Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 22
![](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 keep. Consensus was keep and clean up article. (non-admin closure) Monty845 20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hash oil
- Hash oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is not up to Wikipedia standards in terms of verified sources, lack of citation, and is a how-to-guide to producing illicit drugs Alchemist314 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia clearly states, "the point is not to train but to present facts" "facts must be verifiable". Someone's personal experience or claims made without supporting scientific evidence should not be included. Since 98 percent of this article contains unverified claims, it should be deleted. I am speechless. If you are going to say something is toxic, cite a source. The article says "methanol is relatively safe" then goes on to say " methanol is toxic". Claims made about potency, methods and materials must be sourced. You can not say x contains impurities, then cite it. If you are going to list the physical properties of butane, source it. Finally, I have done extractions of plant pigments to run on HPLC, and guess what we used as the non-polar solvent, petrolium ethers!. Butane and all the other non-polar solvents will extract chlorophyll as well as lutein, xanthophyll, carotene and other pigments since they are also non-polar. This article makes no mention of even a separatory funnel. If this article is going to be about the clandestine manufacture of hash oil, then cite news reports or government reports. If you are going to talk about extractions and dangers of chemicals, please go to scifinder or get MSDS's and cite the sources. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is not erowid, and it is not an avenue for people to share their experience. It is an Encyclopedia, which I'm sorry, is not interested in your experiences or claims, unless they are published and verifiable by some kind of peer reviewed journal. By the way, I have been published as a chemist and if people are concerned about my credentials feel free to contact me and will provide them. If this article is properly cited when making claims then it should be kept, but if no one wants to go through the trouble, the state that is in now warrants deletion.Alchemist314 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a scientist, a chemist to be exact. Any scientific writing must contain sources from peer reviewed journals. If the article is going to go in depth about the chemistry of extractions, unverified claims must be removed. If someone wants to go through the trouble of sourcing all the claims then go ahead, but the fact that this is an illicet drug, means there will be no sources. Wikipedia should not be a cookbook for those wishing to break the law. It should contain verified information from peer reviewed scientific journals so that readers who are not chemists or scientists can have faith that what they are reading is actually true. Alchemist314 (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am curious to know what you mean, "the fact that this is an illicit drug means there will be no sources." There are plenty of sources on how to produce hash oil, many of them reliable, and probably several in my library (I am an addiction psychologist). It seems to me the primary reason for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that there should be no information on the manufacture of illegal drugs in Wikipedia. Eauhomme (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am curious to know what you mean, "the fact that this is an illicit drug means there will be no sources." There are plenty of sources on how to produce hash oil, many of them reliable, and probably several in my library (I am an addiction psychologist). It seems to me the primary reason for deletion is
- I have a different understanding of this nomination due to this quote: "Since 98 percent of this article contains unverified claims, it should be deleted." That is like saying that because 98% of a user's edits are non-controversial, none of the other 2% of edits are controversial. The argument IMO does not stand on its own two feet. It's not entirely being bold and bringing this nomination, however; it did indirectly bring a heavily uncited article to our attention. CycloneGU (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a different understanding of this nomination due to this quote: "Since 98 percent of this article contains unverified claims, it should be deleted." That is like saying that because 98% of a user's edits are non-controversial, none of the other 2% of edits are controversial. The argument IMO does not stand on its own two feet. It's not entirely
- Keep There's no doubt that hash oil exists; its existence is easily documented in multiple reliable sources. AfD is not the appropriate venue for content disputes. To be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't edit the hell out of the article or even delete a large section, but the whole article should not be deleted. ]
- Delete unsourced general awfulness..--Mjpresson (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Tag for sources. Seven-hundred-and-two-thousand Google hits for the exact phrase. Trust me when I say that in a haystack that big, there are three functional sources. Carrite (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Carrite (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, then go find the sources and place them in the article by the claims.Alchemist314 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deletion is not cleanup. And what do you mean up to wikipedia standards? Click on random article, and see what kind of "standard article" we have. This is better than most. ]
- See the paragraph I just wrote above.Alchemist314 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is our editing policy to improve articles rather than deleting them. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that, and that is why the article has 7 days to be edited up to standards before any action is taken.Alchemist314 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up all those "citation needed" tags and reduce the article to what can be referenced. Also, I think the nominator brought this here after a peek in the edit history - that is, unless he is the chemist who left the shouting comment about being a chemist. CycloneGU (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Hash oil is a legitimate psychoactive substance. If the article needs to be cleaned up, clean it up. Article quality is not a valid deletion rationale. Eauhomme (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it looks okay to me now. Deb (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see this get snow-keeped. There's no point in keeping it open for a week; clearly, the nomination was not in accordance with deletion policy and there's no chance there will be anything like a consensus to do a ]
- Keep - There is no doubt in my mind that hash oil is a valid topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. The issue of poor sourcing, and unsupported opinion in the article is a reason for article improvement. -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tamara Lorincz
- Tamara Lorincz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
seems to fail WP:Notability (people) for politicians as well as notability for other categories Mayumashu (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As an unelected politician, she does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The only coverage I can find about her are passing mentions mostly in her role as a spokesperson for an activist group, or routine election coverage material. The article makes the claim that she "is best known for being a co-recipient of 2005 International Peace in Space Award", but I can find no coverage about an International Peace in Space Award that establishes this as a notable award. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Day
- Simple Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable student film, not yet premiered. GILO A&E⇑ 23:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Delete - An unreleased short film that has garnered no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 November Criminals
- The November Criminals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not a notable novel, as is clear from the total lack of hits and reviews. If there are reviews in reliable sources, I'd love to see them. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although it hasn't been worked into the article text yet, there is a New York Times review of the article mentioned on the talk page (and in the first, withdrawn AfD: see WP:Articles for deletion/The November Criminals (2010 novel)). I'll add it as an EL. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added 3 reviews, and will soon find others. (I speedy deleted an earlier version as copyvio. Since this one still sounded promotional sounded remarkably like a publisher's description, I rewrote the entire article) The very search the nom. includes as showing the lack of reviews includes reviews from the NYT and the Washington Post, and a citation that it was a NYT Editors Choice ! When following WP:BEFORE, it is good to pay some attention to what you find. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepPer DGG. As long as the copyvio is eliminated. Quinn ✩ STARRY NIGHT 02:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The November Criminals (2010 novel) which was closed earlier today. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per DGG's good work in sourcing the article. Well done! Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal Baller
Song fails
]- Delete Song is not significantly covered in multiple reliable secondary sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 00:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CycloneGU (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non-dairy creamer. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Dairy Creamer
Song fails
]Delete. Song is not significantly covered in multiple secondary sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 00:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CycloneGU (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Redirect to Non-dairy creamer. This is a plausible search term (alternative capitalisation) and therefore should not be a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then redirect - I did nominate for deletion, so that can be discounted, but I'm all right with a redirect here. CycloneGU (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
]Rabbits on the run
Disputed prod; unreleased album without major 3rd party coverage. An anonymous IP removed the prod tag and inserted references, but all of the references are the artists twitter status updates rather than
]More citations have been added to hopefully settle any uncertainty about Twitter reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack-tr (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The major single from the album is scheduled to be released four days after this AFD is scheduled to close. It's pretty clearly going to be notable within a week after this AFD closes (it's Vanessa Carleton). What's the point in deleting it only to undelete it in a week? NW (Talk) 00:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, apparently I'm bad at looking at dates. Since there are no deletes other than me, seeing if I can figure out how to close it. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall
- Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disambiguation page for two distinct and unambiguous terms. Prodded some years ago, declined on the basis of possible incoming external links, which I do not think is a particularly useful rationale for permanently maintaining a useless page that draws a misleading inference that the terms on it are ambiguous to one another.
- Delete. Not a useful disambiguation page. Pburka (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This disambiguation page is not needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agreed. I can't see any reason that the two articles need any disambiguation at all. If there is a pressing reason to disambiguate, it would be better to do so in the respective articles rather than a disambiguation page with only two entries. --Tathar (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, really unnecessary disambiguation. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no need for this dab page, and an unlikely search term. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Contrary to the assertions of uselessness above, the stats show that since September (I've not looked earlier) this has been getting between 80 and 170 hits a month. Either it is a more likely search term than those above me think, or it's getting hits from an external inbound link. Devon and Cornwall might not be ambiguous to one another, but they are adjacent counties in the south west of England that are often grouped together by visitors to the region and share a police force (Cuisine of England would make it harder for people to find the content they are looking for - what other option but a disambiguation page is there? Were this a redirect caused my a page move, then we would keep it to preserve the edit history per the GFDL requirements, so why should we do differently just because it isn't a redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about a See also section in each of the Cornwall and Devon articles pointing to each other to solve the problem of people looking for content of both? Zangar (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That will work once they've found one of the articles, but doesn't help them find then in the first place. Where do we send them when they're linked to this title and are just told there is nothing here? Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, within Wikipedia these links can be changed - at the time of me writing this reply there are no mainspace links to this article. Also if someone wanted to search for this specific title they would either see "Cuisine of Devon" as a search suggestion, or after hitting enter would find both articles in the first 5 results. As for the outside wiki-world - Wikipedia has articles deleted all the time and cannot be assumed to remain constant. Zangar (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- People use many different ways to find content on Wikipedia, internal links and the internal search engine are just two of many. As responsible internet citizens we should be doing our best to avoid link rot (for our own benefit as much as every else's) - see this statement by former Chief Technical Officer Brion Vibber. It's one thing to delete a link to content that has been deleted - we don't have an article on Fruit (non-notable band), so removing it from the "Fruit (disambiguation)" page does nobody any harm. This isn't the case here though, we have not deleted the content, we've just spit it into two articles rather than one, but we still want people to be able to find it. If it violates the style guidelines to help people find the content then either the style guidelines are wrong or we're applying the wrong ones. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I make a disambiguation page titled "Lemons and bananas", stating therein that the phrase may refer to T01:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's not what has happened here. This was a single artle which then got split into two separate articles, neither of them at this title. It might not be a "disambiguation" page in the typical sense, but it is not innacurrate to say that "You are looking for XY, we don't have an article about both of them together any more but we do have article X and article Y.". If the same had happened with "Lemons and bananas" then I'd be recommending keeping that if the stats show that it was in use (which the stats for "Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall" clearly do show), but as it didn't it's completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How the page came to exist is irrelevant to the question of whether it should now exist. The phrase "Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall" is not ambiguous, and apparently there is not a notable cuisine encompassing the two places, such that they are incapable of being described independently. The page, therefore, serves no purpose within the context of the article space of an encyclopedia, just like any other non-notable combination. At best, if there is a list of Cuisines of England, maybe it can be redirected there. T04:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- How the page came to exist is irrelevant to the question of whether it should now exist. The phrase "Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall" is not ambiguous, and apparently there is not a notable cuisine encompassing the two places, such that they are incapable of being described independently. The page, therefore, serves no purpose within the context of the article space of an encyclopedia, just like any other non-notable combination. At best, if there is a list of Cuisines of England, maybe it can be redirected there.
