Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 9
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ozai (Avatar: The Last Airbender)
Article is entirely
- Merge. I couldn't find reliable sources either. So I am just going to side with you on this one. Jhenderson 777 22:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that claim "rarely appears" is overexaggerated though. He does not rarely appear, he actually is recurring and he is a central character to the cartoon. Both movie and show. He is like The Smoking Man who is a more of a antagonist behind the scenes. I admit I want this article to be a Keep. But the article could use some work though. Jhenderson 777 23:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that claim "rarely appears" is overexaggerated though. He does not rarely appear, he actually is recurring and he is a central character to the cartoon. Both movie and show. He is like
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jhenderson 777 01:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jhenderson 777 01:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Avatar: The Last Airbender#Characters until such time as sources come forward to allow it to be spun back out. And as for sources... the search for "Ozai"+"Avatar" -inpublisher:icon does give 30 book results,[1] but I am not versed in Avatar lore and cannot best sort through them. Anyone else? Until then, and as he is the "main antagonist in Nickelodeon's animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender, that where folks will exect to find him. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is probably a good idea. But here is a better place. Jhenderson 777 13:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{]
- Merge per Jhenderson above. ]
- Merge - Not enough sources for separate article. Derild4921☼ 00:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Starblind. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mials woodberry
- Mials woodberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails
]- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TBA (Britney Spears album)
- TBA (Britney Spears 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)
Violates
]- Delete everything with TBA on it's title makes it obvious Secret account 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CRYSTAL. TBA = "To Be Announced". Not even the name is known right now. Danski14(talk) 22:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails ]
- Delete with prejudice. TBA? Seriously? Hairhorn (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no reason to have an article about an album that hasn't been named or no information about the singles has been released. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Delete - should be speedied. Ridiculous. - eo (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obviously. No discussion needed. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per snowing around here. No wonder it's cold.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we need at least the name of the album, cover , tracklist, anything. --Neo139 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, she did it again ... ]
- Delete - per ]
- Delete per ]
- Delete per above. TbhotchTalk C. 06:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Todd Wolfe
- Todd Wolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think it fails
]- Comment: Since this Afd was never discussed or closed, I hope I'm doing the right thing by adding it to today's list. See Wikipedia:New_contributors'_help_page#notice_of_deletion -- John of Reading (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, you did the right thing, although ]
- Delete as per ]
- Delete as article fails ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as seems to fail ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One World Children's Fund
- One World Children's Fund (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)
Sources used are either not
]- Delete for all the grand claims in the article, the sourcing is abysmal, which is surprising as the media loves to cover charities. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The sources in the article do not establish notability, but there is a hint here of significant articles about the charity in the San Jose Mercury-News and the San Mateo Times; unfortunately they are behind paywalls. Bottom line, I think there might be coverage out there, but I couldn't find it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enterotube II
- Enterotube II (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 product. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No coverage, advertising for one brand of test kit, most of the article is a how-to description of using the device. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete more material for an instruction manual or perhaps a brochure than an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Travis Bean
- Travis Bean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a procedural nomination per request by Dialectric after the page was speedily deleted. I am Neutral. FASTILYsock(TALK) 19:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough coverage e.g. Google Books results to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article was speedily deleted as 'Unambiguous advertising or promotion'. I created the article several years ago. There has recently been a revert-war issue with commercial links, but the bulk of the content is and has been neutral and non-promotional, and the subject is notable. Dialectric (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for a guitar maker, getting the likes of Slash, Jerry Garcia, and the Rolling Stones use your guitars is a pretty big deal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. the only part of the article that establishes notability is the "guitar players" section which associates travis bean guitars with famous bands and people. the only reference i find on google which supports the claims is the website for travis bean guitars itself. but this seems irrelevant as most people would like to keep the page. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- changed my mind, found the google books entries for travis bean. maybe the article creator would like to insert some references? WookieInHeat (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The guitar is used by a large number of notable artists, so I'd suggest is notable enough to be kept. Certainly needs work though. hellboy (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to N-Dubz. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best Behaviour
- Best Behaviour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Too early; no indication that this is notable. I would suggest converting the article into a redirect to N-Dubz. I did this myself but was reverted so I'm bringing it here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to N-Dubz - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to WP:CRYSTAL. There is no indication of sufficient notability yet to warrant an article at this time. Danski14(talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Best Behavior appears to be on the same subject; if possible I would like to add this to the nomination, if not already too late. If the result is Keep, the two articles should be merged. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. Fails ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hussein Shuqul
- Hussein Shuqul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability, verifiability. No independent, third-party sources via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks under either name given that provide anything more than a passing mention of the individual (wikimirrors excluded) can't verify the position claimed. I've gone AfD rather than PROD to get more eyes on it because foreign-language bios are always tricky with respect to transliteration, etc. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. EnabledDanger (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this 2010 source appears to have a chapter on the subject: [2]. Unfortunately I don't have access to the source, so it is not really a solution. Apologies. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Books.2C_LLC leads me to think that that source is a likely wikimirror. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC) PS: No apologies, I always consider these sourcing expeditions like puzzles, always happy to follow up a new thread. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might be correct in saying it is a wikimirror. In which case, it would not be considered a reliable source. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Delete: due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of reliable sources allowing any of this to be verified. There are things in the article that if they could be sourced would likely be enough for notability, but notability is not enough by itself, we also need verifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Are there any Somali-reading editors who could evaluate these potential sources? ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
St. Mary's Church, Secunderabad
Non-notable church. I wasn't able to find any third-party sources covering this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The oldest Catholic church in a major city, not to mention the Cathedral of the arch-diocese of the gigantic city of Hyderabad is most certainly notable. It is confirmed it is one of the oldest churches in the city.[3] And nominating an article that asserts its notability for deletion within an hour of creation [4] is bad form and only serves to discourage new editors as well as seasoned ones from editing and improving articles. --Oakshade (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment would it be possible to hold this for a longer period. At first glance, this church looks notable, but in order to see this, I need access to subscription only services which have broken down and may not be restored until sometime during week commencing 13 September 2010 (Cambridgeshire Library Services) --Senra (Talk) 11:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment see also positive and sympathetic notice placed on inexperienced user Jgittins (talk · contribs)'s talk page --Senra (Talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The church (former Cathedral) was built in 1847. I think we can safely assume that some kind of coverage is available. I know we need reliable sources, but sometimes sourcing for historical subject is not an easy task. --Jmundo (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some links - [5] [6] Regards, ]
- Comment. The historic importance suggests keeping.
However, the serious copyvio needs urgent attention. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The ongoing copyright violations are a concern; it may be necessary to delete if that continues. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The copyvio situation seems to be resolved by my re-rewriting. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The ongoing copyright violations are a concern; it may be necessary to delete if that continues. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. this search finds plenty of sources such as this. ]
- Keep as the church is of historical importance. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per.User:OakshadeAMuseo (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only sources so far found after considerable research are [7] [8] and those don't amount to ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wesley Church, Clock Tower
- Wesley Church, Clock Tower (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 church. I wasn't able to find any third-party sources covering this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment would it be possible to hold this for a longer period. At first glance, this church looks notable, but in order to see this, I need access to subscription only services which have broken down and may not be restored until sometime during week commencing 13 September 2010 (Cambridgeshire Library Services) --Senra (Talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment see also positive and sympathetic notice placed on inexperienced user Jgittins (talk · contribs)'s talk page --Senra (Talk) 12:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unable to find any suitable sources. Can confirm it exists
however there is an issue with the article as either the name is incorrect or the image is because another church only around 50m away called CSI Wesley Church also in Secunderabad and that according to Google maps is the one that the articles image shows.Regards, ]
- Never mind, Google Maps shows two churches, but it's seems to be an error on Google Maps. Regards, ]
- Delete. No sources establishing notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maybe find someone in Secunderabad to work on this. Keep, because most churches of this age and size are notable. The photo verifies a major building. The problem with sourcing may line in a variant name, or spelling, or with sources that exist but are not in English, or not online. The article needs the attention who knows their way around Secunderabad or Christianity in India.AMuseo (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- delete the photos on this page appear to be photos of Wesley Church, Melbourne.AMuseo (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That problem is now fixed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment My archive access is back and I ran a very quick scan (ignoring spelling of city/town name) of The Times archive with Keyword search (in entire article content): "church in india" Limited by: date: 1/1/1865 to 12/31/1912and returned 138 articles which I need to go through. More to the point, the objective here was to encourage the new editor to do this; a process which has failed as he/she appears to have been blocked] --Senra (Talk) 13:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if the concensus here is for this article to be deleted please do not delete; instead Userfy to my own user-space where I will have time to investigate this further. Leave a note in this deletion discussion that you have done this. I owe other editors an apology here. I need time to investigate a suspicion of systemic bias, although I am leaning heavily towards admins on this one --Senra (Talk) 16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if the concensus here is for this article to be deleted please do not delete; instead
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Trinity Church, Bollarum
Non-notable church. I wasn't able to find any third-party sources covering this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment would it be possible to hold this for a longer period. At first glance, this church looks notable, but in order to see this, I need access to subscription only services which have broken down and may not be restored until sometime during week commencing 13 September 2010 (Cambridgeshire Library Services) --Senra (Talk) 11:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment see also positive and sympathetic notice placed on inexperienced user Jgittins (talk · contribs)'s talk page --Senra (Talk) 12:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Commissioned by ]
- Keep - The sources indicate this is a significant historic Christian church in a very non-Christian region, enough to have strong connection to two historic British monarchs. --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Has a history, is a tourist attraction, and would be worth keeping under the title Holy Trinity Church, Bolarum.
