Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mankurt

Mankurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Mankert has very little exposure on the WWW in English, most of the entries were mirrors of this page. I considered putting it up for deletion as a

• Comment A simple book search seems to give a lot of titles, but it includes passage from books such as "...man Kurt Russell" and foreign books. If the term is put in quotes and English only sources are included then most of the books return are talking about "Mankurt" as a term from the novel by
  talk) 20:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Looking under its actual Russian title of Манкурт seems to give better results... and ones that do not involve combinations of "man" and "Kurt Russel"... [3][4] Let's see if we have enough Russian language sources to indicate notability (

  even if only in Russia). Going through them now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Redirect to The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years. The term is a neologism, and the film doesn't seem to be notable. The lengthy description of the torture is unnecessary both in a stand-alone article and in the main article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Schmidt. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mankurt" as a word is a neologism, yes... but it's also the Soviet film... Манкурт Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on the non-notability of the topic, but no problem with fresh recreation as a redirect. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I am now going through the Russian language sources as shared above. Perhaps we might find that Манкурт has notability in Russia, even Soviet Russia, is okay for en.Wikipedia. I'll report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Redirect the "word" mankurt to The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years#Film. And now (struck Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.})
• Keep currently modified article which is only about a film - based upon nominator's earlier work. After I performed trimming, cleanup, and sourcing to the herein nominated article,[5] I went and included the sourced information about this film in a newly created section at the novel's article.[6] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well done. I am happy with either leaving the article as is after you modifications, or the redirect to

  talk) 09:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks. It was fun to dig out. The original article was a bit of a bear... but your initial cleanup work helped greatly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, the now re-written article can be moved to Mankurt (film) as a dis-ambig, and the "word" mankurt can be set as a clean redirect to the novel as offered above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC) (struck. New opinion - see below Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.})[reply]

• Per User:Erik,[7] rather than a dismbig, as the primary topic IS now a film article, and not a neologism, I added a hatnote to the article,[8] directing readers to where they might better find contextual information about the term "mankurt". If readers find the film while looking for the term, they can now go find the term. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added a specific subsection "Mankurt" under "Main themes" section on the articles about the novel, and added that to the hat note of the film article Mankurt. So unless anyone objects over the next 24 hours I suggest that we remove the template and close this debate. --

  talk) 07:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Quite nicely done! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because as the nominator I am involved, I will not close it as the AfD guidelines suggests that as I am involved I should not do so. So I'll leave it open and let some other person close it. --

• Keep. The film seems to be meeting notability requirements.--Badvibes101 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 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) 02:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chieu Luu

Chieu Luu (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 article is about a journalist with no coverage in

• Delete, unable to find significant coverage in
  BLP. J04n(talk page) 22:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Very few results in google. The sad part is the article has been in this for years without references and it has come down to this. --Visik (talk) 03:26, 24 February 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. seems to fall between keep and no consensus, but the effect is the same. It is verifiable, and there's no consenus to delete Scott Mac 21:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)

Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Vanity page of a non notable webcomic. ScWizard (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —ScWizard (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: The previous AfD debate wasn't automatically linked because the name had changed. Here's the old (very inconclusive) debate: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del. --ScWizard (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of evidence that the situation has significantly changed since the last debate less than a year ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep- there seems to be enough links in the article to show that it meets the
  WP:GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Counting links isn't a very good measure of notability. The vast majority of the links are to the comic itself. A lot of the so called "newspaper citations" are actually links to newspaper blogs. Here's an example: "Laser Orgy", one of many blogs affiliated with the Boston Pheonix (a local paper) --ScWizard (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has potential. For example, an obvious source is the book The History of WebComics but no-one has has cited it yet. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a real book pubished by a real publisher. If anyone can confirm that this book covers Ctrl Alt Del in some degree of detail (as opposed to a passing mention or not at all) then deleting this article should certainly be reconsidered. --ScWizard (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article hasn't improved on the issues that led to its deletion previously. It reads more like a fan page than an encyclopedia entry, and it reads like this because it's just not notable enough to ever get past this --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jehorn (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder that the AfD process is not a vote. You may want to review this page: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes --ScWizard (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject matter is notable (albeit not for the right reasons), however a fair amount of content has been removed from the article before with regards to the criticisms of the comic itself. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly "infamous" in certain circles, but that's not the same as being notable. I know Penny Arcade's blog criticised it, but blogs (even "famous blogs") aren't considered "published sources" per the web notability guideline. --ScWizard (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails the GNG, no evidence this passes any notability criteria. As far as the Keep proponents go, could they express valid grounds supporting their POV? One says nothing at all. One says "seems like a real book published by a real publisher." If so, so what? Merely having a book published meets NO notability criteria. "The article has potential?" Err, no: either it meets the criteria or it does not, and defending a Keep vote on the grounds that there's a History of Webcomics book out there (with, I assume, the implication that this particular webcomic might be cited, without the slightest shred of evidence that it actually is) is farcical. "There seems to be enough links" to show that the subject passes the GNG? Has Umbralcorax actually looked at those links, or is the simple existence of hyperlinks now considered notable? Just seems like a bunch of people are mailing it in here.  Ravenswing  00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely misinterpreting things. I'm the one that you're quoting as talking about the webcomic book, but I'm also the one who nominated this article for deletion. Now my opinion is that if something is covered in detail in a history book (one that's not self published) then it's notable. However the people in favor of keeping this article have not demonstrated yet that that is the case. If they successfully demonstrate this, then I might change my stance, but right now I'm (obviously) in favor of deletion. --ScWizard (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one to whom I referred in that mention was, as it happens, Col. Warden.  Ravenswing  12:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Books indicates that there is specific content about this topic on page 79 of that book; it's just not viewable online. I am not familiar with this topic but was able to turn up this reference within 30 seconds. The GNG is a guideline, not a hard policy, and is expected to be used in a common-sense way. Commonsense tells us that there's more to be done here and there seems to be no pressing reason to disrupt this improvement by deleting everything, contrary to our
  editing policy
  .