- That's not what has happened here. This was a single artle which then got split into two separate articles, neither of them at this title. It might not be a "disambiguation" page in the typical sense, but it is not innacurrate to say that "You are looking for XY, we don't have an article about both of them together any more but we do have article X and article Y.". If the same had happened with "Lemons and bananas" then I'd be recommending keeping that if the stats show that it was in use (which the stats for "Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall" clearly do show), but as it didn't it's completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I make a disambiguation page titled "Lemons and bananas", stating therein that the phrase may refer to
- People use many different ways to find content on Wikipedia, internal links and the internal search engine are just two of many. As responsible internet citizens we should be doing our best to avoid link rot (for our own benefit as much as every else's) - see this statement by former Chief Technical Officer Brion Vibber. It's one thing to delete a link to content that has been deleted - we don't have an article on Fruit (non-notable band), so removing it from the "Fruit (disambiguation)" page does nobody any harm. This isn't the case here though, we have not deleted the content, we've just spit it into two articles rather than one, but we still want people to be able to find it. If it violates the style guidelines to help people find the content then either the style guidelines are wrong or we're applying the wrong ones. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, within Wikipedia these links can be changed - at the time of me writing this reply there are no mainspace links to this article. Also if someone wanted to search for this specific title they would either see "Cuisine of Devon" as a search suggestion, or after hitting enter would find both articles in the first 5 results. As for the outside wiki-world - Wikipedia has articles deleted all the time and cannot be assumed to remain constant. Zangar (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That will work once they've found one of the articles, but doesn't help them find then in the first place. Where do we send them when they're linked to this title and are just told there is nothing here? Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about a See also section in each of the Cornwall and Devon articles pointing to each other to solve the problem of people looking for content of both? Zangar (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete two unambiguous and distinct items. No need for a disambiguation page or a list. DuncanHill (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The page has now served its purpose following the article splits to unambiguous ones. Zangar (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article should never have been created in the first place. No one would ever combine the cusine of Devon and Cornwall together and thus this page is pointless. Jolly Ω Janner 21:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn and strong keep per the reference found by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. However, I'll keep an eye on the article fort the reinsertion of copyrighted material. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The November Criminals (2010 novel)
Novel with no evidence of notability. Copyvio removed twice from the article. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Full-length, favorable review in the Sunday New York Times Book Review[1], which is about as strong an indicator of notability as you can get for a book. Also reviewed in the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post. Undoubtedly there are more; book reviews are notoriously difficult to GSearch adequately. Might even be a speedy keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Samir-André Lajoié
- Samir-André Lajoié (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find significant coverage in
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete along with the unsourced section about him in Samir Al-Ajani. I can't find any references either and suspect this is a hoax. I can't find any evidence that the French soap-opera he allegedly acted in (Amor et Perte) ever existed. Some of the other details are also contradictory: the article claims that he was raised in New Caledonia (a very small island) and that he's lived in Australia since he was four. Pburka (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I believe that WP:SPA and is completely unsourced and unverifiable. I'm nominating it for deletion. Pburka (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I believe that
- Delete per nom and Pburka No sources (reliable or otherwise) for any assertions in the article. The soap opera mentioned, even if you give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it had the more likely title Amour et Perte, or the talent show that allegedly discovered him, simply did not exist. This and the Samir Al-Ajani article are classic hoaxes by the same creator that slipped by. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2008 Čačak earthquake
- 2008 Čačak earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable earthquake. The one reference in the article is the only one I could find, and it only mentioned "blackouts" resulted from the quake. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Found only [2], which would be a pretty weak case to maintain the article. Then again, it was only a 4.5, according to this article. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable [3] --Reference Desker (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soxman
- Soxman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. No hint of notability. A Google search related to him only comes up with this Wikipedia article and his Myspace page. Articles referencing him (all from the same site, thesportsbank.net) were helped written by him and the main editor of this page. The main editor of this page, Paul Banks, wrote many of the articles referenced, uploaded the picture here and maintains this page. Bottom line: Attending "several games each year" dressed as a buffoon doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article. Endlessdan (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - for the reasons made clear by the nominator. A Sox fan should expect ]
- Delete. Agreed, there's no independent evidence supporting notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:FOUR) 13:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Super Fold System by Jeanette Hunt & Keith Adams
- Super Fold System by Jeanette Hunt & Keith Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research, no sources can be found on the book or the system. ]
- Delete - The article is about an unreleased book that has no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yuri (unit)
- Yuri (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources, not notable. Rememberway (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—Concur. This term appears to be local to a special interest community. I could find no reliable secondary sources to indicate a broader notability. RJH (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A term or concept having currency only within a specialized community is not necessarily grounds for deletion. However, in this case, the unit definition is almost archetypal as a neologism. It sees use by the Spaceward Foundation and the International Space Elevator Consortium. But that's not really much to go on; we don't even have articles for either of those groups (Spaceward, we probably could) at the moment! Bottom line, though, I'd like to see a newly defined metric unit employed in a peer-reviewed journal publication someplace before I'd consider it ripe for inclusion. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to Space elevator. An informal unit, known only in the "space elevator community." Come back when it is an SI unit, or when it is a more notable neologism. Edison (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- move to wiktionary this is a dictionary definition in paragraph form with an etymology attached. Wiktionary even handles etymologies. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it meets their criteria for inclusion either.Rememberway (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Melolagnia
- Melolagnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If one were to remove the original research concerning Twelth Night, we would be left with a short dictionary definition. Google Books gives us a section in The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, and listed in Sex crimes and paraphilia without any significant information. Nothing compelling at Google Scholar. This topic is not notable enough for inclusion (
]- Merge to Paraphilia. Melolagnia is also known as Acousticophilia (which has already been deleted at AfD). This is the last opportunity of leaving any record of this condition in Paraphilia before it is erased from Wikipedia. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 16:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete in the absence of any reliable sources it must be deleted.Rememberway (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No merge. As with the staggering majority of these "named" paraphilias, references consist apparently exclusively of entries in long lists of similar terms. In my opinion, such lists do not constitute reliable sources. There is substantial reason to believe that they consist largely of neologisms formed by iterating through lists of prefixes, or handed back and forth between similar publications. Neither melolagnia nor acousticophilia have any further presence in Google Scholar. Google Books searches reveal only one-off mentions and the above described lists of terms[4][5]. Simply put, this term has no currency that supports its inclusion, either as an article or a reference in a broader list. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy deletion by contributer [6]. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Lamontagne
- Brian Lamontagne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Notes Reasons for original speedy deletion: biography that does not assert notability of subject. Additional point, article was created by the manager of subject, so a conflict of interest may apply. i kan reed (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After reviewing the availability of verifiable sources for this subject, I'm forced to suggest deletion. i kan reed (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for someone "known throughout the United States", he has an unusual lack of presence in literature and news. Marasmusine (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I could find no reliable sources describing this person in depth. I, too, am a model citizen and since I have friends from New York to California and several other states as well, I guess I am also "known throughout the United States". Please stop me if I try to write a Wikipedia article about myself. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, only claims to notability are vague at best. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Speedy deletion (A7) would be reasonable too. Peacock (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7 HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cyprus Government Railway. Sandstein 07:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rail transport in Northern Cyprus
There is no rail transport in Northern Cyprus. This article is about nothing. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 12:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Nipsonanomhmata Seric2 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it it doesn't exist, then there's no need to create a separate article about it. Such info that there is can be adequately covered in the Transport in Cyprus article. Mjroots (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to see here, move along. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because there isn't any rail transport in Northern Cyprus, nor has there been any since before the territory separated de facto from the Republic of Cyprus, which doesn't have any rail transport either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the whole island doesn't have any kind of rail network.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 06:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, an article about something that has never existed since 1974, and actually it was abolished before it. And I am amazed how they could collect information of 76 pages about this subject from Wikipedia. --]
- Redirect to ]
- Redirect to Cyprus Government Railway. Whatever our personal political views, some people regard Northern Cyprus as a state, therefore this stub's title is a legitimate search term. There is no rail transport, but there used to be, and the historical information may be useful to many. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Cyprus Government Railway for the time being. There may be no rail transport in northern Cyprus right now but there was in the past so there's no reason why an article on the subject couldn't be written. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zombies (cancelled video game)
- Zombies (cancelled video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, delete, delete. Do I have to explain more? Kind of obvious. Never made, never will be. The "developer" doesn't even have its own wiki page, so why should its never-to-be-developed game have one? Michael5046 (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a cancelled game would have to be a truly extraordinary case to warrant an article, and that doesn't seem to be so here. The developer does appear to be at least somewhat notable though, so its not having an article shouldn't weigh on the fate of this one either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Starcraft: Ghost this isn't. Most of the references in the current article don't really meet the bar for reliable, independent sourcing. The IGN preview is pretty good; if there had been more like that, my vote might have been different. Tellingly, however, I can't find much, if any, in the way of gaming industry press about the cancellation itself -- and that's what we'd need to make an article stick about a game that never happened. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, delete, but the IGN source at least makes it verifiable. Don't we have some kind of "list of cancelled video games" it can be included in? Marasmusine (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We did but that was deleted.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, LOL, I guess. Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We did but that was deleted.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Serpent's Choice. Certainly there are notable cancelled games, and we have articles about some of them. But, without more coverage about the game or its cancellation, there's little to do here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mihajlo (Michael) Mihajlović
- Mihajlo (Michael) Mihajlović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indications that this author meets any criteria for inclusion, including
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no evidence of notability. The Serbian and Slovakian articles of the same name seem to refer to different individuals than this article (albeit with a shaky Google translation). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Kept. Citing and sourcing is an issue, but not grounds for deletion. Hasteur (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isidro Ungab
- Isidro Ungab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable politician. Moray An Par (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know that the policy states that being a member of the national legislature makes a person notable. However, he doesn't have significant coverage. No official website or other source which can contribute to the creation of an article about him. Third party sources are limited to uninformative mentions of his name. His congress profile is only an extensive lists of house resolutions to which he's contributed to. Moray An Par (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passed ]
- Keep. Members of national legislatures enjoy presumptive notability; even if there are insufficient sources to expand an article beyond a stubby stub, these positions and their holders are traditionally encyclopedic. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as there is a strong presumption that reliable sources exist, even if they are in Tagalog or another Filipino language, or if they are not readily available online. Meets ]
- Speedy Keep- Member of national legislature is the primary clause of WP:POLITICIAN, and already sourced to the government site. Dru of Id (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Von Neumann syndrome
- Von Neumann syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is of questionable
- Keep The term was coined by Ramamoorthy, not Hartenstein. Notability seems established by references from several authors, including a keynote talk at a conference. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rilak said that Hartenstein defined the syndrome, not that he coined the term. The term was coined by Ramamoorthy to describe a phenomenon which had first been identified and described Hartenstein. What "keynote talk at a conference" are you referring to? If you mean "The Transdisciplinary Responsibility of CS Curricula (keynote)", given by Hartenstein, then it is not an independent source. If you mean something else then it would help if you specified what. ]
- I was referring to this which appears to be a keynote address at the ARC 2008 workshop on Reconfigurable Computing.