However, the serious copyvio needs urgent attention. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio fixed, so
rename to Holy Trinity Church, Bolarum andkeep. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I've taken the liberty of boldly renaming to Holy Trinity Church, Bolarum, for consistency with the town. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio fixed, so
- Keep as the church has historic validity. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. obvious notability.AMuseo (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep,
]Soft sell
- Soft sell (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)
Original synthesis, original research and whatnot. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly a notable concept... Google search yields thousands of relevant hits. Tag with improve refs instead. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As Jim says, it's clearly a notable concept with plenty of research available for citation. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BEFORE. If the nominator had done simple online searches, he would have found many good sources. This is a notable term in marketing and political science. AfD is not for clean-up of valid stubs. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deletionist nonsense. So notable that band Soft Cell is a pun of the concept. Antonym hard sell is also well-known. They should be expanded, not deleted. A number of soft sell techniques have been developed, all of which should be discussed. Jokestress (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Name-calling is not appropriate. Uncle G (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that this was a good faith but misguided attempt to contest a Proposed Deletion rather than to nominate an article for deletion for the reasons stated. Because if it was the latter it was an amazingly poor nomination, given that this is a valid stub that cites sources written by credentialed experts (professors at UCB and the University of Cincinatti for two) from which it can be expanded — citations that were in the very first revision of the article — and that even the most minimal of research on the nominator's part would have turned up more sources (such as, for example, one written by the now professor Barbara Mueller at San Diego State University and professor Charles R. Taylor of Villanova University: doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367390201) addressing this subject. Per Wikipedia:deletion policy, keep. Uncle G (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nominator doesn't have to do research, ever heard of ]
- You need to read that properly. It doesn't absolve you of the burden of looking for sources before nominating articles for deletion, nor does it absolve you of the responsibility of even simply reading an article before nominating it for deletion to see sources already in the article from its very first revision onwards. Our verifiability policy is not a licence for you or any other person to go around tagging things for deletion and then claiming that WP:BURDEN absolves you of the responsibility of doing any actual work yourself while you create work for others. Working on the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem for one to burden-shift one's way out of. Go and read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nominator doesn't have to do research, ever heard of ]
- Keep Notable enough to have been the subject of multiple books, and that's good enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arguments and P&G noted by Uncle G, and the other keep arguments. Meets WP:N. I would have contested the PROD also, as it isn't a dicdef, but the AfD nomination rationale of SYNTH and OR is not supported by the references. — Becksguy (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even though the article is currently a ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Chromancer. Joaquin008 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Api
- Taj Api (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 non-notable company is just a subsidiary of Taj Pharmaceuticals, which was itself recently deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taj Pharmaceuticals. This article was created by one of many confirmed sockpuppets involved in an organized effort to promote this group of companies on Wikipedia. See this WP:ANI report for additional details. Deli nk (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Astronaut (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only sources are self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paige Moss
- Paige Moss (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)
Trivial roles, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notableDreamspy (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Change to Keep in view of the work done on the article. Dreamspy (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails ]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Solid Keep While the nominator's concerns are reflected in the article's lack of overdue effort is not a proper rationale for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as per Schmidt's note above. Nymf hideliho! 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Speedy not quite applicable, as the nominator was simply addressing its then current state. Article is now undergoing expansion and improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DiskDigger
- DiskDigger (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)
Unnotable software. One reference is the download link, the other two are both the same reference linking to a blog on PCWorld. Article seems advert-like. Burpelson AFB (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article only describes the software, but does not indicate how it is ]
- Comment Have downloaded, and it is not even freeware. The software says after lunch: "Unregistered Copy - buy a license today!". Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication in the article that this is a notable product. My searches did not produce significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BBS Wheel Library
- BBS Wheel Library (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)
Well beyond Wikipedia's scope, we're not a specialists guide to identifying BBS rims nor is a listing of every rim built by the company relevant to a general interest encyclopedia. Belongs on a specialist website. The359 (Talk) 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as ]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is here for informative purposes only, which is the whole idea of Wikipedia. BBS no longer produce 95+% of wheels listed and no prices are listed for wheels in production, so is not advertising. All in all the article is an extremely helpful resource. Hipwell (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As pointed out in WP:NOTCATALOG by Armburst, we are not a resource for consumer products, no matter how helpful some may find it. Simply being informative does not make it relevant to an encyclopedia. The359 (Talk) 10:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So all articles containing any information on consumer products need deleting? 100's perhaps 1000's of articles? Why are articles like this List of Canon products not deleted and kept when it comes to nomination for deletion? and sections like this.. Canon lenses. Quote from the discussion page of the first.. "Encyclopedias are to learn facts and product lists are factual" What is different with this? Hipwell (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be instructive, here - we're not looking at those articles, we're looking at this one. If you feel that those other articles do not meet our policies, you may wish to nominate them for deletion. But their existence doesn't impact the notability of this subject either way. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability , and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Merely saying that this article has the same concept as the List of Canon products, which is kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipwell (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canon products isn't a great precedent, since it is more than 5 years old, predates the AFD process entirely (it's a VFD that was later moved), and lacks a worthwhile deletion rationale. But citing previous AFDs as precedent is, in general, a fine way to make your point - it wasn't clear that that was your intent, though, which is my bad for not reading your point correctly. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would agree that List of Canon products should be nominated for deletion for the same rationale as this article, but that has no bearing on this discussion of the merits of BBS Wheel Library. The359 (Talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability , and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Merely saying that this article has the same concept as the List of Canon products, which is kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipwell (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay
- Comment So all articles containing any information on consumer products need deleting? 100's perhaps 1000's of articles? Why are articles like this List of Canon products not deleted and kept when it comes to nomination for deletion? and sections like this.. Canon lenses. Quote from the discussion page of the first.. "Encyclopedias are to learn facts and product lists are factual" What is different with this? Hipwell (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't believe this has advertising value, but the informative value is limited; knowing the particular model numbers for rims on a certain model of car isn't that useful of a piece of information to have. If you're searching for a particular model, this list is great - but that's not our purpose here. A discussion, in prose, on the company's article, that touched on some of these models (maybe highlighting popular, unusual, or top selling models) might be worthwhile - but this list is a bit overboard for that purpose. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Festival (2011 film)
- Festival (2011 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)
Not notable per
]- Delete, non-notable film, not even completed. Hairhorn (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines for films. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice, or userfy with our thanks, back to the author. The film is apparently in post-production, so this 2-day-old article is simply ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ila kumar
- Ila kumar (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)
Person of questionable notability. Has been given an award, but I haven't been able to figure out just what that award is, or if the award itself is even notable. It would be helpful if someone who can read Hindu could go to the person's website and read the articles there to see if anything there helps establish this person's notability. -WarthogDemon 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - from the current sources given, i don't think subject meets WP:AUTH or WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article doesn't demonstrate notability at all. My Google search turned up only her personal website and stuff about other people with similar names. Specs112 t c 13:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Killer Whales in popular culture
Unsourced OR, terribly written. Search for sources found none. Had prodded this without realizing it was previously prodded. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything savable back to ]
- Keep or (better) Merge sourced material back to Killer Whale. I hate having these articles spun out as separate unless it is an animal with a huge history of symbolism such as lion, cat, dog, horse etc. The article was split out arbitrarily. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep however, I would rather see a separate article, rather than a merge, since these "In popular culture" discussions tend to get really long-winded and it would probably be an eyesore on the OR issues should be fixed, but OR issues by themselves are not a criterion for deletion. Danski14(talk) 22:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Killer whale#Modern Western attitudes. That section is already fairly long, so I feel a sub-page is warranted. Danski14(talk) 22:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See
- Keep per Danski14. The community has been all over the place in the past three years with these "animal X in popular culture" articles. This one is a keeper, based on what's already there and its possible sources. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Killer whale. This content was moved out of the article in this edit by User:Mintrick, who apparently (according to user page) thought of "in popular culture" sections as some kind of otherwise useless playground for new users, that are better moved out of sight. This is a stupid view in my opinion, "bad" content that is just hidden away in orphan articles is unlikely to get improved. --memset (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the addition of sources by Casliber; it's been improved since 10-# nominated it. Unlike many i.p.c. articles, this one is about the depiction of the subject in popular culture, rather than a list of mentions (e.g., "in the 15th season of The Simpsons, Lisa sees a killer whale"). The depiction of whales in fiction has changed a great deal between (make your own joke here) Moby Dick and Free Willy. Mandsford 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn, needs cleanup though.
]List of Hindu temples in Poland
- List of Hindu temples in Poland (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)
My prodding and the subsequent deletion of this article has earned me an accusation of
]- I'm curious to know the reasons for proposed deletion of my article. I can't see any, besides religious discrimination. SETI3 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm curious to see where's the discrimination, considering that List of Christian churches in Poland doesn't belong here either. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still can't see any serious reasons for proposed deletion of my article, besides religious discrimination. My article is a simple equivalent of numerous similar articles with an almost identical title "List of Hindu temples in..." (e.g. Canada, Germany, Nepal etc.) Why you have repeatedly nominated my article and not a similar article about for example Canada? It's simply unfounded. Additionally, my article has three links to other articles. Anyway, you are free to create List of Christian churches in Poland, although it would be probably better to create more detailed lists about this topic. Sorry, I don't know your word "beling", maybe it's a Canadian slang. Keep SETI3 (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was "belong," not "beling." Thanks. Anyway, I'm a French Canadian Evangelical. And I don't know a single Evangelical church in my hometown that is worthy of mention, even in a list, in Wikipedia. :-) -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Religious fanaticism has many names. But I'm still waiting to know serious reasons for nominating my article. Besides, I agree with you that in Canada there are certainly not many religious or other buildings worthy of mention in comparison to Poland with its much more rich architectural, cultural, and religious heritage due to much longer history of this country. SETI3 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Hinduism in Poland. Not enough entries to warrant a separate list. Renata (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the material was taken from this split of Yellow Pages, and four entries, none of which are notable enough to get their own article, certainly doesn't warrant a separate list. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the material was taken from this split of
- Speedy keep with the possibility of merging as Renata says. No argument presented for deletion.--Kotniski (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lists are a recognized part of Wikipedia (see 1, 2), there is no word on limitations or deletions due to their length (shortness). ilmari (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep child article of List of Hindu temples. Similar lists like List of churches in London, List of mosques in Singapore do exist. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep the article does not break any of the wikipedia rules. Similar articles exist.
- Note to Blanchardb: if you want to contribute to wikipedia, consider expanding the short articles instead of deleting them. Niky cz (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Normally, when I see that an AfD nomination of mine is headed for a probable keep, I withdraw my nomination. Not this time. It appears that my comment about comparing this list to an eventual ]
- Speedy Keep *Comment: -- Blanchardb , please stop trolling. DNFTT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.56.188.9 (talk • contribs) — 178.56.188.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other editsoutside this topic.
