GNG can be ignored as weight of numbers creates a new consensus that it be so ignored... even though AFD is not supposed to be a vote. I will caution though, that when articles once thought unassailably notable begin to disappear in an avalanche of AFDs... don't ask for whom the bell tolls... it tolls for thee. And oh... a word to the wise... we are going to need a few hundred more Admins to handle the new workload. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to comic Policy says we wait till filming starts.... It probably gonna happen but we gotta wait. Take it up the policy page if you disagree. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not policy. Or are you thinking of
    WP:V that states that what is written within these pages must be verifiable... as in a film being planned must be verifiable as being planned? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Darnit, I hate that those types of Technicalities, We know its being planned. I know a lot of these films (Especailly this scale) that go into
      production hell Development hell No exception here in IMHO redirect worst case scenairo we recreate the article later. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Redirect to
  WP:NFF.-5- (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

::Merge with Marvel Cinematic Universe. It appears to me that either this article or Marvel Cinematic Universe is redundant. Is there a way to merge the two articles since they both seem to be about Marvel Studios' attempts to connect their independent movie projects?-5- (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A merger of these two articles would be innappropiate as they do infact cover two different topics. The MCU article is about the universe as a whole and is more akin to a film series article while The Avengers film project is about the development of a specific film within that universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect It's not in production yet... and may never be. Changing my mind, article should be redirected. JmacBrown (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion is inappropriate because this article can be rendered as a valid redirect and has the potential to host information about the film if it begins production. Why not get behind a merge/redirect option instead? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Purely speculative. Nymf _hideliho! 13:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at the least, Incubate As even more than the 37 sources on the article are added, meeting
  WP:GNG... which this one certainly does in spades. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The article was concieved in a sandbox at User:Fandraltastic/The Avengers (2012 film) and is still being maintained.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Many articles are conceived in sandboxes... and many not done as well as this one. An editor's sandbox is not found unless one knows to look, and is generally not edited by others unless invited. Incubation encourages improvements and input from the entire community. Us. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If this one has been so done well then I dont see any reason to change the status quo. And this paticular is not hard to find. Solicitations have been predominantly poseted here, Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#Sandbox for the Avengers film and here, Talk:Avengers (comics) in other media#Sandbox for the Avengers film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No doubt is has been mentioned elsewhere... but one has to be looking for it and then track it down. For myself, I never heard of it before this AFD, and the Incubator has far more eyes than any user's sandbox. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the GNG. Even if it doesn't get made, it's already established itself. Not getting made would just add another crush of coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed. Either
  Avengers (2012 film) is too predictive, then a simple name change to Avengers film project will suffice per ALL available sources and article content until a release date can be confirmed, and would serve even if the film ends up being shelved. So... is brilliantly and overpoweringly meeting the GNG our beacon, or is it not? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The point of WP:NFF is to serve as a threshold between a film and a non-film. The Avengers is a non-film, but it is misleadingly presented as a film. The failed project Justice League perfectly applies here. It's the same kind of ensemble film in another comic book universe, yet its post-failure distilled form is fine as a section here. The problem with keeping it as a film article, especially at this point, is that it cannot be treated as history nor reality. If it's structured as a film article, there is a tendency to lean toward the impression of actual production when this is not the case. We can incubate if needed, but I've seen the same editor(s) develop it properly in the userspace and escort it into the mainspace promptly. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Erik: Either
  best addressed through regular editing to make the seem less like one about a released film and more about the well documented project itself... background... setbacks... castings... etc, and again, a simple name change to Avengers film project will not imply a made film. I hope the closer notes that what can be corrected is not a reason to delete, as current state is not reflective of potential for improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Unfortunately, the lack of precedent of a so-called "project" article will just result in editors correcting it (from their perspective) to be a film article. This non-film is notable because of the comic book franchise, so it's clearly suitable in a franchise-related article, namely the "in other media" sub-article. We have the flexibility to move material around Wikipedia. Nobody is arguing for deletion; this AfD is an act on Jclemens's part as a follow-up to running into the 3RR limit. It is unhelpful because it summons a keep-or-delete mentality; I had to persuade another editor, see above, not to recommend deleting. Most of us aren't trying to prevent coverage; it's the placement of that coverage that's under discussion. WP:NFF has applied before, it applied to Justice League, and it can apply now, especially when people are being led to presume that there will be a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many precedents for keeping such articles. Notability is in the coverage of the topic, and not in the topic itself. And a worry about what some un-named and uknown editor might or might not do in the future is far

WP:WAX arguments aside. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Why would anyone support a article on a film that hasn't been filmed and might not happen to stay. The only good example of a article on something that won't happen is Star Wars sequel trilogy and I am not even sure that should be an article (maybe a section). This defianetly should be a redirection for the time being. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please re-read