- I will take your word for it that it was a "keynote address", though I haven't seen anything that says so. However, that too is by Hartenstein, so still no independent source. ]
- I was referring to this which appears to be a keynote address at the ARC 2008 workshop on Reconfigurable Computing.
- Rilak said that Hartenstein defined the syndrome, not that he coined the term. The term was coined by Ramamoorthy to describe a phenomenon which had first been identified and described Hartenstein. What "keynote talk at a conference" are you referring to? If you mean "The Transdisciplinary Responsibility of CS Curricula (keynote)", given by Hartenstein, then it is not an independent source. If you mean something else then it would help if you specified what. ]
- Delete Almost everything I have been able to find on this is written by Hartenstein, and everything else is either derived from Wikipedia or only a minor mention. I am not able to read the papers cited in the article, but I have seen information about them, including abstracts, tables of contents, etc, and it does not look as though they give substantial coverage. If anyone who does have access to them can indicate that they do so then I will stand corrected, but on the basis of everything I have seen, it appears that this is a concept which has been heavily publicised by Hartenstein, but given only slight attention by third parties. ]
- Weak Keep, maybe? This is probably on the edge of having sufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines, although I think cogent arguments can be made in either direction. Sources that are at least apparently independent of Hartenstein do exist, although there aren't just lots of them. This book (published by Springer) briefly discusses reconfigurable computing as a solution to von Neumann syndrome. This IEEE white paper (pdf) dedicates a column of text to discussion of the topic, although I am uncertain the extent to which it should be considered a reliable source. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepI think that there's definitely a topic here that can be referenced, and so the article should be kept. It may possibly ultimately need rescoping a bit, but it doesn't call for deletion. I had a quick look to see if there was another article it could be merged with but nothing immediately popped up, which strengthens the keep.Rememberway (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)][reply]- Merge with parallel slowdown Looks like it's at heart the same topic.Rememberway (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are going to merge, it appears that parallel slowdown and the von Neumann syndrome are not the same thing. Parallel slowdown is about increasing the number of processors allocated to solving a problem to the point where time spent by communication between processors dominates computation, causing the improvement in performance to deviate from an ideal linear increase. The von Neumann syndrome is about the time spent moving data between the processor and memory dominating time spent computing. Rilak (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In an encyclopedia it is usually a good idea to merge things that are similar, because it helps the reader compare and contrast, so merging things that cause slowdowns in parallel processing is desirable.Rememberway (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What improper synthesis; for you have made a conclusion that is unsupported by any reliable source. Rilak (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What
- In an encyclopedia it is usually a good idea to merge things that are similar, because it helps the reader compare and contrast, so merging things that cause slowdowns in parallel processing is desirable.Rememberway (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Having looked at Serpent's Choice's links, I agree that this is "probably on the edge of having sufficient coverage", and I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.Serpent's Choice's links just about indicate that there is some independent coverage, but not enough to establish notability. (However, I find Rememberway's comment unhelpful. Simply ]
- To be fair, I'd seen it before in non wikipedia context, so I'm sure that the topic is notable.Rememberway (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure it wasn't the well-known (and similar) term "WP:NEOLOGISM given the lack of coverage of the syndrome and the term. Rilak (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure it wasn't the well-known (and similar) term "
- To be fair, I'd seen it before in non wikipedia context, so I'm sure that the topic is notable.Rememberway (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "I'd seen it before..., so I'm sure that the topic is notable" is completely ]
- No, it wasn't von Neumann bottleneck.Rememberway (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "I'd seen it before..., so I'm sure that the topic is notable" is completely ]
- Weak delete Not quite enough reliable and independent sources with significant coverage to establish that this is a principle of computer science of sufficient notability for a stand-alone article in a general encyclopedia such as this. Millions of topics in science and engineering have had more discussion than this and also do not need their own encyclopedia articles. Edison (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to parallel computing. There isn't much here to establish notability. The article parallel computing doesn't mention him at all. Szzuk (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all sorts of terms become trendy for a year or two as one professor tries to get tenure. The article does even explain it (I have a PhD in computer science and 35 years experience so might be dense, forgive me). It mixes talking about software and hardware for example. W Nowicki (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SV 1936 Saasen
- SV 1936 Saasen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Never played in the National Cup. –LiamTaylor– 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The club never appeared in any national round of the DFB-Pokal (or its predecessor, the Tschammer-Pokal), which usually is the threshold for inclusion. Further, the statement that the club played a national round in the 1956 competition is blatantly wrong since only the four regional cup winners were sent to this tournament; the club did also not appear in any regional qualification rounds this year as, according to the book "Enzyklopädie des Deutschen Ligafußballs: Deutsche Pokalgeschichte seit 1935", the Süddeutscher Fußballverband did not hold any qualification rounds because of scheduling reasons and simply nominated the 1954–55 DFB-Pokal champions Karlsruher SC as their participant. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 10:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, has not competed at a high-enough level to be considered a notable team. GiantSnowman 11:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has not played at a high enough level. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This defaults to keep because the barest modicum of independent published sources reference the event. Users should feel free to merge and redirect if appropriate, however. Cool Hand Luke 17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition
Non-notable newsgroup pleasantry, everybody who has heard of the competition has entered it. No considerable coverage outside of special interest publications related to the Spectrum. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:PAPER and I fail to see what would be gained by deleting this article. There is no need to be a killjoy. Besides, the fact that the competition has been running for some 15 years now and continues to attract a considerable number of entries every year indicates that it isn't on the same level as 'things made up in school one day'. Sure, it may not appear in reliable sources; but that's common of Internet culture, and it's more notable than you think. Conflict disclosure: I have entered it a couple of times. PT (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: The exact quote from the RetroGamer Roundup is as follows
- "[we've got] here a link to the comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition from 2010, that's a newsgroup that's been running an annual contest for some time to create awful games on the Spectrum; well they don't need to create awful games, there were some already made and available for sale, I think you'll find, Dizzy not being one of them."
- "I'm looking at the video he's posted for the crap games, and I don't know why, but there's about a ten-minute section of a flashing logo (I guess someone's quite proud of their logo), and then like one second of gameplay. But yeah I'm gonna have to bookmark that"
- I've put this here because it's rather tedious to find, appearing about 5 hours in to a 6 hour audio file. I'm not claiming that it establishes notability, just making the questioned evidence more readily available. PT (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is really just "I like it". You should show how it does satisfy the general notability guidelines (don't waste your time with that!) or why it should be a special case (I don't think "it's been around for 15 years" is a good enough argument). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am of the opinion (not shared by WP policy, I realise) that Internet culture as a whole is a special case, because elements thereof typically have to become very notable before the kinds of things WP takes as RS pick up on them. Compare: a completely arbitrary example I found very quickly of a school with 100 pupils (and therefore an intake of about 15 per year) whose only reference is that school's website (a self-published source, mark you), versus an established annual competition with around 20 participants per year (with a significant turnover and international range), referenced by several of the key websites of an admittedly niche hobby. I expect your gut reaction to the first is to consider it notable, and it probably stands up better to the GNG, but I consider that in the basic sense of the word (rather than as defined by WP policy), if the former is notable then so is the latter. It's not just that I "like it", it's that WP policy has a systemic bias against online communities. PT (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be an actual problem if Wikipedia was the only site on the Internet. I don't understand why people choose to stick with Wikipedia when they don't like its guidelines, instead of just putting the content somewhere else. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok now that's beginning to sound a little antsy. Overall I do like Wikipedia, otherwise I wouldn't edit or participate in the process. It's just that in this respect it's suboptimal. Your argument seems to be "Those are the rules, if you don't like it go away" - which simply ignores the possibility that the rules might be anything other than perfect.
- As for 'putting the content somewhere else', most of the content is paralleled elsewhere - but the fact is that Wikipedia is the first port of call of many people upon first hearing of something and wanting to know what it is.