- It's simply disgusting. - Blanchardb didn't even bother to read the article New Shantipur Temple in Czarnów. This temple looks like a barn because it had to look like this in the 1980s during the Communist rule in Poland, when ISKCON was an illegal and persecuted organisation and simply couldn't build true beautiful temples. From historical point of view New Shantipur is certainly more important than any other temple in Poland. It's really so hard to understand? SETI3 (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected on the existence of articles. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
]Captain Square
Fails
- Comment - Captain Square probably isn't a significant enough character for his own article. I'm therefore going to merge some of the content to the list of DA characters and put this as a redirect. Neelix - before nominating any other Dad's Army character articles, can you drop me a note of any concerns beforehand, please? I know they're not great, but I'd prefer to merge them rather than going through the whole deletion process. Bob talk 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now merged the useful, non-duplicated content from the page (one sentence) and redirected it to List of Dad's Army episodes. Bob talk 15:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's wait to see how the discussion goes before merging. PatGallacher (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, redirect to List of Dad's Army characters - the useful content has already been merged, and a redirect will avoid the redlinks that deleting the page will create (and preserve the page should somebody want to come along and reference it at some point). Bob talk 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you mean
]- Oh, haha, yeah. Bob talk 20:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to character list per Bob Castle and WP:BEFORE, which means a net redirect since the content has already been selectively merged. I suggest closing this AfD as moot. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the relevant section of the character list. Someoneanother 06:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Norbert Basil MacLean III
The result was 'delete'. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Consensus is that he doesn't meet
]Stephen Blythe
- Stephen Blythe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Bio on person known for one event, running (and losing) the vote for one office in 2008. Not otherwise notable. Not a bad fellow, just not notable! Student7 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Autobiographical article that was probably created for the campaign. No indication that he meets any notability guideline. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Is based on a person known for only one event, thus non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Article is now semi-protected, which should take care of most
]Shirley Phelps-Roper
- Shirley Phelps-Roper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails
- Keep Hundreds of thousands of Google hits. Not sourced well-enough now? ]
- Actually ]
- No BLP issues in current form. She's the second-highest figure surrounding WBC, has appeared on national and international news a number of times. ]
- How many members in the entire group? Wolfview (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This info was added to the article on it, around 71 members. Do we really need articles on the two top leaders of a group this size? Wolfview (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was trying to suggest here is to just mention her in the article on the organization as the number 2 leader and redirect this article there, no information would be removed from Wikipedia. Say the Republican or Democratic Party had 71 million members. Would we have articles on the top 2 million leaders? Wolfview (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No we wouldn't have articles on that many people of an organization unless they can all be shown to be notable. There is though, a good possibility that the top 2 people in most notable organizations are notable themselves. It all comes down to what coverage that #2 person has. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think that if a group has 2 leaders and 69 other members the second leader is not such an important figure, especially if she (or he) is just following the direction of the number 1 leader. The information in this article could be expressed in one sentence in the main article on the church itself. Something like "Since... Phleps's daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper has been the secondary leader of the group and has taken on the role of spokesperson." Wolfview (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No we wouldn't have articles on that many people of an organization unless they can all be shown to be notable. There is though, a good possibility that the top 2 people in most notable organizations are notable themselves. It all comes down to what coverage that #2 person has. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was trying to suggest here is to just mention her in the article on the organization as the number 2 leader and redirect this article there, no information would be removed from Wikipedia. Say the Republican or Democratic Party had 71 million members. Would we have articles on the top 2 million leaders? Wolfview (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This info was added to the article on it, around 71 members. Do we really need articles on the two top leaders of a group this size? Wolfview (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How many members in the entire group? Wolfview (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No BLP issues in current form. She's the second-highest figure surrounding WBC, has appeared on national and international news a number of times. ]
- Actually ]
- Comment - No BLP issue that I can see. The question here is whether this is a high-enough ranking official in a notable organization headed by her notable father, or not. My initial impression was that this was a "Delete" situation, under the theory that notability is not heritable and if this person had some other surname other than "Phelps" this article would never have been created in the first place. On the other hand, this is one of the higher profile hate groups in America, in my opinion, and if this is the heir to the throne, one could make the case that the biography should stand. It's a pretty tough call either way. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment - The bit about her first child having been born out of wedlock, while sourced, is gratuitous and should go. The source in which this information appears has Shirley Phelps-Roper as the subject of the article, which lends weight for the "Keep" perspective, I note. It does seem that this is a top figure in the extremely vocal "God Hates Fags" movement... Carrite (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Just a note that I opened a discussion related to this line at the BLP noticeboard, linked here). — e. ripley\talk 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment - The bit about her first child having been born out of wedlock, while sourced, is gratuitous and should go. The source in which this information appears has Shirley Phelps-Roper as the subject of the article, which lends weight for the "Keep" perspective, I note. It does seem that this is a top figure in the extremely vocal "God Hates Fags" movement... Carrite (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No recommendation at this time. Wolfview is incorrect above, WP:BLP does not advise us to delete rather that fix articles. It actually says just the opposite, articles not complying with the BLP policy should be rectified and improved if possible. It goes on to say that page deletion is a last resort. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of these two statements from WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." and "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which may disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to." This article seems to be poorly sourced to me. The only secondary source giving much coverage is negative in tone. There are a couple of news stories from major sources, but they only mention her and her father together, or are about their group and don't mention her at all. Then there are a couple of primary sources, like the group's own website.Wolfview (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those quotes apply here. About contentious material, it can be, and has been, removed from the article without outright deletion. And the article is not an attack article filled with only negative information. Given how much negative press is out there about her, it's actually pretty positive in tone. ]
- Keep - Okay, the gratuitous shit is cleaned up now. This is pretty clearly a notable individual in Wikipedia terms as a leading activist who is the subject of reliable independent media coverage. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although Fred is the founder, Shirley is the functional leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, and their spokesperson. She's more the public face of Westboro than Fred is, and in my opinion, Wikipedia needs an article about her. p.s. she is a terrible, awful person. not relevant to the discussion, but i mention it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this is accurate. For evidence of her functional leadership, here's a breaking news story relating to Shirley Phelps-Roper calling out the Florida Quran-burner for insufficent zeal: "Shirley Phelps-Roper Calls Out Florida Preacher." Carrite (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lest someone WP:HAVEACOW about my citing a blog to make a point, here's the same info from the Kansas City Star, a mainstream newspaper: "Attention Might Fan Quran Flames." Carrite (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this is accurate. For evidence of her functional leadership, here's a breaking news story relating to Shirley Phelps-Roper calling out the Florida Quran-burner for insufficent zeal: "Shirley Phelps-Roper Calls Out Florida Preacher." Carrite (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't see a BLP problem here. Seems notable enough and article is well enough sourced and supported. Some work needed still but definitely not a delete situation. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Presence on the Home Office banned list seems to further bolster claim of notability. Carrite (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I see enough significant coverage of her to say she meets our notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, amply satisfies WP:NOTE, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but add more about what she specifically has done rather than what WBC as an institution has done. Roscelese (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Behrooz Gatmiri
- Behrooz Gatmiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete doesn't seem to meet
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The citation record isn't strong enough to convince me of a pass of criterion #C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Relist rationale: never properly included in the deletion logs. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Farooq Azam
- Farooq Azam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject in the article is not notable to have a Wikipedia article. There are no references provided to except 2 very unreliable web links [17], [18], where anyone can edit the information. It appears that the person who created the article and most of the edits to it may well be the subject of the article. AllahLovesYou (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. GS cites 2192, 815, 682, 455 .... h index about 40. ISI highly cited researcher, honorary doctorate etc. This is the most inappropriate AfD nomination I have seen on these pages. It is worth looking at the nominator's talk page where he is accused of vandalizing Islamic articles. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy Keep and a ]
- comment - Me bing accused of vandalizing Islamic articles is irrelevant to this, if you pay attention to my edits you wouldn't mention something like that. The one who accused me of that was completely removing top academic and government sources such as Washington, DC, states that Shias in Pakistan make up 5% but I've added the numbers given by all academic and government sources which estimates 5-20%. Now how is this vandalizm on my part? About Farooq Azam's page, it was written very poorly at the time when I added the deletion tag but someone now decided to re-write it. Anytime someone writes an incomplete article about someone who isn't well known is usually nominated for deletion so I think my judgement was ok in this particular case.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct that whatever dispute you have been involved in on Shia related articles is largely irrelevant to this AfD. However, you are quite wrong in relation to what you say about the Farooq Azam article. The basic principle of ]
- comment - Me bing accused of vandalizing Islamic articles is irrelevant to this, if you pay attention to my edits you wouldn't mention something like that. The one who accused me of that was completely removing top academic and government sources such as
- Obvious keep per WP:PROF #C1, #C5, and possibly also #C2 and #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Relist rationale: This is a BLP, and it seems to never properly listed in the deletion logs, so it hasn't attracted the usual level of participation. As a participant I can't close. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per above. RayTalk 19:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Brigade
- The Brigade (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 DJs (?), cannot find any sources besides MySpace page Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC, suggest redirect to Brigade (disambiguation). Also note that the other AFD in 2005 was about a completely different topic and is irrelevant to this discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Support redirect to Brigade (disambiguation) after deletion. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of oldest Catholic bishops
- List of oldest Catholic bishops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have nominated this page nearly two years ago for deletion (
]- Keep - The level of detail moves this page from the trivial to the useful. Limited to 100 names, so not open-ended and unwieldy. A useful source of in-links for standing articles. All in all, a well-done page which adds to our information pool. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ANd why is it useful to have these 100 links to bishops, instead of 10O others? What makes this selection useful? ]
- Delete as trivia. A good example of how it is possible for information to be fully verifiable but still not encyclopedic. Unclear what the point of the article is, if indeed it even has one. Why not a list of bishops by shoe size? Or oldest pastry chefs? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Follows all guidelines for a wikipedia list. Maybe topic may not be important as other list but is still more useful than a list about video games or something as trivial
- But it violates ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator fails to convince that the members of a "for life" (per se notable, for that matter) religious office are an unencyclopedic cross-characterization. No policy-based reason for deletion articulated by any delete !voter so far, and I don't expect any to materialize. Content is verifiable, useful, and cannot be replicated by categories. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument has nothing to do with the reason for deletion. The members are notable, yes, no one denies that. But why are the oldest of them a special group that should have its own list? While it could just as well be replicated by categories, it would be just as bad, so that's not an argument either. You don't argue what the usefulness is of this list, or why a specific list solely for the oldest members is an encyclopedic characterization. Your arguments, basically, are irrelevant. What's the difference between this list and a list of all bishops born in January? The latter would be just as verifiable and probably just as useful, and should be deleted on sight as well. ]
- Keep A useful and verifiable resource. Not trivial. JASpencer (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful how? No one has indicated how it is useful, or given any verifiable evidence that it has been of use, or that the same type of listing is a typical subject in reliable independent sources. Just claiming that it is useful is as empty as claiming that something is notable: without explanation of the why and how, it is an empty argument. ]
- Delete. Cannot see any purpose of this article. The information are nicely referenced, but it does not mean that the article is useful. Niky cz (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep useful information. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful for what, exactly? ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per improvements. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ChinaJoy
- ChinaJoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion
It was created by now-blocked China JOY2010 (talk · contribs) on 15 August.
The
) rm csd, not spam, some good content here, will editI explained my rationale for the tag on their user talk page, asking for further input, but they have not, to date, responded there. User talk:Extransit#ChinaJoy
I proposed deletion on 23 August [22], and the PROD was removed by DGG (talk · contribs) please look for sources, & if not findable, use AfD. This was discussed, User_talk:DGG#ChinaJoy.