WP:Crystal, which even itself allows articles on future events if carefull and properly sourced: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." and speaking toward films, "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims" where it is advised to not include future dates unless verified, and explains how to avoid OR and ADVERT in presenting such articles... or are these guidelines now to be somehow be treated as essays or historical? Or may we now pick and choose what parts of guideline to use and which to ignore? Unless rewritten, NF and NFF are (were) not intended to be sraightjackets as they are being used by some in this discussion... but rather as guidelines to encourage proper sourcing for such articles so that they may meet or exceed the stipulations and caveats of GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

When applying WP:CRYSTAL, the closest aspect of it to film is, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As I recall, this is part of the reason why the start of principal photography is the threshold. Before filming starts, there is still high uncertainty. After filming starts, the investment is made. Even if production collapses, that is usually an article. Unfinished films exceed unproduced films in historical relevance. Again, this is about the delivery of content. WP:GNG talks about presuming that it meets the criteria for a stand-alone article. It's not guaranteed, depending on how the subject matter to be handled. In this case, films that have yet to start filming have high uncertainty of being realized. It's about the format of a series of headlines about people who are trying to put together something that has not happened yet. It's not as tangible as a completed film, obviously. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Format. Style. Content. All we have to go on in determining notability is the several thousand articles in multiple reliable sources which have reported on the progress of this topic for several years. Article content and style are best adressed through regular editing rather than a redirect to a comic book. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be well sourced. But this article isn't notable enough as a article on it's own for right now and it's basically a Crystal Ball which Wikipedia guidelines oppose. If this article is not proven to be a real film then we don't have the reliable source we need for it to be a seperate article about a film. Besides what can this article say that the Avengers (comics) in other media article can't already say. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, it being well-sourced and having potential for improvement is the clincher. Notability is found IN the coverage and not in the topic or article. You might wish to re-read

WP:CRYSTAL. Yes... the article needs to be retitled to Avengers film project, as covering the progress of its development IS per guideline. It can be retitled Avengers (20XX film) if or when the film gets released, certainly... but it is difficult to actually ignore the GNG or the project's extensive coverage over many years. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per
  Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep In addition to
  WP:SS to take into consideration; this article contains far too much information to fit into the subsection of another article. Lampman (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for the time being.
  While the film project is notable, has received media coverage, that coverage has been reliable and sourceable, with GNG we are looking a guideline. And there are two aspects of that guideline that are a bit nagging. First is "independent of the subject". At this point all of the information, in some form or another, is directly attributable to those with a vested interest in the project. We can dress it up as using/citing other reporting on what Marvel and Paramount have said or done but that is creating a news report or overview, not necessarily an encyclopedia article. Second is "presumed to satisfy". Since we are looking at a guideline, that presumption should take into account other guidelines and large consensus that deal with aspects of or could impact the potential article. In this case there are at least two other strong guidelines involved. The article, as structured, does but up against the guideline that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It presents the film as a done deal with a guaranteed release date. As has been well pointed out by others above neither of these things are the case. The project may fold before principle filming commences, the cast may change, the director may change, delays may happen. From that stand point the article would at the least need to be moved and the infobox and some section headers tweaked to reflect this is not yet a film. And that bring in the guidelines that the Film Project uses in maintaining and building articles. Those guidelines hold that a full article wait for principle photography starts since this makes it more likely that the film will be completed and released.
  Given that, it is reasonable to house the information somewhere other than its own article if possible. Since the logical place for this to be is
  undue weight to have it in the IOM until principle photography begins.
  - J Greb (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Your definition of "independent" is overly narrow. Sure, anyone anywhere can put out a press release on anything, but when a reliable source picks it up for their own purposes (pageviews, subscriptions, etc.) there is no direct relationship between the reporting and those originating the news. Arguing that all the sources are dependent on Marvel is akin to arguing that all coverage of the 9/11 attacks is dependent on Al Qaeda. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could be right that it's overly narrow, but then we are dealing with an article on a product, an unfinished one at that, as opposed to a historical event. When all is said and done an article on a film (a finished product) should include material from reviews and critical comentary in addition to second party sourced production history. If an article is focusing on an early stage film project, as this is right now, and all that is cited is coming from the produced of the film - press releases, casting announcements/confirmations, PR interviews, and so on - then it is right to question if there is independant information available or if all that can be crafted is a promotional article. - J Greb (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you actually read the coverage of this not-yet-film? There's plenty of opinions floating around about the casting and director choices--no reviews of the movie yet, but it's attracted plenty of commentary from the genre-movie ecosphere. Rough guess, more such commentary than 95-98% of movies that have not yet started principal photography. That's a perfectly fine level for it to be right now. Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment toward "keep": To address repeated concerns that article tone made it "appear" to be about a completed film, time came for a bit of good faith BOLD. Article has now been modestly rewritten and restructured to reflect it as a "film project" and not a finished film. Title has now been moved to
  WP:POTENTIAL. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's a nice directional change... and assuming this is a solid exception to Film's guidelines, it may be a good exemplar for this type of rare article. If the result here is to keep it, it may want to go for a cursory "GA"/"A" review to set the standard. - J Greb (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The change was important... and I had to do it instead of just discuss that it could be done, as the article is not about a film, but rather about the
      well-covered processs in its creation... coverage that allows the topic to be worthy of note. If or when the film is ever made, it would actually be a simple matter to rename the article and re-add an infobox and a section on release and reception. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Strong keep - I advise those that are commenting on
  WP:NFF
  to consider a few things:
  • Is this film going to happen? Very likely yes, though 2 years out means a lot could happen and it could be canned, changed years, whatever. But clearly there has been a lot of significant effort by filmmakers put into this already even if it is not in principle photography. The film clearly passes the GNG boundary with respect to coverage, so as per CRYSTAL, we should include this because the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Even if you want to argue "almost certain to take place" may never happen, the amount of discussion on this film even if it fails would still allow us to include it per standard notability guidelines.
  • Those sited NFF need to realize that the key word there is "should". NFF is a guideline, and like most, needs to be taken with a common sense approach. I agree that in general the "principle filming" aspect is a good metric, as most films won't have that much detail until that point, but here's a case where you're looking at 30+ secondary sources to back it up, and have more information that would be appropriate to include within the main article (about the comic book) without pushing the
    size limit
    for articles. To me, this is where the NFF "should not" should be taken as an exception.