• That "A History of Webcomics" book is horrible, even the author has said so, and shouldn't be used as a reliable source for anything. That said, even though the book has no index (!!!) and no page numbers even (!!!) I believe I've found the two sentences on the topic on page 79 and it is exceedingly trivial. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The two mentions are probably as follows, found in the conclusion section (from earlier version at [9]): "Many of the most financially successful webcomics, including Sluggy Freelance, Goats, Penny Arcade, The Norm, Ctrl-Alt-Del and User Friendly, " and "When PVP began selling special advertisements that used its own characters to make commercial endorsements, Ctrl-Alt-Del and Something Positive quickly followed suit." See User:84user/Sandbox#Sourcing webcomics for my attempts at tracking down some of the parts. -84user (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sound like passing mentions to me, certainly not enough to establish notability. I don't see any way the information in the book could improve this article in a substantial way. --ScWizard (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like there is plenty of coverage. Sounds like
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - subject has fairly wide coverage, has potential if article can be developed. —
  Champagne? • 1:42pm • 02:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment As far as news coverage goes I see the article in the Phoenix and then the book mentioned above and five sources without links: (Lincoln Journal Star, Chicago Tribune, Knoxville News-Sentinel, Jersey Journal, and Chronicle Herald). Does anyone know if these merely contain a mention of the strip or if they contain a detailed look at it?
  talk) 03:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I would just like to reiterate that the so call "article" in The Boston Phoenix is in fact a blog post. As for the other articles, I'm going to try and look over them now. I'll let you know what I find. --ScWizard (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the sun tribune article is a short piece that merely gives a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site which is a "trivial mention" according to

WP:WEB

.

The Lincoln Journal Star article is unquestionably nontrivial coverage.

The Knoxsville Sentinel piece is trivial coverage in what might not even be a real article.

I wasn't able to locate the The Jersey Journal article, but the article title is "Giving advice" so it sounds like the article is not primarily about the webcomic.

I was also unable to locate the The Chronicle Herald article, but the article title is "Very cool" so it sounds like the article is not primarily about the webcomic.

Will the Lincoln Journal Star article be enough? I don't think so. I don't think a single article in a local paper makes something notable, and

WP:WEB agrees, calling for non trivial mentions in multiple published works. --ScWizard (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• The short Lincoln Journal Star piece doesn't even name the creator of this webcomic. It is trivial coverage of this topic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on the side of delete, but your definition of "trivial coverage" certainly seems to be different from the definition in

WP:WEB. I really don't see how naming the author is a prerequisite for non trivial coverage. The article is several paragraphs long and solely focused on a phenomenon springing from this particular webcomic, I wouldn't call it "in depth" coverage, but calling it "trivial" is just ridiculous. --ScWizard (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not my definition of trivial coverage I'm going by, but

WP:WEB's and elsewhere. "Trivial coverage [is] a brief summary of the nature of the content," which is all that the Lincoln Journal Star piece has. Without even listing the author's name and the URL of the webcomic, this is pretty clearly on the side of trivial coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep because to my mind the several trivial mentions in printed media add up to one non-trivial coverage, making two in total. Also, my quick Google Scholar search gave this as first result: http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_2/group/index.shtml . This is not referenced in the article, and has three admittedly short mentions, but that an academic paper used it must count for something, I feel. Also missing from article and here is a brief 2011 news source mention, it's easy to find so I leave it to others. -84user (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That's an interesting interpretation which is, however, not supported by the guideline.  Ravenswing  12:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it is a guideline. My interpretation is partly supported by this other guideline under "Basic criteria". -84user (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Update I wrote the above without first looking at the article or its talk page, except to search for and confirm non-presence of the paper and the 2011 news source. In fact on 28 June 2010 I had posted Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)#Norwegian university thesis source that contained weak support for the claim the comic has a low ranking, and weak support for the description "nerdcore". I now find more support for the low ranking claim and long detailed coverage by Larry Cruz at The Webcomic Overlook: part 1 and part 2. -84user (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree that several trivial mentions add up to a non trivial mention. It being repeatedly printed that "Ctrl+Alt+Del is a webcomic by Tim Buckley, it's an example of a webcomic focused on video games" doesn't add any information that could be used to write a good encyclopedic article. That's why the quotes used in the actual article are from bloggers, for instance quoting video game "journalist"