So the main issue here is that yes, perhaps this might be possible to write about the subject (ie notability is possible, because there is no current independent referenced content, it serves merely to advertize. There might be sources in other languages, but I am not able to rewrite it myself. Chzz ► 14:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G11, would require a full rewrite to remove the spam, and it isn't even coherent spam. Actual quote: "ChinaJoy is a great platform for communicating in different field." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per G11 (and maybe also A7?). Shearonink (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. Clearly a notable event. AfD or other way of deletion is not a good solution. --]
- I've trimmed the article substantially, removing spam and unreferenced claims. I also added more refs. It is now a decent stub with a possibility of expansion. --]
- Keep the current version. The CNN , Guardian, and China Decoded refs in the current version are RSs for notability. Yes, I made an error: I did not look myself earlier, because I doubted there would be anything in English. I see three other editors, all of them good editors, made the same error. The point of WP:BEFORE is that you cannot know till you look. I consider this article a good demonstration that rewriting and referencing were in fact possible. I admit I made a guess for that, but my guess was right. I'm not saying it always is--I know I've make mistakes in both directions, both in deleting and in not deleting. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG, ]
- Comment Are we happy with those table contents? They are primary sourced, and I'd think they are WP:NOT; somewhat promo, too; just listing sponsor orgs, etc. Chzz ► 10:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waking Rose
- Waking Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think this novel fails
- Delete self-published book, fails ]
- Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a notable novel. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Author fails WP:RS to be found (zero nontrivial hits on Google Scholar, Google Books, Google News Archives). — Chromancer talk/cont 02:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Chomancer, Sadads (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does the book get any credit for being a self-published best seller per Lulu. Just asking? ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Occitan Republican Left
- Occitan Republican Left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested
]- Keep Aranese parties, acting practically (or on "pacts") with Catalonian parties are considered at least nominally as separate structures, which has been the case for UA for about 30 years. I can't understand what makes the case of ERO distinguishable in this sense. Furthermore, the politics of Aran had been dominated by two parties and ERO was founded as the sole political force with the claim for a breakthrough in many years. This is yet another rationale for notability. Besides, two sister Wikipedias that may be considered referential for notability (ie. Catalan and Occitan) maintain corresponding articles. Additionally, as for the argument "is only active in the Val d'Aran, which has some 7,000 inhabitants...", well, Aranese parties are expected to be active in Val d'Aran, as a matter of fact. Behemoth (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Aranese parties are active in Val d'Aran, but this is a very small region, which may not be immediately apparent to a casual reader of the article or this AfD, and is quite relevant (parties which are only active in such a small region have generally much less chance of being notable). As to why the ERO is distinguishable from e.g. the Unity of Aran: the latter has been active much longer, and has won seats in elections. It may still be a non notable organisation, I haven't checked this any further, but it certainly has a stronger claim than the ERO. ]
- I guess you're ignoring Val d'Aran's sui generis position in Catalonia and the relevant political scene. Behemoth (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since these have no impact on the notability as defined on Wikipedia, yes, I am ignoring them, just like apparently every reliable publication in Spain / Catalonia. ]
- I guess you're ignoring Val d'Aran's sui generis position in Catalonia and the relevant political scene. Behemoth (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Aranese parties are active in Val d'Aran, but this is a very small region, which may not be immediately apparent to a casual reader of the article or this AfD, and is quite relevant (parties which are only active in such a small region have generally much less chance of being notable). As to why the ERO is distinguishable from e.g. the Unity of Aran: the latter has been active much longer, and has won seats in elections. It may still be a non notable organisation, I haven't checked this any further, but it certainly has a stronger claim than the ERO. ]
- Keep Aranese parties, acting practically (or on "pacts") with Catalonian parties are considered at least nominally as separate structures, which has been the case for UA for about 30 years. I can't understand what makes the case of ERO distinguishable in this sense. Furthermore, the politics of Aran had been dominated by two parties and ERO was founded as the sole political force with the claim for a breakthrough in many years. This is yet another rationale for notability. Besides, two sister Wikipedias that may be considered referential for notability (ie. Catalan and Occitan) maintain corresponding articles. Additionally, as for the argument "is only active in the Val d'Aran, which has some 7,000 inhabitants...", well, Aranese parties are expected to be active in Val d'Aran, as a matter of fact. Behemoth (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Am I correct in interpreting the article to mean that this is a political party that hasn't (yet) participated in an election? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's how I read it as well. ]
- Well, for an Aranese party founded in 2008, the next election to participate shall naturally be the upcoming General Council elections in 2011. Behemoth (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's how I read it as well. ]
- Not all political parties participate in elections. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not totally convinced that a political party operating exclusively in a locality of 7,000 people is notable, much less a brand-new party that hasn't even run in (much less won) an election yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we then assume that what makes a political party notable is essentially the population of the locality it operates in? Is a Chinese political party more likely to be notable than, say, an American or Belgian one? Behemoth (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we can't. We can assume that e.g. a party that operates nationally has more chance of being notable than a party that operates locally, but what in the end makes a party notable for the purposes of Wikipedia is what is described in ]
- Can we then assume that what makes a political party notable is essentially the population of the locality it operates in? Is a Chinese political party more likely to be notable than, say, an American or Belgian one? Behemoth (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The lowest of all barriers for inclusion of political parties and their leaders. If it exists, it should be covered with a Wikipedia article. Notable per se. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- Inherent notability. See: Secondary schools, major highways, towns, major transportation companies, etc. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone can start a political party, and many of them have zero impact, unlike schools, highways, towns, ... And even all these categories, with the exception of towns, have still to provide evidence of their notability. ]
- What makes you think that "everyone" can start a political party? Is your presumption universally verified by relevant legislation of various states and subnational entities? Behemoth (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone can start a political party, at least in democracies. Not every political party will be able to or allowed to participate in elections though. But even that is generally a small hurdle. Apart from that, while you are free to nitpick other people's arguments, it would perhaps be more fruitful if you brought forwards some arguments that would to establish the notability of the party, instead of claiming some inherent notability (which is, per ]
- Sorry. Are you trying to teach me how to behave? Behemoth (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am trying to indicate what kind of arguments and discussion are probably more useful in trying to convince other people that this article should be kept. You are free to continue this discussion any way you like it, but I am free to point out that I don't believe this to be useful. ]
- Sorry. Are you trying to teach me how to behave? Behemoth (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone can start a political party, at least in democracies. Not every political party will be able to or allowed to participate in elections though. But even that is generally a small hurdle. Apart from that, while you are free to nitpick other people's arguments, it would perhaps be more fruitful if you brought forwards some arguments that would to establish the notability of the party, instead of claiming some inherent notability (which is, per ]
- And that's what makes supposed inherent notability tricky, if it's to be assumed at all it must be done considering all factors. "All towns are notable" sounds like an almost inarguably true statement, but what about a child's milk-carton 'town'? By the same token, "All political parties are notable" appears to make sense at first, but surely doesn't apply to a party confined to a small local area, with no candidates in office and not even having participated in an election yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inherent notability. See: Secondary schools, major highways, towns, major transportation companies, etc. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there seem to be sources, which is sufficient. That the sphere of action is a mall region does not prevent notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A press release, their own website, and some very local websites? Since when are these sufficient to meet ]
- Here is an additional source from vilaweb. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete by
]Ball Tap (Game)
- Ball Tap (Game) (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 and
- Speedy delete per nomination, and ]
- Delete as per ]
- Delete - A made-up game with no coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable topic, seems like a self-made game, and has no sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vogel Ski Resort
- Vogel Ski Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails
- Delete - No assertion of significance in the article and Can not find significant coverage to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - is a dedicated page at Official Slovenia's tourist portal good enough? There are numerous mentions of the resort in reliable Slovene-language sources as well, but the author hardly had time to put them in, considering that the article has been nominated for deletion 30 minutes after creation. Jumping the gun a bit less eagerly wouldn't hurt anybody. — Yerpo Eh? 06:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - one of the most visited ski resorts in Slovenia. Plenty of reliable sources available. --my talk 17:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are loads of readily available sources even in English.[26] ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
නිරිපොල
nonsense Nilüfer7 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as nonsense. If I am reading the page history correctly, it's being suggested that this is translated before it is determined as nonsense. I can see the argument there, but given the length of the article and the lack of sources/context, I would go for a speedy delete as nonsense all the same. --Korruski (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy delete per ]
*Neutral for now It cannot be deleted as patent nonsense just because it is in another language, but since I couldn't translate the article (I know zilch Sinhalese), I cannot say whether it meets any other CSD criteria or fails notability. It's possible to delete it as G1, although I wouldn't recommend it, although feel free to tag it. ]
- Change to weak keep as it has been translated and inhabited places are usually notable. ]
- Keep until translated Does not qualify as G1 simply because it is in a script we do not understand. If translated, it may prove to be a worthy article... maybe. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - even google can't translate Sinhalese. Given the length, lack of source, and the untypable characters, there is no reason to keep.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This is the English Wikipedia.Carrite (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on basis of per se notability of villages — now that it's in English. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I earlier speedily deleted this article under G1, that was only because I was unable to recognize the content as a foreign language rather than patent nonsense. Since we don't speedy delete articles just because they are not written in English, I think it would be reasonable to wait for at least some knowledge of the content before deciding on its fate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but not speedy - If we were to simply remove the Sinhalese text, and renamed the article to Roman characters, we'd be left with a legible stub. I don't think deleting the article for containing non-English text would be necessary. However, just going by our usual notability standard, I can find zero coverage of this location. I'm convinced that it exists, but I can't find even the most basic information about it. It could have a population of 20 as far as we know. -- Atama頭 20:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - G1 does not apply to a foreign language. Derild4921☼ 23:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Cities and other such populated areas are de facto notable; translation has already begun. Even the one meager sentence should be able to save this because it is a village. —fetch·comms 02:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Fetchcomms' arguments. Starting articles in foreign languages is allowed, as long as they are not just copies from other Wikipediæ. That's why we have ]
- Transwiki to the Sinhalese Wikipedia. No reason for keeping article noone can read. Text not lost, translation still possible after that. Dummy74 (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Fetchcomms. ~]
- Keep - ]
- Transwiki to the Sinhalese Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia, articles should be in English, if they are not in English, they should be swiftly transwikied to the Wikipedia for that language, if such a beast exists, if not, it should be put up for translation. 70.29.210.72 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is now an all-English, sourced stub, so I guess the language-based arguments are moot. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the redirect, but Keep the article - places are inherently notable. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see any reason to delete the redirect. Redirects are "cheap" and assuming they are not offensive or spammy, they don't get in anyone's way. They may help someone (with the right kind of keyboard in this case) locate an article, and as such they are useful. There are lots of redirects from foreign names to articles bearing English names—in fact there is a whole category full of them: Category:Redirects from alternative languages. Favonian (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Fetchcomms. Villages are inherently notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Fetchcomms. Now we can understand it, this looks like a valid article. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Franklin & Marshall College. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schnader Hall
A very minor college dormitory. No evidence of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find any coverage in sources that suggest this hall is notable enough for a stand-alone article. We had a ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or merge to ]
- Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no indication of notability given. It dosn't seem there is much worth merging into Franklin & Marshall College. However, as mentioned above, perhaps an article on the campus as a whole could be made, and they could be merged there, but I don't see that happening at this time. Danski14(talk) 22:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to ]
Eco Driving
Unencyclopedic, no real content. I can't find any verbatim google references, but I don't think it's notable. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Poor article at the moment, but plenty of potential here. I think this is a notable issue, and on a very quick search I found this article. I know I will be able to find more. --Korruski (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors - Wasn't aware of this article before. I agree this would be a better option, as eco-driving seems to me to be more or less synonymous with it. --Korruski (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Eco-driving already). Title doesn't conform to MoS, reads as an advert rather than an encyclopedia article, would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. Even if it were rewritten, it would probably just duplicate information in that article. -- Smjg (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors should be deleted on the same basis. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Non-encyclopaedic article. Not worth redirecting, unless there ate links to it. If kept it should be renamed to Eco-driving, since Eco is not a word on its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Mandsford 01:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
June 2010 Solomon Islands earthquake
- June 2010 Solomon Islands earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I originally created this article back in June, thinking it may turn out to be a notable event. However this was not the case. No damage, casualties or anything particularly out of the ordinary. Justmeagain83 (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not a notable event, no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This could almost be deleted A7 since the only real contributor to the article is the nominator. One editor added a single reference but no text and other editors only tagged, corrected spelling or categorized the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 09:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Why not blank the page and tag db-self? You appear to be the only author to contribute any significant material to the article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable earthquake, like most earthquakes that happen everyday. Also, it could be speedied as G7 as author seems to be requesting deletion. ]
- Delete - Fails the informal "Rule of 7," to which I subscribe. Please stop creating articles on earthquaks with a magnitude of less than 7.0 unless they squish lots of people or break lots of shit. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Motto Candace!