The way I see it, we should be asking ourselves what is the worst that happens if the article is kept but the film fails to go through. We already have more than enough sources to establish whom was involved and the direction it was going in, and given the popularity of the comic heroes involved, it is not unreasonable to expect a number more sources will appear on it's cancellation. At best, the film goes through, and you get even more sources. Either way , it is a win for Wikipedia due to a well-sourced article. If this only has a few sources, it would be a very different picture and I wouldn't hesitate to put CRYSTAL and NFF forward to merge the article until such a point, but here, we clearly have something that will remain an independently notable article whether it happens or not, and thus should easily be kept. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is a guideline, too, that presumes and does not guarantee a stand-alone article. GNG cannot, and does not, apply neatly to all the topics on Wikipedia. Here, we have an article collecting statements expressing intent about producing a film. The point of NFF is to establish a visible threshold between the intent and something tangible. So per WP:CRYSTAL, films that have not started filming are not "almost certain to take place" at all. The issue in keeping this as a spun-off sub-topic of the comic book franchise is that it makes the presentation dangerously close to that of an actual film. WikiProject Films has a long memory of unproduced films, where outsiders unfamiliar with the film industry's overarching trend that say "I can't wait to see it" when a film is announced as being planned. The absence of progress makes plans more easily forgotten, but WP:FILM has had to clean up articles that amounted to wishful thinking that never panned out. We'll see if this works out, but I'm pessimistic that this will be consistently treated as a non-film. NFF worked as a clear threshold with content being subordinate in the topic that was the reason why the planned film was being covered at all (because of the source material, because of the director, etc). Here, it is too easy to treat this as a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all the sources were from 2005 (when the movie is claimed to have been conceptualized), I may agree to some point, but this is including news that happen last week. That shows significant forward progress. I understand the concern about announced vs in-production film projects, but the point is that NFF, the GNG, and all other application policies and guidelines work in conjunction to determine when a topic is sufficiently notable and standalone to have its own article. This clearly meets all aspect of concern regardless if the film progresses or not. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it is hoped that a closer will note that through regular editing while this discussion is taking place, the article no longers appears to be nor asserts or implies that it might be about a "made film". It is now a cleanly encyclopedic and well-sourced article about a specific topic whose coverage over years exceeds the caveats of the GNG. I am reminded of the light which shines to illuminate our paths... included at the top of each and every guideline page: "...best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Concerns with with style, format, and tone can be, and in this instance have been,

handled through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Keep. Given the state of the project I would normally favour a merge to
  WP:NFF is not a rigid rule designed to exclude from Wikipedia any and all coverage of films in pre-production but rather a flexible guideline intended to encourage editors to channel their energies in productive directions rather than spend great deals of time trying to dig up sources or info about projects that are in too early a stage of development to have a well-sourced article. If it can be shown, as it has been here in my opinion, that a project would be clearly notable even if it died and all production stopped today than a stand alone article is not clearly inappropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I do agree the article seems more in point of it's objective. So I am neutral now. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep.
  WP:NFF. In other words, if a topic has received significant coverage it is notable regardless of the fact that the subject concerns a future event.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Even if the film doesn't happen, it meets GNG and will join articles about well-known film projects for films that were never made.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per arguments stating that it has more than enough reliable and independant coverage and will become an article about a notable failed movie project even if the film never happens. Stephen Day (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Angry Girls