- I maintain that an encyclopædia's notability guidelines should not exhibit systemic or systematic bias. This seems to me to be a fundamental principle; clearly you disagree. Perhaps we should wait for someone with another perspective to chip in, as we are currently tending towards a circular trajectory. PT (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I encouraged you to explain how this should be a special case, but instead you rallied against the guidelines which probably isn't going to achieve much in this discussion. If you come up with a good—not general—reason why this should be a special case then you might even change my mind.Wenttomowameadow (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am explaining how this is a special case; I'm just taking a different 'this' to you. There is no finite upper bound on how general a special case can be. PT (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I encouraged you to explain how this should be a special case, but instead you rallied against the guidelines which probably isn't going to achieve much in this discussion. If you come up with a good—not general—reason why this should be a special case then you might even change my mind.Wenttomowameadow (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be an actual problem if Wikipedia was the only site on the Internet. I don't understand why people choose to stick with Wikipedia when they don't like its guidelines, instead of just putting the content somewhere else. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am of the opinion (not shared by WP policy, I realise) that Internet culture as a whole is a special case, because elements thereof typically have to become very notable before the kinds of things WP takes as RS pick up on them. Compare: a completely arbitrary example I found very quickly of a school with 100 pupils (and therefore an intake of about 15 per year) whose only reference is that school's website (a self-published source, mark you), versus an established annual competition with around 20 participants per year (with a significant turnover and international range), referenced by several of the key websites of an admittedly niche hobby. I expect your gut reaction to the first is to consider it notable, and it probably stands up better to the GNG, but I consider that in the basic sense of the word (rather than as defined by WP policy), if the former is notable then so is the latter. It's not just that I "like it", it's that WP policy has a systemic bias against online communities. PT (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is really just "I like it". You should show how it does satisfy the general notability guidelines (don't waste your time with that!) or why it should be a special case (I don't think "it's been around for 15 years" is a good enough argument). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: The exact quote from the RetroGamer Roundup is as follows
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - every part of me is screaming "keep" because I loved YS's "Crap Game Corner". But putting emotion aside, and looking at this objectively, the contest simply does not have the secondary sourcing required for an encyclopedic article. If PT's argument that Wikipedia has a bias towards published sources rather than online communities, then yes, guilty as charged, I'm afraid that's just how we're defined. I'll keep my eyes peeled in Retro Gamer magazine though - who knows, we may get a full article on the subject. Marasmusine (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as far as I can tell, that bias is manifested only in implementation (ie. specific policy rules), not in intention. It seems that the defenses which have been erected against including every silly meme that spreads across facetwit have had the unintended consequence of causing WP to become attached to 'the Establishment' and biasing it against niche hobbies, online communities and any cultures other than 'mainstream' and the recognised 'counterculture' (which has become something of an institution in itself). The Spectrum 'scene' may be a narrow interest group, but it's notable as a whole and the CGC is notable from the perspective of members of the scene. I have a first-hand account of someone hearing of the CGC and reading this article to find out what it was; while this is merely anecdotal evidence, it shows that some good is done by this article's existence on Wikipedia. Either some harm is also done (for which I have yet to see any argument or even any claim that that is the case), or the policies and guidelines are counterproductive, in which case this is a perfectly valid place to discuss them (alternatively, we can take this to Wikipedia Talk:GNG or somewhere if you'd rather; but apparently "Notability guidelines... reflect practice and consensus of those editors who bother to show up and !vote at AFD" (from [7])). PT (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles about memes are only less acceptable in terms of your own value system (although I agree that the CGC has more merit than dumb parroted memes; I've entered the competition twice). None of that has to do with maintaining the scope of Wikipedia. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the only theoretical justification for restricting the scope of Wikipedia according to a threshold of notability is the technical requirement of server space and its cost; therefore notability guidelines are about trading off space against usefulness. It is not just that I consider articles about memes less useful than an article about the CGC (incidentally, I was only using them as an example of something whose low value is almost universally agreed upon), it is also that as notability tends to zero, the number of items having at least that notability tends to infinity; there are lots of silly memes. We have a notability threshold because we don't have infinite space. None of this justifies our notability guidelines having an inherent systemic bias against certain classes of topic. You have split an irrelevant hair. Perhaps now you'd like to address the substance of my arguments? Incidentally, given your username, I just have to ask - were either of your entries ALS clones? :p PT (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No.
- You've missed the point if you think it's about server space. It's more about quality; an important part of an encyclopedia beyond the content is its navigability. Indiscriminate inclusion leads to oceans of links to special interest information that make articles less effective as overviews for people unfamiliar with the subject matter. I'm not going to be able to change your mind about notability policy and this isn't the right place to have this discussion so I'll drop this completely now. Whoops, I actually meant "my predilection for continuing this conversation as is inversely proportional to time and an examination of the piecewise definition of my give a care function reveals a step at timestamp 1303710103". Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how including special interest information leads to oceans of links. Links to this page will only appear on pages that are related (no-one's going to link here from an article on wombats). If you're reading a page on, say, "Category:Usenet newsgroups in the comp.* hierarchy", "Programming competitions#Humorous" or "Retrocomputing", then implicitly you already have some level of interest. The way to manage navigability is not to exclude articles on the grounds of notability, rather notability should be used to inform the relevance decision of linking from another article (for instance, while the relevance of the CGC to the Category: example is low, category pages typically consist of a page of links anyway and so their relevance threshold is low. Retrocomputing, on the other hand, might choose not to link here as the bar is higher for a prose article). If people browsed Wikipedia by looking in Special:Allpages, then yes your argument would be valid and Wikipedia would have to restrict itself to about as many articles as a paper encyclopædia. But they don't, they follow links from related pages to relevant content. If this really isn't the place to discuss this, perhaps you'd like to take this to ]
- Addendum: you might want to read is not perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phase Theory (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: you might want to read
- I don't see how including special interest information leads to oceans of links. Links to this page will only appear on pages that are related (no-one's going to link here from an article on wombats). If you're reading a page on, say, "Category:Usenet newsgroups in the comp.* hierarchy", "Programming competitions#Humorous" or "Retrocomputing", then implicitly you already have some level of interest. The way to manage navigability is not to exclude articles on the grounds of notability, rather notability should be used to inform the relevance decision of linking from another article (for instance, while the relevance of the CGC to the Category: example is low, category pages typically consist of a page of links anyway and so their relevance threshold is low. Retrocomputing, on the other hand, might choose not to link here as the bar is higher for a prose article). If people browsed Wikipedia by looking in Special:Allpages, then yes your argument would be valid and Wikipedia would have to restrict itself to about as many articles as a paper encyclopædia. But they don't, they follow links from related pages to relevant content. If this really isn't the place to discuss this, perhaps you'd like to take this to ]
- As far as I can tell, the only theoretical justification for restricting the scope of Wikipedia according to a threshold of notability is the technical requirement of server space and its cost; therefore notability guidelines are about trading off space against usefulness. It is not just that I consider articles about memes less useful than an article about the CGC (incidentally, I was only using them as an example of something whose low value is almost universally agreed upon), it is also that as notability tends to zero, the number of items having at least that notability tends to infinity; there are lots of silly memes. We have a notability threshold because we don't have infinite space. None of this justifies our notability guidelines having an inherent systemic bias against certain classes of topic. You have split an irrelevant hair. Perhaps now you'd like to address the substance of my arguments? Incidentally, given your username, I just have to ask - were either of your entries ALS clones? :p PT (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as far as I can tell, that bias is manifested only in implementation (ie. specific policy rules), not in intention. It seems that the defenses which have been erected against including every silly meme that spreads across facetwit have had the unintended consequence of causing WP to become attached to 'the Establishment' and biasing it against niche hobbies, online communities and any cultures other than 'mainstream' and the recognised 'counterculture' (which has become something of an institution in itself). The Spectrum 'scene' may be a narrow interest group, but it's notable as a whole and the CGC is notable from the perspective of members of the scene. I have a first-hand account of someone hearing of the CGC and reading this article to find out what it was; while this is merely anecdotal evidence, it shows that some good is done by this article's existence on Wikipedia. Either some harm is also done (for which I have yet to see any argument or even any claim that that is the case), or the policies and guidelines are counterproductive, in which case this is a perfectly valid place to discuss them (alternatively, we can take this to
- Weak keep - I started this article (My previous username was benkid77). It's still approx 90% like it was when I started it. In my defence, at the time I was a complete newbie to Wikipedia and therefore was not too familiar with the minimum standards required. Now I have over two years on-and-off Wikipedia editing experience, would I start this article now? The answer is no, for the simple reason that it is indeed a struggle to find reliable, trusted secondary sources for it. I also don't completely disagree with the deletion nomination. Given the current state of the article, I knew it would happen sooner or later, it was only a matter of time and quite rightly so. So, we have two choices, delete or keep. If it's deleted, I have the article backed up and some alternative web hosting available to put it on. I'm happy with that. However, in the Wikipedia tradition I guess I would not be doing my duty if at least I did not attempt some defense of the article.
I don't know if it's enough, but there is a book which has a couple of paragraphs on the competition The ZX Spectrum on your PC by Colin Woodcock. [8] [9] The relevant excerpt from the book:-
The CSS community do do other things besides talking about Rolos. There's the annual comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition, for example, which is always hosted (on a web site) by a CSS member. A celebration of the appalling quality of the contents of the Cascade Cassette 50 games compilation, CSSCGC has been running since 1996 and resulted in some quite dreadful games. The titles quite often speak for themselves: Appendix III 65 The Amazing Tony Blair Experiment Fuel Protest 2000 Lying Minesweeper Advanced Weapons Inspector Simulator Chuckle Brothers Golf The Crap Games Competition is now such an established event it even has its own web ring! You can check it out at http://r.webring.com/hub?ring=crapgameswebring.
Also, I'd argue the crap game compo is just as established as the International Obfuscated C Code Contest (Which also seems somewhat lacking in secondary sources) and quite a bit more established than Obfuscated_Perl_Contest. So to be fair I think if this crap game compo article is nominated then perhaps those articles should be too? I can't of course use those examples as a justification for keeping this article, but whatever your views on those articles, I think at least it illustrates that this particular article is a bit of a borderline case.