The result was SPEEDY DELETE G3. Alexf(talk) 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Motto Candace! (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)
Clear hoax, not a single hit on Google. BOVINEBOY2008 09:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find nothing about this. ~~ GB fan ~~ 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and feed to the wolves. Tagged as G3, as I could not find anything for this article. Even if it wasn't a hoax, I would still say delete it per ]
- Delete - I also can't find any sources, so deletion per WP:CRYSTAL is warranted. I agree with the G3 as well..."Dr. Boobypoos"?? P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Sunn O))). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
La Mort Noir dans Esch/Alzette
An album of which only 1,000 copies were reportedly pressed,the sole source is a user-edited directory. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails ]
- Merge - with ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of hip hop groups
- List of hip hop groups (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)
Procedural nomination. I just found that this had been arbitrarily redirected to Category:Hip hop groups (which, as a cross-namespace redirect, we're not supposed to do, and given that most bands are diffused by nationality, the category isn't actually functioning as a list anyway.) Given that I then spent 20 minutes moving misfiled entries and deleting individual rappers, redlinks, non-hip hop bands like The Clash (?) and promotional links to the MySpace pages of bands that aren't notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia at all, I can certainly see why the desire to kill this existed — but a cross-namespace redirect isn't the appropriate way to pursue that. We could delete this, or we could impose a "no listing without a reference" rule (though those do tend to be hard to enforce properly on lists.) No !vote from me. Bearcat (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. It is just a simple list of groups. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Needs to be retitled to something like List of notable hip hop groups. This is a navigational tool, all blue links, not an effort to create an impossibly-broad universal list. While Wikipedia veterans understand the concept of categories, very many casual users do not and this list has a real function as a navigational tool. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has a standing practice of not using the word "notable" in the titles of list articles; our notability policy already dictates that only notable topics can be included in the list anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Perfectly acceptable subject for a list. Could usefully be expanded with further information on each group. e.g. where they're from, active years, etc.--Michig (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:CLN. Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. And per Michig, no reason why this can't be expanded to include a table for info such as location, years active, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete list is way too broad. I would support lists on hip hop groups or other music groups meeting notable criteria. Dew Kane (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Billux
- Billux (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 software, little or no third party coverage (I can only find a handful of mentions, mostly places to download, or one liners) WORMMЯOW 08:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article lacks 3rd party references to establish notability for this software. Dialectric (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Unfortunately, she still does not appear to be notable after the improvements. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Staff Nurse Ella Kate Cooke
- Staff Nurse Ella Kate Cooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of the article fails the notability standards. I had originally tagged the article for CSD. Since then, some links have been added to the article, but those also fail to establish the notability of the person. Shovon (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenot notable, POV ]
- Keep satisfied with improvements ]
- Delete per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete as per nom. The auckland war memorial museum does user-uploaded content. The author should take their efforts there. ]
- Speedy delete A7. There may be references, but there are no assertions of notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I could not find enough reliable references to this article. ]
- Delete arguably a borderline A7. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the rules are clear, but it's a shame. Soupy sautoy (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I have made significant improvements to the article from what it once was. Previously it was this, and now it looks like this. From the sources that I found and the different coverage, including what the subject was involved in, I feel that this article meets the notability standards. SilverserenC 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite improvements, there still is very little to nothing that asserts notability. AniMate 01:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the article not pass the ]
- Comment Kudos to Seren for the hard work, a massively improved article. I'm a bit confused though. The sources mean this article passes WP:BASIC but Nurse Cooke didn't do anything actually notable. I'll sit on the fence for a bit. Bigger digger (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm with ]
- Comment on notability, as there appears to be a desire to see a reason for notability beyond just references, I put forth two possible notable facts. Cooke was a "Native Health Nurse" while in New Zealand, which, as described Waikato Region, she was the only nurse available. A single nurse doing all of that would seem to be important to me. Furthermore, or separately you might say, she achieved the rank of "Sister" before she died, as referred to in many of the references. This rank, as described here, is equivalent to a Lieutenant in other military structures. I do not know how much notability this rank confers upon her, but I think it gives something, at least. SilverserenC 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, but I still don't see a sufficient claim to notability (but then I am definitly at the stricter end of the scale in this regard). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even after my comment above yours? SilverserenC 04:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Creating an online biography of someone doesn't make them notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete reworking an article isn't always enough to save it, especially when the topic is simply not notable. Apparently the "rank of 'Sister'" is the second-lowest rank, and the title of the article says she was a staff nurse, which was the lowest rank of all in the same table. In other words, she had a job. And while it's great to be gainfully employed it's hardly a claim of encyclopedic notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She was a Sister, not a Staff Nurse. The article should be at Ella Cooke anyways. Please look at the first point I made as well. SilverserenC 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you missed my point. Staff nurse is the lowest rank, sister is the second lowest. Neither is anywhere even close to being something one might get into an encyclopedia for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose Lieutenant rank isn't good enough by itself, but I already knew that. But added with the fact about the Waikato region, I think it gives enough combined notability. SilverserenC 04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, it's still a delete for me, although the improvements and and finding of sources reduces it to just weak delete. Unfortunately, despite the sources, I just can't seem to see just what is this person's claim to notability. Should it be kept, I would support a move to "Ella Kate Cooke". ]
- I suppose Lieutenant rank isn't good enough by itself, but I already knew that. But added with the fact about the Waikato region, I think it gives enough combined notability. SilverserenC 04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you missed my point. Staff nurse is the lowest rank, sister is the second lowest. Neither is anywhere even close to being something one might get into an encyclopedia for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look at my "Comment on notability", everyone seems to be ignoring it, for some reason. I'll reiterate though. Cooke received the rank of Sister before she died, which is equivalent to the rank of Lieutenant in a military structure. She was also given the rank of "Native Health Nurse" while she was in New Zealand, a rank given to relatively few people. Furthermore, she was put in charge of the Waikato Region as the only nurse in the entire region, which is 25,000 square kilometers. SilverserenC 14:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And how exactly does being the second-worst ranked nurse and being the only nurse in the area a claim to encyclopedic notability? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No serious claim to notability, lieutenant is a fairly junior rank. PatGallacher (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment on notability, I guess, under WP:BIO, she would have to fit under Creative Professionals, as that's the only one that makes sense. Under that one, I would say she fits under #4, "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums," in terms of the movie, In Memory, that features her as a large part. SilverserenC 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to put forth, though it is OR right now until I prove it, but I believe she was the only New Zealand nurse to die during WWI. Still searching for info on that. SilverserenC 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On what planet is nursing considered a creative profession?!? Did she make Band-Aid sculptures or something? I get that you really, really, really want this kept for some reason, but your reasoning is getting progressively more silly because you're not getting your way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the closest thing I could find on WP:BIO. She doesn't count as any of the others, so creative professional was the only one I could find. Truthfully, as i've said before, since she doesn't fit in it, as stated in all of the notability areas, her notability should default to the GNG or the Basic test. And, as i've already shown, she meets that by far, but all of you seem to want something more. Please direct me to the notability guideline that she needs to meet, because I can't find it. SilverserenC 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nurses are creative professionals? Silver has done a good job of adding a lot of refs to the article, but I'm afraid that none of this actually establishes the notability of the subject. What started off as a school assignment is now subject of a big debate. :-0 Shovon (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As i've said above, I don't necessarily believe that creative professionals is the right criteria to apply, but it's the best one that fits. Please direct me to the correct criteria to use for this article. If there is none, then do you not agree that we much default to the GNG, which this article certainly meets?
- As i've said above, I don't necessarily believe that creative professionals is the right criteria to apply, but it's the best one that fits. Please direct me to the correct criteria to use for this article. If there is none, then do you not agree that we much default to the
- Nurses are creative professionals? Silver has done a good job of adding a lot of refs to the article, but I'm afraid that none of this actually establishes the notability of the subject. What started off as a school assignment is now subject of a big debate. :-0 Shovon (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the closest thing I could find on
- On what planet is nursing considered a creative profession?!? Did she make Band-Aid sculptures or something? I get that you really, really, really want this kept for some reason, but your reasoning is getting progressively more silly because you're not getting your way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone above has been going on about needing a more explanative notability for the subject and I have tried to give examples of her notability, but they were rejected. Instead of being vague about needing "encyclopedic notability" without any basic in a policy, could someone please direct me to the criteria that Cooke needs to meet so I can try to go about to meet them? SilverserenC 15:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:GNG- "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.