Very Angry Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article seems like a press release of sorts for a local band. You read that the band has "generated a lot of interest in the music scene in Ireland where there is a serious shortage of female bands" and that "The four girls are all in college in Limerick" but despite that "music is their passion, and the band comes first and foremost in every situation." Some of their Achievements is that they released their first demo and have been booked at lesbian/gay themed events. And if you want to purchase their new single "It can be purchased on downloadmusic.ie for 99c". The article has been tagged since April 2010 for possible non-notability and citation/reference issues. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: There are some poor sources in the page that that only show event line-ups which include the band, and one interview. Is anybody able to comment on the reliability of the www.the-arcade.ie source, and whether it might indicate some level of notability?
  talk) 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - As far as I can tell, this band falls into the category of up and coming rather than arrived. There are no reliable sources writing about them, and I am not counting the arcade as a reliable source.-- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camille tanoh

Camille tanoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Does not meet

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The references in the article show he is a working model. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just another undistinguished male model, totally lacking
  WP:GNG … even the link for Life is merely a photograph that fails to identify the subject by name … Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{18:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Island of Vanar

Island of Vanar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Setting of non-notable book by non-notable author. Deskford (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while i am still researching the book and author, obviously this novels fictional locations do not by any stretch of the imagination justify articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no coverage about this fictional location that would explain why it is notable. In fact, there is no coverage about it at all. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rizzo (american football)

Frank Rizzo (american football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Does not meet

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No news coverage, fails
  WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not entitled to the free pass of
  WP:N. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors, but the vast majority of Wikipedia editors wouldn't qualify for an article on Wikipedia. Mandsford 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete there seems to be several people named "Frank Rizzo" that are notable, but none of them appear to be this particular Frank Rizzo. I'd like to keep, but I just don't see the coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Never played pro ball, and even at the college level, his career has not been noted by reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love364 W.I.P.

Love364 W.I.P. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No CSD for these (unless this is G11). Unremarkable software, page links to YouTube. Fails everything, but mostly its nomination is because of

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Pure
  WP:RS to substantiate WP:Notability (software) inclusion criteria. Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{22:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply
  ]

• Delete - An emulator that may never see the light of day and has not been covered in reliable sources. Web forums don't count. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Probably should have been PRODed --Teancum (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity of Vanities

Vanity of Vanities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable book by non-notable author. Deskford (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete author is not currently notable by WP standards (one other book, not notable), nor is this book. his name is placed on multiple lists, so a "what links here" and deletion is needed after this afd closes, if deletion is decided on. I attempted to be NPOV and I did due diligence in searching for refs, (google, google books, worldcat, etc). Ironic publisher...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage about this book in reliable sources. There is this brief mention but that doesn't establish notability in the least. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline H Thompson

Caroline H Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable fringe science author. No reliable secondary sources. Tim Shuba (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comment With regrets actually, I spent a long time trying to search for some credible secondary sources. I did find an article suggesting that she influenced Dan Brown's Angels and demon's [27] however, her blog (on her website) does state that she did have dealings with dan brown but does add some confusion to this. Her paper The Chaotic Ball: an intuitive analogy for EPR experiments pub in 1996 seems to find itself continuously referenced though and influencing other papers and books, including some wiki articles actually (16 citations with as new as 2009). However 16 citations isnt that large of a number but it may be an indication if someone mangaes to dig up something further or can improve the article accordingly to show the impact properly in the article. I cant myself analyze the impact fully as my expertise isnt in that type of physics. Im very open to re evaluating my view of deletion but my searches did not come up with anything much beyond those limited citations in other papers and the one newspaper clipping.Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:ACADEMIC. At Google Scholar, one of her articles has been cited 16 times, and all the rest have fewer than 10 citations. The article touts her "noted contribution to physics", but from the small number of citations to her work, it appears that her impact on the field was minimal at best. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I am not sure what to say about this. With an
  WP:Prof for mainstream physics. She follows in the great tradition of English eccentrics and shows more self-insight, at least outside her subject, than many fringers. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC).[reply
  ]