Anyway whatever the outcome, I will respect the decision, whatever is deemed best for the encyclopedia, is fine by me. I will check back to see the outcome and if needed will transfer the information to an external site. Thanks all Green Lane (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Woodcock's book is self-published (via CafePress), unfortunately. The Obfuscated Code contest articles do indeed need attention, but have the advantage of a large number of available sources [10]. If I find any kind of significant verification for the Crap Games Competition, I'll be all over it in its defense. Marasmusine (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, thanks for the reply. Those are fair comments. I will have another look around to see if anything further can be found. I also think it may be that because the CGC is "whimsical" as opposed to the more "serious" obfuscated coding contests, means it is unlikely to be found in any serious publications, but again that is the nature of the competition. Green Lane (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article seems adequately referenced and although it may not be of universal interest, that is neither the test of notability or the requirement for an article. ]
- Which ones are adequate? I see groups and fansites (hell, there's even a friend's personal web page in there). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The World of Spectrum links look the best to me, it is the number 1 online resource for the ZX Spectrum (afaik). It is a respected resource and routinely referenced. Szzuk (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- World of Spectrum is an excellent site, but I don't think it would be considered a very good resource (it's really a community and fan site, albeit an outstanding one). It's also very closely associated with the competition. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- World of Spectrum is officially endorsed by the owners of the ZX Spectrum - AMSTrad. To the best of my knowledge AMSTrad haven't endorsed anybody else, the dialogue between the website and a multinational company makes it more than a fan site, it is a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't at all. A one-off conversation asking for permission to distribute the system ROMs does not make a reliable source. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reply begs the question - are there any RS for the ZX Spectrum at all? If WOS is the most extensive resource anywhere and it doesn't pass muster, what does? Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The hundreds/thousands of books and media outlets that have written about it. WS:RS Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak. This just means the teenage writer for the Wrexham Echo, who just left school and works on a dead end newspaper has more weight than the number 1 website used by many/most ZX Spectrum users. Szzuk (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. I didn't say that any book or newspaper is a reliable source. I linked you to WP:RS. WoS is an excellent resource for you and me, but useless as a reliable source for an encyclopedia, and even worse for establishing notability. You need mainstream press coverage for a notability argument, not a special interest fan site. The inherent quality of the resource means nothing if the content isn't authored by a scholar or recognised authority (the circular logic of "WoS is the main Spectrum site so the author is an authority doesn't work, read RS). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable Sources are great and necessary but there has to be a certain amount of context taken into consideration as well. For an article about the US Diplomatic policy in the Middle East, World of Spectrum would be a very poor and not at all reliable source. But in the much smaller universe of Sinclair/Spectrum-specific materials, WoS is as definitive as it gets. If Wikipedia, as an internet encyclopaedia, is to cover Internet-related materials (as it does in articles like ]
- We're trying to establish notability here. Read ]
- I'd say this will close as no consensus. If it's delete we can examine whether WOS is a RS at DRV. Szzuk (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable Sources are great and necessary but there has to be a certain amount of context taken into consideration as well. For an article about the US Diplomatic policy in the Middle East, World of Spectrum would be a very poor and not at all reliable source. But in the much smaller universe of Sinclair/Spectrum-specific materials, WoS is as definitive as it gets. If Wikipedia, as an internet encyclopaedia, is to cover Internet-related materials (as it does in articles like ]
- No it doesn't. I didn't say that any book or newspaper is a reliable source. I linked you to
- Very weak. This just means the teenage writer for the Wrexham Echo, who just left school and works on a dead end newspaper has more weight than the number 1 website used by many/most ZX Spectrum users. Szzuk (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The hundreds/thousands of books and media outlets that have written about it. WS:RS Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reply begs the question - are there any RS for the ZX Spectrum at all? If WOS is the most extensive resource anywhere and it doesn't pass muster, what does? Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't at all. A one-off conversation asking for permission to distribute the system ROMs does not make a reliable source. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- World of Spectrum is officially endorsed by the owners of the ZX Spectrum - AMSTrad. To the best of my knowledge AMSTrad haven't endorsed anybody else, the dialogue between the website and a multinational company makes it more than a fan site, it is a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- World of Spectrum is an excellent site, but I don't think it would be considered a very good resource (it's really a community and fan site, albeit an outstanding one). It's also very closely associated with the competition. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The
- Delete, or perhaps merge if an appropriate target can be found. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only suggest a quick mention at ZX Spectrum#Community, using the RetroGamer Roundup quote, above. Marasmusine (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to do that if the article does happen to get deleted. Although the competition is very much dominated by the ZX Spectrum, there have also been entries for other systems such as the Jupiter Ace, the Cambridge Z88, not to mention the ZX80, ZX81 etc... The competition is generally open to Sinclair systems and loose derivatives thereof, so in a way its scope is broader than just the ZX Spectrum. But I agree it's probably the most likely place where a mention can be fitted in, if it is "merged". Thanks to the "community" subsections, it seems appropriate. I found a few more minor things. I'll post them a bit later today, if the discussion is still open. Nothing of great notability, but I just want to conclude my argument before the debate closes. Thanks. Green Lane (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only suggest a quick mention at ZX Spectrum#Community, using the RetroGamer Roundup quote, above. Marasmusine (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Usenet is the precursor to the world wide web...in fact the usenet peeps created the world wide web. I used to inhabit usenet as much as I now inhabit wp. The refs are ok, they demonstrate the competition has been in existence for many years and are properly recorded. Internet culture is odd sometimes, I don't feel the need to examine its oddity. Szzuk (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Finally, after a bit of searching I couldn't find much more on the subject from secondary sources, but for future reference, here's what I could find. Firstly, in the UK high-street magazine "Micro Mart", issue 1096, pages 102 & 103, there is a full review of "Smiler in Arrowe Land", a game I wrote myself specifically for and submitted to CSSCGC 2010. Thanks to the crap game competition, the game did get recognised in this reliable secondary source, although alas the review does not directly mention the competition itself, it is where the game originated from. I can't really mention this game in the article because I have a clear conflict of interest. I have scanned copies of the relevant pages.
- Second thing is that whereas the "obfuscated" competitions previously mentioned in this discussion do have some mention in books that are being published through recognised publishers, that is because they have the advanatage that C and PERL are still currently commercially viable systems and therefore still mentioned in books that are being printed. 8-bit home comupter systems are not commercially viable anymore, therefore the crap game competition is mentioned in the equivalent of books/magazine that can't exist because there is no commercial market anymore, but instead has been taken over by "special interest magazines" written by hobbyists etc.. Does this make them any less notable? With that in mind, there are several mentions of the competition in ZXF magazine. (I can find issue numbers etc.. if required). There's also a passing mention of the competition in the high-street magazine "Retro Gamer", issue 5, page 16, "It may even provide inspiration for those people wishing to enter this year's Crap Game competition." (referring to a negative review of the game Chase HQ), although this could be dismissed as "trivial". ZXPress.ru (in Russian) and "Fanzine Bytemaniacos" (in Spanish) also mention the competition, but again quite trivially, although this does show the competition is known about internationally. There's also a link to the competition in "The Guardan's" blog pages, although I was asked to remove that after creating the article, as it was deemed too trivial to mention. Finally there's also mention of the the competition on Bob Smith's pages http://www.bobs-stuff.co.uk/textonlygp.html Bob Smith is a game developer who has written commercial games for the ZX Spectrum, released under the Chronosoft label. So perhaps, his site could be considered a reliable reference?