- Yes, this woman has been written about in some reliable sources, but she still appears to be a run of the mill nurse during WWI. You seem to want everyone who is saying she is not notable to help you prove she is notable. If notability were black and white, we wouldn't have AfDs. In this case, consensus appears to be saying she doesn't merit a stand alone article, nor is she guaranteed one. AniMate 19:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not asking others to help prove that she is notable, I am asking others to tell me what criteria I need to meet to do so. If I don't know what I need to meet, I can't go about trying to meet it, now can I? I've given reasons for notability above, but they don't seem to be enough. This would all be much easier if there was some sort of notability guideline for nurses, but there doesn't seem to be one. SilverserenC 20:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no notability guideline for nurses because as a general rule nurses aren't notable unless they do something extraordinary, and your efforts with this article haven't shown anything extraordinary. AniMate 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not asking others to help prove that she is notable, I am asking others to tell me what criteria I need to meet to do so. If I don't know what I need to meet, I can't go about trying to meet it, now can I? I've given reasons for notability above, but they don't seem to be enough. This would all be much easier if there was some sort of notability guideline for nurses, but there doesn't seem to be one. SilverserenC 20:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From
- Everyone above has been going on about needing a more explanative notability for the subject and I have tried to give examples of her notability, but they were rejected. Instead of being vague about needing "encyclopedic notability" without any basic in a policy, could someone please direct me to the criteria that Cooke needs to meet so I can try to go about to meet them? SilverserenC 15:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no opinion on this article, but she is far from the only NZ nurse to have died during WWI. In one event alone (the torpedoing of the "Marquette" in 1915) nine NZ nurses were lost: [27]. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete as the rough consensus indicates. –MuZemike 08:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory Hurst
- Gregory Hurst (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)
CV of a finance executive somewhat lacking in
]- Delete: While he's been involved in productions, he isn't getting to the level of notability to deserve a Wikipedia article. He's getting incidental mentions in a couple of articles, but there are no articles about him. We don't really know anything about him, besides his credits (and lots of people have credits in some production).--Lester 08:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the resume appears quite extensive, nothing within his career actually establishes notability. None of the references pan out. Among the television productions, the only one he appears to have received credit for is directing an unknown number of episodes of Another World. The regional professional theatre work doesn't establish notability per WP:PROF. His board memberships and financial advisory work does not establish notability. Subject has clearly led a well-rounded and full life, unfortunately, notability lacks verifiability through reliable, independent sources. Notability has not yet been established according to any specific criteria that I can find. Cindamuse (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 15:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 15:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While I loathe the CV-style layout, pretty obviously a case of sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion as a director of plays and television shows. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I totally agree regarding the resume format. However, the only television directing credit he received was on Another World, date and episode unknown. No other credits or references. So that rules out notability there. The resume presents a lot of impressive claims, but an exhaustive search resulted in a complete lack of references to support the claims. There MAY be sources to establish notability regarding directing in regional professional theatre, but the online sources are pay-per-view and I don't have access to the hard copies. It's a hard call (in my opinion), since the resume is so comprehensive, however, it appears that there is a lack of verifiability on all counts to establish notability at all. Cindamuse (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete The consensus was that this was somewhat interesting, but not notable. The image is available at [File:Watermelon House - Logan Circle.jpg]. Mandsford 01:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watermelon House
- Watermelon House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails
- Keep - The ]
- Just for the record, I don't think amusing their readers is a bad thing. :-) Wolfview (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. ]
- Delete - I thought about this for a while, but that Washington Post article is simply not significant. If that counts then any mention of any address in a major newspaper counts, and that's simply not Notability. Anyone who's interested, look at the short article and ask whether or not it satisfies notability. Even mainstream papers can mention non-notable things. Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not all newspaper articles are equal, especially given the enthusiasm with which newspapers cover 'novelty' stories of local interest. In this case, I don't think the story is sufficient to establish notability. --Korruski (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think it's a great idea, and although I believe that the Washington Post is a reliable source, there isn't much anything else. There's the Washington Post, which is reliable, but that's about it. The house looks tasty though. ]
- I thought it was cute too. The article is very well-written as well. Too bad about pesky WP policies. Wolfview (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW there is a little bit of original research to give more information on the 3 people than can be strictly found out from the source. This is not a reason to delete, lack of notability is enough for that.Wolfview (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 15:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per the consensus of everyone. Mandsford 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sutor, ne ultra crepidam
Looks like a dictionary entry to me, I think that it should be transwikied over to Wiktionary. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Gives the history of the expression, which seems to be in itself notable. Not a dictionary is usually not enforced so strictly to exclude this kind of article. There are many articles on proverbs, etc. here.Wolfview (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (biased - I contibuted it). By all means transwiki ]
- incidentally ]
- ]
- Can I ask for some remarks from ]
- I placed it here not for it to be deleted, but to get others opinions on whether it should be transwikied or no because it was a close call for me. I had no intention of it being deleted. Also I don't understand your remark about being predatory. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 14:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask for some remarks from ]
- If you merely wanted to get opinion you could have done that by discussing it on the article's talk page or by adding a notability template. Of course this page should be reserved for articles you want deleted if you are not to waste our time. With respect there's no close call involved. It's a celebrated and notable Latin phrase, one of the great put-downs of history, and it absolutely belongs to one of the established Wikipedia categories. I took the time to contribute it because I quoted it in a teasing reply to a blog by new page patrollerwho looked at the article and thought it looked like a dictionary entry so I submitted it to AFD to get a consensus on whether or not it should be transwikied. There I saw the reasons why the article should by kept at the English Wikipedia". Can we assume now then that you agree the article should be kept and that I may now remove the template you have disfigured the article I spent an hour or so of my time selflessly contributing?
- ]
- You are surely being disingenuous (if you are not to be accused of being actually stupid) when you say you don't understand new page patrolleris indeed a voluntary self-appointed one and I do commend you to your lonely work but ask only that you reflect on your task more carefully in future if you are not to continue to waste our time and efforts.
- You are surely being disingenuous (if you are not to be accused of being actually stupid) when you say you don't understand
- To aid you in your further notable efforts I note for you that a good test of whether an article should sort of be in the Wikitionary is that it offers several definitions of its title. Hope that helps.
- Unless I further hear sensibly from you or others over the next few hours I shall assume consensus is reached and remove the template. I hope and trust the community will accept that as a satisfactory resolution. ]
- I really wouldn't recommend that. Assume good faith, leave the template and allow the AfD to run its course. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Accept your advice. ]
- I really wouldn't recommend that. Assume good faith, leave the template and allow the AfD to run its course. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I further hear sensibly from you or others over the next few hours I shall assume consensus is reached and remove the template. I hope and trust the community will accept that as a satisfactory resolution. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on the reasons given I switch my vote to keep. It is notable enough for an article entry. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 11:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Quite a significant phrase and notability shown. Let justice be done though the fuckin heavens fall. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, significant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep famous phrase, and appropriate for an encyclopedia . Might be appropriate for a dictionary also, but in general they do not consider phrases within their scope, though some give phrases like this in an appendix. DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. AfD is not cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Age disparity in sexual relationships
- Age disparity in sexual relationships (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)
- Keep This is a notable and important topic. I agree that the list of slang terms is trash, but I'd guess they are there to avoid each having its own article. WP is not perfect, even less so with anything involving sex.Wolfview (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:UGLY and Wolfview. This is a notable topic - just ask Ashton Kutcher or Joan Collins - and it's not unsurmountable to correct the problems listed in the nom. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Article fails synthesis. The article has no sources at all about the topic as a whole. The few sources that are there are popular press articles or dictionary entries about one or another of the listed slang terms. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note: ... or change to a list article per Dream Focus' suggestion below, something like List of slang terms for age disparite sexual relationships. That's a good idea because as a list either the individual terms are notable and sourced well enough for inclusion, or not, but there would be no overall discussion of the idea of the terms as a single concept, which is where the problem of synthesis comes from in this article, since there are no sources for that content. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. An suitable article could be written on this topic, but i very much doubt that this article could evolve into that article due to current content. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Non notable"?! This topic was one of the primary subjects for much of the Romantic era literature for well over a century. There are better ways of dealing with a poorly written article than by deleting it. Owen× ☎ 17:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it would be better to summarize any relevant content at the article on Romanticism. As it stands, this article makes no claim for notability on the basis of its use as a literary trope. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The literary aspect is just one of many. I mentioned it because it should be easy to dig up plenty of references from there. Some aspects of this topic indeed relate to romanticism, but it doesn't belong there. Owen× ☎ 20:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it would be better to summarize any relevant content at the article on Romanticism. As it stands, this article makes no claim for notability on the basis of its use as a literary trope. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rescue. Blatantly notable topic ]
- Delete but allow its re-creation in a different form, topic is notable, current content isn't, either way its a topic we should be covering in a way that we arent. Thanks, ♫ ]
- That's a good point. I had !voted to delete in my comment above, because this current article is all synthesis, no references to the concept in general. There could be an article on this topic, as a couple of editors have noted - if it were rewritten from scratch using reliable sources, with the main idea of the article as a thesis supported by sources. Maybe someone can come up with a new approach before the AfD is done, if so, that would solve the problem and I'd change my recommendation. Otherwise, the current article should be deleted, because as it is now, there are no sources for the central concept, so if the non-sourced info is removed, there would be nothing left but a list of a few slang terms. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Ultra-Lite original essay intro followed by compendium of Urban Dictionary-style slang. Ugh. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename it List of slang used for age disparity sexual relationships. Some of the terms have their own articles, and others are referenced already. Dream Focus 09:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per comment above. The term "cougar" especially is notable and common. There was even a recent study on it.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added some info on two studies and a book. I do think the word "sexual" can be dropped from the title though.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable topic. But needs a lot of cleanup. Dew Kane (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, but seriously, the main part of the article shouldn't be slang words. There is legitimate encyclopedic content to be written for an article like this. Roscelese (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Topic has encyclopedic value given the societal trends of the last 2 decades. The proponent's rationale that the article has been a mess for years is just a variant of the to-be-avoided WP:BOLD and fix it; going on a delete frenzy is not the way to deal with that. A review of the sourced citations shows that a serious attempt has been made to include an abundant variety of reliable sources. I further note that the WikiProject Sexuality has assigned "Medium" importance to this article,,, not bad. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mandsford 01:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Academic Programs of EMU
- Academic Programs of EMU (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)
Already merged data into EMU article. I don't believe a redirect is necessary as I doubt anyone will search for this article title (they'll instead search for EMU)
]- Delete even though I see your merger was reverted. There is little value in listing all the degrees and programs offered at a university - whether it be within the main article or a separate one like this. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 15:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. I don't see any merge possible. Danski14(talk) 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm the one who reverted addition of this material to the EMU article, it's clear to me that it is not encyclopedic material, delete per NOTDIR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UK Tour 2009
- UK Tour 2009 (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)
Just another tour by a singer. The article does not satisfy the guidelines for concert tours set down in