- That pretty much exhuasts everything I've found. I'm not saying that the above complies with Wikipedia's stringent notability requirements, just that the subject is notable internationally (i.e. it is widely known about) within the retrogaming community. Apart from possibly replying to any further replies here, that pretty much concludes my input to the debate. I think at this point, that even if this article gets relisted, as the creator of it, I would not have anything further to add. All I can say is thanks for keeping the debate open long enough to allow me time to reply. Green Lane (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Joe Millionaire#First season. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zora Andrich
actress of questionable notability, seems to have had only a single passing bit of notability on a reality show WuhWuzDat 14:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable enough for an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zad68 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. She's been in some commercial work and we've had people listed on here for less, with far poorer articles. I talk) 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Redirect to Joe Millionaire#First season which is pretty much her only cliam to fame. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Redirect per Whpq's suggestion above.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus
This page has been the subject of some controversy. It should be deleted because it is mere
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not appear to be in popular usage as the name for a kingdom. Obscure and difficult to identify a worthwhile reference on Google. Does appear to be POV-oriented. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. I don't like the title of the page too. A more clear disambiguation, maybe Kingdom of Sicily (Savoyard State) or Kingdom of Sicily (Savoyard period) or similar, should be better. But the basic problem is that an user, Srnec, engaged a fight to support his completely unrefereced theories which contradict every book of international law or of history. When Piedmont-Savoy became one of the winning states of the War of Spanish Succession in 1713, it received Sicily as war prize. Through Sicily, the House of Savoy obtained the royal title, and the statal standards IN PIEDMONT changed from ducal to royal: the Ducal Palace in Turin became the Royal Palace, the Ducal Army became the Royal Army, the Ducal Courts became the Royal Courts, and so on. This is an undisputed historical fact, written in all book of Piedmontese history, which Srnec can't deny. We can't delete seven years of history, from 1713 to 1720, of a sovereign independent State as Piedmont was. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By suggesting that "Kingdom of Sicily (Savoyard period)" is a better title, Jonny is admitting that the rule of the house of Savoy was just a short period in the history of the Kingdom of Sicily, which also had Norman, Staufen, Angevin, Aragonese, Spanish, Habsburg and Bourbon periods. This is the last one to deserve a separate article, if any do. Srnec (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge 1) The head of the house of Savoy had also the title of king of Jerusalem and Cyprus that is the reason of the name of the article. For me the article can be merged with Kingdom of Sicily. User:Lucifero4
- The basic point you must understand is that this article is mainly about the Savoyard State, not about Sicily. Deleting this article, we'll have a 7-years hole into the history of that independent State.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand from 1713 to 1720 Sicily was under the rule of House of Savoy. The head of House of Savoy was for 7 years king of Sicily like the Bourbon so in the article Kingdom of Silily the section The War of the Spanish Succession" can be renamed and expanded.User:Lucifero4
- The problem here, Lucifero, is not Sicily but Piedmont. IN PIEDMONT in 1713 all ducal standards became ROYAL standards. How do you think to explain this fact? Looking wikipedia, we can find separate pages about first, second, third,... tenth republics about European countries of the 20th century, justifying these separations with sometimes microscopic constitutional changes. Why speaking about the same countries during the 18th century, we must consider irrilevant the royal elevation of a former duchy?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From 1713 to 1720/23 Piemonte was part of the Kingdom of Sicily and from 1723 to 1861 was part of Kingdom of Sardinia.User:Lucifero4
- How "was part"? By annexation?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Turin a city of Piemonte was the capital of the Kingdom of Sardinia so the city and the whole region were in the kingdom of Sardinia. Piemonte wasn't annexed but become part of Kingdom of Sardinia when the Duke of Savoy, the ruler of Turin, become king of Sardinia.User:Lucifero4
- How "was part"? By annexation?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From 1713 to 1720/23
- The basic point you must understand is that this article is mainly about the Savoyard State, not about Sicily. Deleting this article, we'll have a 7-years hole into the history of that independent State.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So far as the article title goes, the main problem is that, as ]
- Well, Saxony and Poland maintained effectively two separate governments during their union, in fact Saxony was not ruled by Polish lords, so the European countries continued to see them as two quite distinct countries (even if with a unique diplomatic representation). In our case, we have not a single evidence indicating that Savoy and Sicily were seen as two distinct countries by other European sovereigns, and this is quite obvious because Sicily, not being a subject of international law before 1713, couldn't change its status when it was ceded by Spain to Savoy. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep By our accepted practice, if the title was used for a period of even a few years, it's a distinct state, an the only way to keep a clear sequence in the history is to include it. But I am not entirely sure that it was so used, and that he may not simply have been monarch of the three countries. Perhaps the article can be retitled, but this can bediscussed on the talk p. I cannot see how anyone can argue we should not have an article for the period. At present this is the article,so we should go about finding additional sources and verifying them. (which I admit I have not done) DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an absurd practice that we don't really have. Different titles make different states? But, as I noted in the deletion rationale, there is in fact no different title/name for the state during this period. He was monarch of Sicily, and claimed title to Jerusalem and Cyprus (which weren't "countries" at the time). There is a discussion in progress at the talk page. Perhaps you'd care to read it? Srnec (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The inhabitants of Turin began to live in a kingdom in 1713, Srnec. Why this simple concept is so difficult to understand for you?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an absurd practice that we don't really have. Different titles make different states? But, as I noted in the deletion rationale, there is in fact no different title/name for the state during this period. He was monarch of Sicily, and claimed title to Jerusalem and Cyprus (which weren't "countries" at the time). There is a discussion in progress at the talk page. Perhaps you'd care to read it? Srnec (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Keep. The arguments given for deletion are a bizarre interpretation of our policies. --Lambiam 00:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
]Shai Dothage
- Shai Dothage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
possibly unremarkable Paganpan (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete- Unreferenced BLP; 6 total search results are Wikipedia, Myspace, Youtube, and High School Freshman Honor Roll (which removes ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice of later merging. Cool Hand Luke 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of airlines of Guam
- List of airlines of Guam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is only two companies here so this page is not worth it as it has very little info displayed
]- Keep. Part of the complete List of airlines, deletion damages the encyclopedic coverage of the subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lists with two items on the list that have a reason are ok. No purpose to disorganizing the encyclopedia to save a page of paper that doesn't exist. Unscintillating (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all the lists of airlines by country that have only one or a handful of airlines into a single list. These lists have navigational value but this value is diluted by having the content strewn over multiple pages, and a list with only a few items isn't much of a list. Reyk YO! 11:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Reyk. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Related comments exist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of Greenland. We are here to discuss deletion, the offers to redesign this useful structure in another way that is more complicated but still equally useful are not reasons to delete, but reasons to keep to allow the work to go forward. This is a paperless encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice of later merging. Cool Hand Luke 18:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of airlines of Greenland
- List of airlines of Greenland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only has one airline in the table giving very little info. There for it should be deleted
]- Keep. Part of the complete List of airlines, deletion damages the encyclopedic coverage of the subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - list with only one entry are not lists. Pointing to ]
- Does there being a three airlines operating in Greenland change your conclusion? --joe deckertalk to me 19:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lists with one item on the list that have a reason are ok. No purpose to disorganizing the encyclopedia to save a page of paper that doesn't exist. Unscintillating (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I think the best thing to do would be to find all the similar pages of countries with only one or a handful of airlines, and merge them. A list with only one entry is not a list. Reyk YO! 06:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - good idea, then each country can have its own section for linking purposes.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Part of a bigger list - I like Ryk's idea of merger. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMO, the statement that lists with one entry are not lists is an incompetent or POV-pushing statement, lists may also have zero entries–this ref returns 1.3 million gHits for "empty list". Unscintillating (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We're talking about Wikipedia list articles with a single entry, not "list" as in data structures which in computer programming may very well be empty. Your List of airlines to be complete without making unnecessary separate single entry list articles (which are nothing more than semi-functional redirects).--70.80.234.163 (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any strikethrough text on the statement, "list with only one entry are not lists." So the 1.3 million Google hits that say otherwise remain on point that the statement (as a statement) is incompetent. Those are many interesting references you've put there, and my response will not do justice to everything you have said. A couple of the references are off topic. For example no one is talking about empty articles (I've discussed lists with zero elements below, which is quite different) so it is not useful to know that empty articles are subject to speedy deletion. I looked briefly at listcruft, but it is hardly relevant, looks like it was written by POV deletionists who objected to balanced viewpoints and told others to write their own essay (see edit history, Stifle openly identifies as a deletionist). We are here to discuss deletion, the offers to redesign this useful structure in another way that is more complicated but still equally useful are not reasons to delete, but reasons to keep to allow the work to go forward. This is a paperless encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We're talking about Wikipedia list articles with a single entry, not "list" as in data structures which in computer programming may very well be empty. Your
If you wanted to do all of this redesign, I doubt that anyone will complain after this article is kept. The current design is not broken, but it will be if this article is deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For what it's worth, Greenland Air is not the only airline operating in Greenland, note that Air Iceland (not to be confused with Iceland Air) has Summer service on Greenland. [11], although since then they've expanded to
at least include service Reykjavik to Illulissat as well.serve five cities in Greenland according to their own web site. --joe deckertalk to me 19:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Oh, and SAS has a regular flight Copenhagen to Kangerlussuaq, which is a primary route used to move European tourists onto the Greenlandic coastal cruises. --joe deckertalk to me 19:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To the extent that the list is intended (in contrast to its current wording) to be airlines based in Greenland, I'd change my vote to a neutral between keep and merge into (pick your place). I don't have a problem with 1-entry lists when they result in a more consistent encyclopedia architecture, but it's also no big deal AFAIC, and reasonable minds vary. --joe deckertalk to me 02:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and SAS has a regular flight Copenhagen to Kangerlussuaq, which is a primary route used to move European tourists onto the Greenlandic coastal cruises. --joe deckertalk to me 19:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- this is a list of airlines of Greenland, not simply in Greenland. You may want to reconsider your vote in light of that fact.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Greenland may or may not always have one airline. The keyword here is "maintainability". If this list gets zapped, then you might even have to get a DRV review just to get the list restored when things change. No one is claiming that the current design is broken, what are we trying to fix? Afraid of feature creep to zero items on the list? What is wrong with going to the list of Greenland airlines and being told that the set is the null set? This is a paperless encyclopedia, if you want to know about the list of Greenland airlines, it may be exactly what you wanted to know to see that the list has a length of zero. Unscintillating (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the article says. The article says "This is a list of airlines currently operating in Greenland." --joe deckertalk to me 02:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, and there are now two airlines on the list. Unscintillating (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, apparently SAS stopped doing the Copenhagen<->SFJ route. As to whether there Air Iceland should still be there, that's a matter for "what was the intended inclusion criteria for the article", I went by what the article said. *shrug* --joe deckertalk to me 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it weird to include Airlines of other states that have stops somewhere on their respective list? For a similar list for, say, the USA, we wouldn't list British Airways, even though they do stop there. I'm pretty sure the purpose of these lists is to have the native airlines, and this one should probably be changed in line with the rest.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is a complete nonsense. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Interstate 43. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2002 Interstate 43 pile-up
- 2002 Interstate 43 pile-up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails
- Merge to the history section of Interstate 43. Dough4872 02:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Just one or two paragraphs. Useful info that however does not need its own article.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nasty crashes that take people's lives happen every day. I don't mean to sound insensitive, but what makes this one special? –Fredddie™ 02:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is no small crash. 50 vehicles.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above given the claim that this is the "worst traffic accident in Wisconsin state history". If that can be sourced (i.e., to a ]
- Re-sourcing [Here], athough just the intro, gives the relevant portion. Dru of Id (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge --Rschen7754 09:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - 10 deaths is notable enough to mention, but not for a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ten deaths in a road accident? I'd say that was notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The deadliest (CNN) accident in the state (not exactly a small land unit), coverage on most major media sources are still easily found on web searches (CNN, USA Today). Royalbroil 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But is it notable for its own article? There's not a whole lot that can be said about the crash. --Rschen7754 02:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quarto dos Livros
fails WP:NALBUMS. 7 gnews hits merely confirms its existence [12]. no evidence of high chart listing. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LaTangela Sherman
- LaTangela Sherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've declined the speedy deletion on this article on the grounds that a claim of importance was left behind after much of the article was removed. There are no references, but the article is too old for a
- Delete - Per ]
- Delete, no evidence of notability per ]
- Delete not notable, no coverage in 3rd party sources. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Marasmusine (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Portal 2 SDK
- Portal 2 SDK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article describes a software development kit not yet officially announced, which violates
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - crystal. Yaksar (let's chat) 09:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Hasn't been released, hasn't been confirmed. It also probably doesn't need a separate article when it gets released, as it can be covered in the Portal 2 article. –MuZemike 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails GNG; CRYSTAL. Should be split from Portal 2 if ever enough material/sources. — ]
- Delete - If/When Portal 2 SDK is released, it should be integrated into the Portal 2 main article, as the SDK is just a varient of the Source SDK which already has an article. See Alien_Swarm#SDK for how it should be done._ morde t .. 09:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unsourced and can just be added to Portal 2 page when content appears. Icedragz (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable enough to have its own article. Also doesn't have any cited sources. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 19:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul W. Kreutzer
- Paul W. Kreutzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Executed persons are generally not notable just for that reason (
]- Delete fails WP:PERP. one of thousands who have been executed unless his crime had long standing notability. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a sad, but ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Hagist
- Fred Hagist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is an apparently highly ranked collegiate tennis player from the 1950s, but who seems to have not won any tournaments, notable enough? Unreferenced BLP since it's creation in 2006 and whilst I can find many mentions of him on google news archives, I don't think anything could be considered significant coverage to satisfy
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subject is noted widely in the 1950s era, with over 200 news hits; however, of those none of them appear to indicate the subject passes ]
- Thanks for approaching me on whether I think this article still meets WP:ANYBIO.
- Presently, I will maintain my stance, until either NTENNIS is altered, or a reliable source can be found that gives in depth coverage of the subject as stipulated by GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: Very notable tournament therefore passes notability for that. Don't know much else to say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.154.8 (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Delete. Does not appear to pass ]
- Keep - I would have thought that by withdrawing the nomination, the AfD would be over, but if you insist on relisting it and letting people have their view, then I better clarify my view. He now clearly meets ]
- Comment. If you are confident he passes notability you can close the debate yourself with 'nom withdrawn - non admin closure'. It was relisted because in failing to do so you gave the impression you weren't completely sure. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Relisting comment. Was closed as "nomination withdrawn" but there are outstanding "delete" !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I closed the discussion earlier believing that WP:DEMOCRACY applies here. BUT you seem to be a much more experienced editor than I am, therefore, my actions should be automatically shut by yours. As far as the article, I "vote" keep, as the nomination doesn't have a point anymore. -- Loukinho (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought that a WP:IAR close as no consensus would have been appropriate, and if the delete voters felt strongly enough about it, then DRV could have reopened it as "closed not per policy." But, lets instead go through the process for another week.The-Pope (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you nailed it. No need to be so strict to procedures when it prevents from improving wikipedia. But oh well, let's just get another week of this, let's wait. --Loukinho (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought that a
- Comment - I closed the discussion earlier believing that
- Comment. I don't know the correct procedure, however re-opening this doesn't serve any purpose. Szzuk (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to WP:GNG. Therefore, in my judgement, a close of "nomination withdrawn" was not appropriate. The proper thing to do in this case is to ask the 2 "delete" !voters to reconsider. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and asked both "delete" !voters to reconsider and Nipsonanomhmata is sticking with his "delete" recommendation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the effort. It does help to have a full explanation too. It isn't the type of afd that anyone can really get their teeth into, so to speak, so I'll just wait now. Szzuk (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much all there is left for us to do to prevent an WP:DEMOCRACY), and a "vote" recommending deletion doesn't imply more force than that of a consensus. Also, read the comment by "The-Pope" above. In either way, as I stated earlier, if closing admin consider this a polling, I "voted" keep per nominator. --Loukinho (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much all there is left for us to do to prevent an
- Note: This debate has been linked to on the WikiProject Tennis discussion page. --The-Pope (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Provided refs demonstrate he reached the final of a prestiguous tennis tournament thus passing GNG. NTennis doesn't say anything worthwhile about notability in the pre open era - however if he'd reached the final a few years later he'd clearly pass Ntennis. Szzuk (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep end of notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.216.40 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep poor Fred. I think we need to be flexible on the pre-open era notability. According to the notability justification of wikipedia just being in the draw of a 250 tournament is notable. I don't agree with that at all and I don't know who put that in the requirements but as of now those are the rules. Now Fred Hagist also played in several US Opens, making it to the third round in 1952. Being in a Major draw and being notable is debatable imho... but per wiki rules if you are notable for it in 2002 then you must be notable for it in 1952 or the whole thing falls apart. No way can we delete him and be fair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can ask for the rules to be changed on the discussion page where the rules are. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 23:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Web template hook styles
- Web template hook styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research, not recognised terminology, no references, cannot find any references Justinc (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This looks like a "how to" article, containing examples of coding. It seems reasonably clear, and free from any obvious promotional agendas. I'll defer to the judgment of people with more experience in script web design as to whether this deserves to be transwikied or should be deleted outright. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As someone with considerable experience of web templating engines, this thing is a mess. What's its point? It's just random lists and comparisons of minor syntactic points, without drawing any real comparisons or conclusions. Which as it's entirely unreferenced, it can hardly do either without turning into ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guest stars of Murdoch Mysteries
- Guest stars of Murdoch Mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary and unsourced list of guest stars on a standard, run of the mill television drama series whose main article isn't long enough to require the spinout in the first place and on which being a guest star isn't really notable enough to merit a whole standalone article just to list them. Creator has previously been advised that only a very select class of television shows (]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Delete. Ultimately a contextless list that might not even be worth mentioning in the parent article. --Kinu t/c 01:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruin, city state South Eastern Turkey
- Ruin, city state South Eastern Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Adding:
This article gives in loving detail the fictional background to a non-notable novel by a non-notable author. Fails
]- Delete. No independent sources cited, and nothing I can find suggests notability of the author or of the book, let alone of this particular element of the book. ]
- Comment. It's difficult to check google for this author because there are surprisingly many people with the same name. However this search, which cuts out some of the "rivals" and a press release yields only 291 hits, most of them irrelevant, or bookstores, or based around press releases. andy (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — two hits in Google: a book review in the Irish Independent and a promotion in Ok! Magazine. The book review is trivial at 109 words, while the magazine article is geared towards a Kindle competition in which Toyne's text is a secondary prize. This doesn't constitute significant coverage. Mephistophelian (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Although publishers seem to be fairly excited about this book, and its planned sequels (see this article at Bookseller.com), it seems to be too soon to see if their expectations will be met. Few reviews have yet been published, and the book has not been available long enough to see if it is going to make any bestseller lists. I have added the article about Simon Toyne (writer) created by the same author as this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine by me. It seems to be part of the same attempt at promotion. Delete it. andy (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete certainly the article on the fictional city. Delete the author as well, but I can imagine him becoming notable in the (near?) future. But the logical order of article creation is author -> books -> locations and characters in those books (for very notable books), not the other way around. ]
- Keep the article on the writer. Two of the films he has worked as a writer and director on have blue links to their own Wikipedia articles. Having a notable part in a notable film, makes you notable. These two AFDs should be split. Dream Focus 12:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're being rather generous here. These weren't films but minor TV shows and are of arguable notability. Moreover despite what the article says, the reference in IMDB makes it clear that he was only a director in 8 episodes of one of these shows and simply a writer in all the others. In any case notability is not inherited so we have to look for sources that indicate that his work on these shows attracted the kind of attention that qualifies him as notable. Guess what...? andy (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only eight episodes? Sounds fine to me. See ]
- Having a part in a notable film does not make you notable: as andy pointed out, notability is not inherited. And as for the films having Wikipedia articles, that is most certainly not a proof of notability. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and there are thousands of articles which have no right to exist, (which is why we have deletions). Thinking that existence of a Wikipedia article establishes notability is the sort of mistake which is very common among newcomers to Wikipedia, but I am astonished to see it from such a well-established editor as Dream Focus. However, it is really irrelevant, since even if the films are notable it doesn't prove that Toyne is. ]
- The "notability is not inherited" thing is for people who haven't done anything but are related to someone who has. Totally different situation here. Writers and directors are notable for their work. If their work is notable by Wikipedia standards, than the accomplishment of creating it through your writing and/or directing skills, counts towards your notability. Dream Focus 22:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're being rather generous here. These weren't films but minor TV shows and are of arguable notability. Moreover despite what the article says, the reference in IMDB makes it clear that he was only a director in 8 episodes of one of these shows and simply a writer in all the others. In any case
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Delete. The book isn't notable; why should a fictional location in the book be notable? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. can be redirected to Little Boxes at editorial discretion. Sandstein 07:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ticky tacky
The article contains nothing beyond the description already found in wiktionary. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should redirect to another article, probably the song. It was originally redirected to Tar paper, which is still given as an alternative meaning in the article, but that seems to be just a suggestion for what the term can refer to and probably isn't verifiable. Peter E. James (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if interwiki redirects are possible, we could simply redirect to the wiktionary page. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible, but not necessary if there is an article it can be redirected to. Peter E. James (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so the consensus appears to redirect this article to Little Boxes. I have already changed the wikilink to "ticky-tacky" in that article to a transwiki one, so it doesn't point to itself. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Delete - Encyclopedias deal with nouns, this is an adjective. Unless, of course, one is inclined to buy the idea that the unsourced Urban Dictionary-style reference to the sludge at the bottom of a pot pipe as "ticky tacky" is a notable neologism and encyclopedia-worthy topic — which I don't. A dictionary definition with an urban dictionary definition attached. Carrite (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is simply a word not a larger concept.Thisbites (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It isn't just a term, it does represent a larger concept. It represents an era in the massive post-war Baby Boom. The article can be expanded to include historical origin and will make a good article. ]
- Delete or redirect to Little Boxes. There's not enough to justify a separate article, what needs to be said is already said in Little Boxes. Andrew Oakley (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shinese
- Shinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Split on request of author, since it is certainly more well-sourced than the others in the list it was previously in. The references used in this article are:
- only passing mentions, no detail (e.g. news articles that mention name)
- unreliable sites (e.g. Dog Breed Info Center)
- about the parent breeds, not the mix itself
- designer breed registries, which are quite lax generally and provide long lists of many possible combos (without further elaboration in this case)