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable tour, ambiguous namespace to boot Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete - maybe merge into artist, but this article probably isn't even notable enough for that. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Transformers characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor Arkeville
Non-notable fictional character - fails
- Delete - Per nom, no reliable sources for notability. Derild4921☼ 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a list of transformers characters per my arguments on the other AfD. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Merge per Jclemens ]
- Merge into the G1 character list if the character is a reoccurring character, otherwise redirect to the episode list entry that the character appears in. —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Establishing notability - I just added a good third party book citation that should help establish notability. ]
- Keep - Now that notability is more established, I think it's a keeper. ]
- Merge to List of The Transformers characters or something. An official guidebook is not a "third-party" publication, considering that Hasbro and such make profits from sales of those. I guess it could work as a reference, but not one that establishes notability. NotARealWord (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge for the sake of building a consensus. No third-party sources to ]
- Merge looks like the right call in this one. He could go in the decepticons article even if he's not actually a robot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Mandsford 01:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Rick Powell
- Colonel Rick Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not (yet) notable per
- Delete per nom. Also, I assume that his first name is not Colonel, so for consistency, the page should be title Rick Powell (without the Colonel). Also, article violates NPOV, seems there to promote his campaign. ]
- Right, but don't move it yet--let's not waste too many electrons. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If removing the colonel's title would help make this entry copacetic, it's not a problem - the title is legitimate, as is his record. He is a repeat candidate. The incumbent has a similar Wiki, with a history of similar or lesser noteworthiness (Marty Block). The colonel's military record alone should be enough - in my opinion.DangerStick (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DangerStick (talk • contribs) — DangerStick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- But the incumbent is the incumbent, and therefore presumably passes ]
- Delete - does not pass ]
- Delete - I'm not finding much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. He fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. Also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People as a serviceman of rank colonel and not being decorated at the highest levels. Of course no bias against recreating the article if he wins the election. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm learning, thank you - new to this. I've contacted the colonel, and will secure further background info. He was involved in a host of offensives, and that's not including his operations with Special Forces. As for awards, he's got a pile, including the Bronze Star and Legion of Merit. I'm not sure how to remove "colonel" from the page title, though. Like I said, I'm new. Yes, he is running for an assembly seat, but he's also a noted counter-terror expert on top of his military history. There is plenty to note, including photos and documentation, I'm just not doing a good job of it yet. Please bear with me.DangerStick (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)DangerStick (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for discussing this with us. As far as the medals go, as conflict of interest. So please understand that guideline. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable candidate for state legislature; has never held office. No news coverage found except a two-paragraph item stating that he won the primary. Unless significant news coverage is found, he fails the standard set at ]
- Delete - per nom. Fails ]
Thanks for the insight. I only use "the colonel" because I was raised in a military-oriented household and it's comfortable. I have only limited familiarity with Col. Powell, which explains why getting his info has taken this long. I have received several Vietnam-period photos. I'll ask for records of coverage of military service next.DangerStick (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by "records." If they are some sort of documentation published by the military, then they will suffice to notability of the subject. You'll need to find coverage in other types of sources. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 12:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maralyn Parker
- Maralyn Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a newspaper columnist that has no significant coverage in
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that Parker meets notability criteria for inclusion; no significant coverage in independent sources and the awards do not appear to be significant enough to cement notability. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete per nominator. Strange Passerby (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of smartphones
- Comparison of smartphones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advertising. Spammy. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Consumer product comparision ephemera is not the mission of an encyclopedia. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom (next time, give the rest of us a chance to bring a new reason to the table!) Bigger digger (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator. You could have added "original research". Whoops....--Wtshymanski (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found this article extremely useful for a research project I am doing. It has given me a snapshot of smart phone capabilities, which factor in my analysis. A similar article could be e.g the comparison of world war 2 tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_early_World_War_II_tanks). I recommend that the article stays. --( added 17:21, 5 September 2010 by 86.164.199.163 (talk) on the discussion page and moved here)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Weak Delete Well sourced with lots of information, but certainly has that Consumer Reports feel to it. ]
- Keep - I think it's a basic list, and a well sourced one at that. I worry some about synchronizing between all of the various smart phone lists we have. I'd highly suggest a merger of them... but aside from that, seems like a decent NPOV list. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep. Useful comparison of notable information, I can see no reason to delete it. Why is this "advertising" or "spammy"? Just because it is about consumer products doesn't mean it is "unencyclopedic". --memset (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Feel like it's in a list format, and it's well sourced. Granted it does need aditional verification, but we can always work on that later. However, if it makes people happy, I guess we could always call the article something like, "Smartphone Technical Specifications" or something like that. The idea is we can all edit any article, for the most part, so lets edit this one and get it up to Wikipedia standards! Flightx52 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator: "up to Wikipedia standards" - is that "de facto" standards or our ideals? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Useful, NPOV, keep it current. -- Sitearm | Talk 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems an encyclopedic comparison. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Foreign Policy Research Institute. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP)
Non-notable program; no independent sources given or found. Could merge to
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Merge & Redirect to FFPI. A news search for (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) show its reports are picked up globally. It is clearly linked to Uni of Penn, at least by postal address, but I can't find anything independent to sufficiently support notability for its own article. Bigger digger (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. (
]Music as a Weapon Tour
Non notable concert tours that fails to establish notability as per
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Music as a Weapon Tour It's Disturbed's own festival tour with plenty of significant coverage. The article is just poorly written at this moment and may look non-notable, but based on the number of Gnews hits, I'd say it probably is. Delete Asylum Tour This is superfluous to Uproar Festival and what may become Taste of Chaos 2010. It's also not technically "The Asylum Tour," but rather two festivals Disturbed is participating in after the release of Asylum. Delete Indestructible Tour Zero third-party coverage outside of lists of tour dates. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
Keep Asylum Tour – The band are not only performing at festivals on this tour; the band are playing their own shows and the tour will continue in to 2011. It is a major tour by a band who just had their fourth consecutive number one album on the Billboard 200. I expect further coverage of the tour as it progresses. Keep Indestructible Tour – For the same reason. I expect to find additional coverage to add to the article. (
]- Expect to find is not what we are looking for. The article, as with the vast majority of tours, does not gain significant coverage in reliable sources and thus fails WP:GNG. If such notability is established, then the article can be recreated. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Although there are two Keep votes, concerns on notability have apparently still not been met. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 02:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Comment The use of the word "vote" above is interesting... No evidence has been provided to establish the required notability, and so these "votes" are simply opinions, and until notability is established, they mean little. The fact that additional references are expected to be found suggests that such references required to establish notability as per ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
]Southseas Film and Television School
- Southseas Film and Television School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication that this film school meets
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 02:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has been added as proof that the film school exists. The duplicate was set-up as a correction to the name as the school's trading name is "South Seas" not "Southseas" —Preceding unsigned comment added by KentNolan (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no inherent notability for PTEs - most are quite small businesses with fewer than 50 students. They need to pass the GNG with non-promotional material. dramatic (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' - as per nom. I also note that User:KentNolan's only contribution to wiki is this article and its predecessor, which suggests a possible COI. A cynic might also note that those contributions only started after User:SouthSeasFilmSchool was blocked from editing. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. no indication of notability. proof of existence is not proof of notability. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the discussions and even the nomination statement, despite this keep close, there is no prejudice to an early renomination for an AfD in case the article is not developed Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Western Wall camera
- Western Wall camera (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 webcam. There are several different webcams focused on the Western Wall, and this one isn't different in any way. Perhaps a distinction in the mid 1990's, but none now. Jmlk17 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless further notability can be established. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is not about a single wall cam, but about the idea of them. The idea of wall cams does meet the general notability guideline - there has been significant coverage on the topic in newspapers, books, and other reliable sources. Linda Olive (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative keep The article is indeed about Western Wall web cameras in general, not about a particular camera, so the nom's rationale is invalid. The cited sources establish a certain amount of notability, which seems just barely sufficient. Perhaps the nom can show why there is insufficient notability, or the creator(s) can bring more sources, deciding the issue either way. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve/expand a little googling under various keywords readily reveals that there are multiple cameras (as the article states), many news articles spread over several years, and even discussions in books on digital art, one of which I added as a source.AMuseo (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: improve&expand Lack of specific rationale for nomination on non-notability by nominator. Article needs a little work like a purpose section, otherwise deletion should be better rationalized.QuAzGaA 21:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. While Kotniski does make a point, there is a clear lack of sources to prove notability. The consensus therefore that I see is for delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Adamski
- Adam Adamski (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 bodybuilder who has not won any major championships in his sport. The article lacks references and contains at least one dubious BLP reference. Fails
]- Delete, not sourceable to the level required by ]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I couldn't find anything nor is the anything currently in the article to establish notablity. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 14:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. :Huh? The guy's a national champion and sixth in the world (so it says). If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. (Plenty of hits on Polish bodybuilding sites - the Polish version of the article contains some independent sources.)--Kotniski (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although having competed at 2008 World Amateur Championships - I think he does scrape by WP:GNG. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of him and/or his work. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see people's thinking here. Having competed in his sport's major world championship, he doesn't just "scrape by" WP:ATHLETE, he passes it confortably. (I don't know why being national champion isn't listed as a criterion under athlete, but it surely should be, and that would be another reason.) American athletes of far less significance are given Wikipedia articles - why the rush to delete someone who just happens to come from a country where the sources are written in a funny language?--Kotniski (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as
Joseph "Nanmankoi" Newman
- Joseph "Nanmankoi" Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. No Ghits to speak of that are
- Delete, no RS required by the BLP policy and notability guideline. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, at best this is a biography that has no WP:GNG. Could be a hoax, but most definitely full of very trivial details that do nothing to show notability. --Kinu t/c 02:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Courcelles 05:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
USCG Station Montauk
Non-notable minor Coast Guard station; no assertion of notability in article; no
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - First of all, being a United States Coast Guard Station is an assertion of notability, hence nobody has even suggested this has notability issues since its creation almost 3 years ago in 2007. Secondly, it easily passes New York Times. [32][33][34]. The United States Coast Guard has a very long and detailed history of the station long before it moved to its present location in 1955.[35] --Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - ]
- Just a bunch of links from the WP:VAGUEWAVE. Care to explain how you feel there isn't significant coverage?--Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What our colleague here means to say is that the bare fact that something is a Coast Guard station does not mean it has inherent notability, and neither does the age of the article mean it has encyclopedic value. As you might imagine, in order to keep this article, there's going to have to be some sort of assertion that it meets ]