Dog breed/mix articles are somewhat unique because there's very little actual substantive fact out there re: breeds. Just a couple of paragraphs in a reliable source would make it okay for inclusion, in my view, but I can't seem to find that. — anndelion ※ 19:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — anndelion ※ 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all information is sourced; although there are passing mentions for the name "Shinese," there is substantial information regarding modern day crossbreeding of the two - Shihtzu and Pekingese. See a Gbooks search. This also pertains to early (comparably ancient) crossbreeding of the two. I suppose all of this could be merged, but I felt that the sum of all this information on this crossbreed warranted its own article. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, some of that could be merged, if it's not already in the Shih Tzu article. I personally doubt that those original outcrossings had much bearing on the current "cross any two breeds" environment -- though I could be wrong on that note. — anndelion ※ 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking into the history further, I can't find any evidence that previous outcrosses to Pekingese within the Shih Tzu breed are at all relevant to the current Shinese/Peke-a-Tzu. It does seem like it was somewhat significant to the Shih Tzu breed, certainly. — anndelion ※ 23:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The article is well-written, and is sourced and fully-citated. Deletion seems extreme. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's extensively-sourced but take a look at the sources themselves and their relevance to the topic. I've listed above why none of them seem appropriate to establish notability. — anndelion ※ 23:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- What's wrong with that? Keep. – George Serdechny 16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it meets the general notability guideline -- this mix has barely any coverage, let alone significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (or even one). If I cut the article down to referenced material, there will be nothing to it. It's not hard to find references to notable designer dogs or breeds, and I feel the onus should be on those wanting to keep it at this point; I've given my piece. Where are the sources? – anna 18:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But article does need improvement to incorporate references provided in AfD. (non-admin closure) Monty845 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Daylights
- The Daylights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- google search, news shows very sketchy results for
- Weak keep arguments made in previous AFD debate are now outdated... band has now released an album on a major label which has appeared in Billboard's heatseakers album chart and has toured extensively supporting the likes of WP:BAND, my gut feeling is that these in combination are sufficient to assert notability. Article needs considerable improvement. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability sufficiently asserted under ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Keep per previous comments and per existence of coverage in reliable sources, such as [13][14][15][16][17][18]--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per the reasons above. --]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ironholds (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vegetable Oil Blended Diesel Fuel
- Vegetable Oil Blended Diesel Fuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The useful content this page contains is already posted at
- Notes:
the original deletion proposal was endorsed by User:Kudpung; the page creator removed the deletion templates with no explanation. There is no point in merging, as much of this content is either already on other pages, or copied directly from them (e.g., compare [19] vs. [20]).--E8 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom, covered in other articles. I was going to tag this article myself, got an ec so I endorsed the PROD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Due to existing page of similar content. Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I cleaned out the unreliable sources (YouTube videos), speculative/incorrect content, and original research. Not much is left, but there is a cited source that could be merged to Vegetable oil fuel if deletion does occur. I'll also suggest to the author to try and get this content posted somewhere with less rigorous standards (e.g., Peswiki) until more citeable sources are available.--E8 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is important to have a page on Vegetable Oil Blended Diesel Fuel because there is little to no information on this subject in related biofuels wiki pages. The subject is larger than will be accommodated by expanding existing biofuels related wiki pages. And, there is considerable hostility by people who advocate biodiesel or straight vegetable oil, thus requiring a different wiki page for this subject. Jeffrey S. Brooks 13:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhananda (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Delete - Per the 2 other deletes above. Nothing that has changed affects those rationales. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Center for Rural Entrepreneurial Studies
- The Center for Rural Entrepreneurial Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominated for speedy deletion under criterion
- Speedy delete As per ]
- I declined an A7 speedy deletion on the grounds that the article does make claims to it's significance. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Atlanta mixed-income communities
- Atlanta mixed-income communities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- These are all private apartment complexes. I don't think they have enough notoriety. They may be mixed-income, but that doesn't seem to be significant enough to be a separate page.--Mmann1988 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The significance is that these are all the communities that have arisen from razed AHA housing projects. It is an important component of an element in Atlanta that I am trying to document better: public housing and is successors. If deleted I will incorporate the same content and somehow link it to public housing. In addition I would have to create several articles about the individual communities which are officially recognized neighborhoods of Atlanta which would be inefficient. Keizers (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I should add that "mixed-income communities" *are* a category unto themselves, not "just another apartment complex". There is even an acronym, MIC! Doing a Google search on the term will reveal the fact that this is a topic in itself. Or links like http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/glover.pdf, http://www.frbatlanta.org/podcasts/transcripts/perspectivesonrealestate/11jan27_glover.cfm, http://www.andpi.org/mici/. This is in addition to what I previously noted, that the transition from AHA housing projects to MICs makes this an important part of Atlanta history and socioeconomic demographics that needs to be documented.Keizers (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmann, not sure what you mean: They don't need to be included on any templates. What do you mean exactly? Do you mean that the topic of "what came out of the AHA projects after they were demolished" is not significant enough to be deserving of its own article? (I would of course argue that they are, because the topic of public housing in Atlanta is complex and significant). Just want to make sure I understand what you mean.Keizers (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Weak keep. This is potentially a very interesting topic and there seems to be lots of material out there that could be potentially incorporated into an article on the topic of mixed-income communities as a public housing strategy.[21][22] However, I don't think the article articulates its subject and notability very well at the moment (the comments at this AfD do a better job of explaining it), and it's not clear to me that the topic should necessarily be limited to Atlanta, although (based on the sources) Atlanta may be an appropriate place to start. I guess the long list of Atlanta MICs is potentially a legitimate part of a more complete discussion of the concept of MICs, how they have been used in Atlanta, and how the same concept may have been used in other cities. (All of which seems to be out there, based on the search results previously noted.) I would be inclined to give User:Keizers a lot of leeway here to keep developing the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with Arxiloxos. Article needs expansion with reliable sources discussing history, significance, and impact, but should be given a chance. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jacqueline Dyris
- Jacqueline Dyris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article doesn't assert notability and doesn't adress the notability criteria found in
]- Keep. GNews archive search shows significant coverage in LA Times, indicating sufficient roles to satisfy WP:ENT as well as GNG. GBooks results also indicate sufficient roles. Lack of detailed online coverage does not prove failure to satisfy GNG for subjects prominent 90-100 years ago, like silent film actresses. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Keep Seems notable per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Not a BLP so lets err on the side of inclusion on this one. Monty845 19:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination concern appears to be addressed (non-admin closure) Monty845 19:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hongxing, Tibet
no indication, either by sourcing, coordinates, or giving names in Chinese and/or Tibetan, that this village even exists. My searches of 西藏红星村 (the likely name), including variations, on both Baidu and Google Earth have produced no results. Sorry, Dr. Blofeld. HXL's
- Delete. Absolutely devoid of content and context; a non-article with no pointers for further research. ]
- Keep. Xinhua, the Chinese news service, seems to think that it exists in Konggar County: [23]. A large number of travel companies seem to think that it's on one of the main hiking trails in Tibet: [24], [25], etc. It exists and is a populated place, so it is not a hoax. Generally consensus is that all populated places are notable. This isn't a part of the world that has a lot of stuff written about it online or in English-language books: I'd suggest that instead of nominating this for AFD, the nominator might want to ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet to find off-line published resources. --NellieBly (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this site lists Hongxing as a village in Gonggar County, I change my vote to Expand. However, NellieBly, I would rather you not simply refer to me as "the nominator", and I would not have brought this AFD up had I found a single source like Xinhua or XZQH. Lastly, the Hongxing in 2nd and 3rd links is in Yunnan and belongs to ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nono HXL, sorry quite unnecesary, I certainly trust your judgement. In fact I had proposed to Xeno to actually delete most of the Tibetan village sub stubs aside from the townships as a lot of them are not verifiable on google maps. I am on on the fence about this particular village; we'd be better off starting the articles which do have google book hits. But if you could find some info on it then its worth a keep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck the problem is
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potash, Suffolk
- Potash, Suffolk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claims to be a hamlet but fails verification. The only thing at this location on Google Maps is "Potash Lane" and the only mention in an 1875 postal directory is "Potash Farm". At best completely non-notable local place name. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I neither can find anything to support this place's notability. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is named on the Ordnance Survey map . The only question is whether such a small number of buildings qualifies as a settlement. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bentley, Suffolk, where any relevant info should be merged. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Magnumbeats
- Magnumbeats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N: Unable to find reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of this rap artist that would be required to meet WP:GNG, don't see a claim of notability which would establish notability under WP:MUSICBIO. joe deckertalk to me 23:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources under his birth name or stage name. The article provides no discography so it unclear what he has put out aside from the one mix tape mentioned. I can find no indication he is a notable performer. As a producer, all that I can see is that he runs a studio. I can find no indication of critical notice for his production work. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evdokimos Tsolakidis
- Evdokimos Tsolakidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Article has been tagged as an orphan and unsourced for over three years with little improvement. A google search brings up little concrete in English, and a search on the Greek version of his name, Ευδόκιμος Τσολακίδης, brings up some profiles on theatre blogs but that's about it. Fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Article lacks reliable, third-party sources despite having been tagged for some time. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
- Keep. Have added five references from reliable third-party sources. There are many more references listed on Google.gr. He is a notable actor, playwrite, and educator with international experience. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's great if you're prepared to dig out some sources to verify. But from looking at the ones up already, only one of them comes close, and that's pretty slim. We need sources that verify notability. Sites that simply list productions that he's acted in don't do that--any actor regardless of notability will be able to muster those (I can, and I'm pretty sure I don't qualify for an article). The enet.gr article is the only one that is anything like what we need, and that only mentions his name in a list of others. See WP:Creative for more details about the kind of thing we need. Kind regards, • DP • {huh?} 01:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Improvements to the article are progress forward. I find ONE MENTION of a forthcoming play by Tsolakidis at the National Theater in Athens. Certainly a borderline case here, most Google hits do indeed seem to be blogs rather than newspapers, but the article is informative and someone cares enough to be working on it. Tag for more sources, let it stand, is my own opinion. Carrite (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoogleTap
- GoogleTap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod of non-notable internet product with no significant secondary coverage, that makes no claim to notability or attempt at communication of the subject Sadads (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, the only citation seems very promotional. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.