- Comment Another option would be to merge and redirect to Montauk. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I would think any official United States military establishment would warrant an article, especially one which is active and performing coastal navigation duties. -OberRanks (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a permanent US military establishment. I do consider such as intrinsically or necessarily notable, and even if someone does not choose to do that, there are sources for this one in particular . DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a10, article in Indonesian about cycle rickshaws. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Becak di kota pahlawan
- Becak di kota pahlawan (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)
nonsense Xmoes (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maggie Gobran
- Maggie Gobran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO . if the claim "Gobran have several times been nominated for the Nobel Prize" was true she would appear several times in the media. yet only gets 2 gnews hits. [36]. and no reliable sources to back the claim [37]. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While she appears to be doing noble work, the 4 GBooks hits seem merely to establish her existence, not her meeting Wikipedia guidelines for notability. No prejudice against re-creation should she later meet those guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not significant coverage. I should note that does not mean she wasn't nominated for the Nobel....over one-hundred people are nominated for the Nobel each year and the quirky nominating system means that some of them are far more obscure than Gobran Vrivers (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Norwegians by religion
- List of Norwegians by religion (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 appears as a fairly random list of people, listed by criteria which have nothing to do with why they are famous. I don't see the point of this article, and I feel it contradicts
]- Delete what next? list of Americans by religion? that would be an extremely long article. Categories adequately cover this. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An irrelevant and randomly assembled list. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, an informative, well organized list which serves as a valuable research tool concerning notable Norwegians. Per WP:BLP, any entries concerning living people without inline citations to RS would need to be removed, of course. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory and it is completely redundant to this category. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 14:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 14:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 1) This is probably actually a legitimate example of an unencyclopedic cross-characterization. 2) Since this is BLP material, each entry needs to be reliably sourced in this list, which it's not. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An interesting idea and nicely rendered, but this particular list needs to be sourced out to avoid violating BLP policy, per J. Clemens... Footnote it A/O or lose it. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikpedia is not a ]
- Delete, it's stupid to have a list. I'd have no problem with categories, though. Roscelese (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. After 3 weeks, there still does not seem to be consensus in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Corriel
- Matt Corriel (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)
General notability not established / Poor sources - lack of sources for BLP Dawnseeker2000 01:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's some small level of news coverage, mostly trivial or dating from his college days. In my opinion, fails ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Weak keep. I cleaned up the article and improved the sourcing. Two of his musicals have won significant regional awards; I think that may be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Not a huge amount of coverage, but enough for WP:N. I added citations to articles in the Telegram & Gazette. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Second relist rationale. The article is a ]
- Delete. A BLP with questionable notability and utter lack of community interest (TWO relistings!) is a pretty clear cut delete. --]
- Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. A mere lack of participation in an AFD is not, by itself, evidence of non-notability. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Too little coverage of him as a composer, and most of it rather local. Does not quite pass ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yamaha Bruin 350
Unreferenced / orphan article about a product that is no longer in production. Biker Biker (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; unreferenced does not mean references don't exist; it may take a little hashing out, but a quick search gives results indicating that the item is notable; keep in mind that notability is not temporary; the fact that the vehicle is no longer in production bears no weight. Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep, already has a citation to significant coverage in one RS; it's likely that more will be forthcoming. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yamaha Raptor 700R
- Yamaha Raptor 700R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced, badly written and virtually an orphan. Biker Biker (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Those are bad reasons for deletion. Sources exist out there to establish the article's notability. Derild4921☼ 23:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep. The references meet the requirements of the notability guideline. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CD DVD printer
- CD DVD printer (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)
Immediate tone, notability, and verifiability concerns. Also, conflicts of interest with users ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete advertising masquerading as article. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The "delete" arguments are not as strong as the "keep" arguments. Just because the book might not be notable doesn't mean it's not reliable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Puroshottam Choudhary
- Puroshottam Choudhary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have tried hard and have not been able to find reliable sources that back the notability asserted within the article. A previous prod of a similarly named article that covered more or less similar contents had resulted in a delete in January 2010. Requst AfD delete. Thanks and regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 04:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to have an entire book written about him in English: Joseph, Ravela (2004), Bhakti theology of Purushottam Chowdhari, Christian Literature Society, OCLC 65517210. Reasonable expectation of further non-English and/or offline sources. Scant information online, but it confirms the basic outline of the article: he was Telugu and wrote hymns. I added what I could find to the article. Typical for a long-dead guy from a non-Roman-alphabet country, there's multiple transcriptions to look out for: Purushottam/Puroshottam, Chowdhury/Chaudhary/etc, in both orders. Died in 1880, so no BLP/self-promotion concerns. cab (call) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Delete Ravela's book is found in only 28 libraries. No coverage in mainline publications. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete Not notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I see no reason to discount the book found by CaliforniaAliBaba. We are discussing the notability of the subject, not of the book, so the number of libraries holding the book is irrelevant. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hat Full of Stars Tour
Non notable concert tour. Fails
- Also nominating the following tours for the same reason:
- The Fun Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- )
- )
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete can't find any references or sources. ]
- Delete - fails notability guidelines Nowyouseemetalk2me 06:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. 14 days, no objection, and none had ever been prodded, so treat as an uncontested PROD going forward. Courcelles 05:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Singles Tour
- Singles Tour (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 concert tour. Fails
- Also nominating the following tours for the same reasons
- )
- )
- Tragic Kingdom Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. After 14 days, treating as an uncontested PROD. Courcelles 05:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Love Tour
- Love Tour (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 concert tour. Fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Courcelles 05:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sedley Alley
Murderer who fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As I said in the first nomination, there has been an enormous amount of news coverage regarding the crime and his execution. The crime was notable (one of the most horrific in Shelby county history), the execution was notable (only the second one in Tennessee in 45 years), and the fact that there are still questions about his guilt or innocence is notable. The DNA evidence was never tested, and the Shelby County prosecutor's office still refuses to hand over the evidence for testing. The crime was a major part of the book "Journey into Darkness" by John Douglas (former FBI profiler). Furthermore, since Alley's execution his case has been repeatedly used as an example by The Innocence Project as case in which an innocent man was executed. At one time this was a lengthy and detailed article, however death penalty activists continue to butcher it and remove details of the crime, info about the trial, and Alley's life prior to murder. Martylunsford —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. What we see in in this version, the most substantial version, there is a substantial block of unsourced text, and typically the sort of arguments used by anti-capital punishment activists to stay an execution. I believe it was inadequately reliable third party sources, we should have another look. As it stands, it should go. We don't have articles about all capital cases, and that is also right and proper. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm currently on the fence about this one, so I plan to wait a few days. I agree with ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete - Asswipe Murderer Who Got Executed is a news story, not an encyclopedia topic. Carrite (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some coverage around his death and almost certainly a whole lot more around his trial and sentencing (it's not on the net but is referred to in the current coverage). ]
- Keep ]
- Keep on the basis of the book by Douglas. That seems enough to set this apart as a non-routine example. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per scorpiondollprinces's comments in the first nomination. Namely, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." per WP:BIO. Subject is the the focus of regional and national news stories in Nashville News, The Tennessean,Tennessee Independent Media Center, Eyewitness News (WPTY TV), WBIR TV News, WREG TV News, The Nashville Post,CBS News, MSNBC,WVLT TV News, and The Jackson Sun (just to mention a few). A google search seems to yield plenty of multiple, non-trivial coverage of Sedley Alley's crime, trial, appeal, and execution. Sam1174 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xeltek Inc.
- Xeltek Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highly promotional of what does not appear to be a notable company, only one GNews hit and first page of GHits are self published or the like. Codf1977 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are only GNews articles allowed for notability? Earlier I had written in the article about certain breakthroughs the company had in the device programming community, in particular Stand-Along programming (which i was going to write another article about after i got this article passed), which had been deleted by another user because he said it was promotional. I had this article reviewed by other wikipedia editors, at least a handful of drafts, and everything seemed fine. A lot of the text I had put in, which I believed gave more depth about the company in hand, had been deleted saying it was promotional or advertisement (which I don't agree with). An ex: Xeltek provides programming solutions... Solutions was deleted for being a peacock term? but I wrote solutions because they deal with solutions for programming needs other than selling programmers such as providing socket adapters to program different types of chips. Junjoon (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesnt have to be from google news, but it does have to be a source independant from the topic of the article and have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. see ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The chief independent references seem to be to "Our Suppliers" pages, and to PRLog, apparently a host for press releases. Nothing about the references suggests truly independent and substantial coverage; nothing about the article suggests that this business's products have any historical, technical or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete, press releases are insufficient. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above, I also STRONGLY suggest that the articles creator read WP:COI, due to his "suggestion" on my talk page here to delete a an article about one of his competitors. WuhWuzDat 19:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Cummings (martial artist)
- David Cummings (martial artist) (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)
Search revealed at best only trivial coverage in third party sources. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a request to delete this article, apparently made by the subject. SpinningSpark 12:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This was about the only coverage I could find. Based on that and the fact that the subject wants it deleted I think it should go. Smartse (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found him mentioned on the IKF and USMTA web sites, as well as a mention in Black Belt magazine when he lost a Muay Thai world title bout. I think you can make a case for his being notable, although I wish I had more sources. I'm concerned about the amount the amount of vandalism on his page and don't know how much weight to give the subject's desire to have the article removed. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete, not referenced to the standards of ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unmistakable consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Profile Records
- Profile Records (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 record label with multiple issues...only has one source, which may I add, is only a quote from a message board on Yahoo! No sources whatsoever on the artists' that had recorded and released material on this label. Fails WP:Notability. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have a new metric for indie labels that merits consideration: does the label's artist roster include bands with WP articles standing? Profile Records is showing a fair amount of blue links and that's good enough for me... Enough notable bands makes a notable label... Carrite (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Multiple sources can be found easily: New York magazine, Billboard magazine, Billboard again, and mentions elsewhere as well. Just being the label where Rob Base and DJ E-Z Rock, Dana Dane, DJ Quik, and N2Deep. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:BEFORE appears not to have been followed. Profile Records has an entry in The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music, coverage in David Toop's Rap Attack, The Rough Guide to Hip Hop, etc. Clearly notable, just needs improvement.--Michig (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC) See also Google Books1, Google Books 2, Google News.--Michig (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Period. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep warpozio (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passed the notability requirement(s). Jmlk17 20:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This was an important independent dance and hip hop label in the 1980s and it is interesting to read of its history, although the article could do with some improvement. Dubmill (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.