Ben_Croshaw (imo he's hilarious, but I've never considered him a journalist) and fellow webcomic creators. --ScWizard (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I am asking the editor
  here if he recalls the coverage of the two print-only sources listed above. The full sources appear available if you pay: Document ID: 10C3B8F80146A130 here 315 words price USD 2.95, snippet ends after 86 words at "So far I have found two more", and here (search for Asad, Mariam in 2005-09-22 341 words price 4 U.S. dollars). I feel that a decision to delete should not be considered until the sources provided are more thoroughly examined. The fact that some sources are print-only should not be a hindrance whatsoever. -84user (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Just a quick note to report that Gary replied
  here writing that there was not much in either source and that it's likely everything usable was put in the wikipedia article. -84user (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The "Jersey Journal" source is a single four sentence paragraph of trivial coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How did you find the four sentences? Could you summarise what it said? The free snippet only gives me the first 86 out of 315 words. -84user (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my impression from how it was quoted, but I wasn't able to confirm it myself. Good sleuthing, thank you! --ScWizard (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing has changed since previous delete outcome AfD, still no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, the bare minimum required to meet
  WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Thanks to Sc for for digging those refs up, I had assumed they weren't available online since the ref didn't link to them. I've gone back and forth about this a few times and almost came down on the side of Keep. In the end I think the coverage of the webcomic in Reliable Sources qualifies as "trivial". I was going to say it should be kept because of the coverage in the Phoenix and the Journal-Star, (I am inclined to accept the Phoenix post as an RS per
  talk) 18:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I personally disagree with

WP:NEWSBLOG. Citing op-eds is one thing, because to publish an op-ed you generally need to be a notable person, but newspaper blogs usually let any old journalist run their mouth. Now there are some exceptions such as the New York Times which has an some important bloggers, but is what Shaula Clark thinks of this webcomic really encyclopedic? --ScWizard (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I have not reviewed this case in particular, but I guess it is tricky to figure out who is an "important blogger" when it comes to webcomics. If someone wants to base the notability of an article off of "news blogs", I would think a discussion at

talk) 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You personally disagree with policy? That's a shame, but consensus is that newsblogs are reliable sources; this is not really the place to debate that. Fences&Windows 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When it comes to the subject of "Media" items,
  reliable secondary coverage is lacking - this is particularly true when there is substantial coverage in a variety of sources such as Blogs, Forums, etc. As a result we have substantial numbers of episodes on articles of TV series or on Films that use only the episode or film it's self as a source similarly we have articles on Published comics that are well known and possibly even important in the history of comics but have not been covered by secondary sources (or if those sources exist they are not cited) examples include both Fred Basset and The Far Side. While I've never read it myself, Ctrl+Alt+Del is substantially well known webcomic and as one of the first to become well known it is notable (even if it doesn't fit our definition of notability) . Reading the first AfD many of the contents came across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and whilst this AfD is coming across at least on the grounds of Notability - In my mind Ctrl+Alt+Del meets critera 3 of the Web Content Notability in that it is syndicated by webzines with editorial checking (and possibly it's adaptation into other media e.g;animation independent of the comic's owner suggests further notability) but I think there should be a further look at the guidelines for Media Subjects on the whole in the way that we currently assess notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well personally I think that the expectation that wikipedia will cover stuff that's "famous on the internet" is part of the problem. You're right that there is a disconnect between the internet and the print media. For instance lets say there's a popular youtube video, bloggers will be all over it very quickly, but the print media will mention it much later if at all. The reason for this is that the print media operates far slower than that internet so they want to cover stuff that they believe will be relevant a day or even a week later. I think an intrinsic part of an encyclopedia is stability and covering each new internet craze is detrimental to that. --ScWizard (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, this comic isn't a "new internet craze". It has been a popular webcomic series for 8 years. There is definitely coverage out there. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue in a bit of a different way here-we do have a ton of articles about webcomics and memes from

talk) 21:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll add that Wikipedia:Notability_(web) also considers Web Content Notable if it is nominated for the same award in multiple years without winning which Ctrl+Alt+Del has been for the Web Cartoonists Choice awards in 2004 and 2005. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification 2004, search "Cont+Alt+Del" and 2005, read the comic

The weight (or lack thereof) of the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards is an issue that effects not only this article, but also articles such as Elf Only Inn (currently deleted, nominated for deletion 5 times) --ScWizard (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability_(web) specifically requires "well-known and independent" awards. The "Web Cartoonists Choice Awards" is neither (it's run by webcartoonists and the lack of sources for it show it is little-known.) Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about these? [10][11][12] _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't look like published sources to me. --ScWizard (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They look like sources published by a Time Warner subsidiary; in a webzine with full editorial fact checking. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of sentences about a non-scientific internet poll is not significant coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Let this page stay. It's a good web series and it even collaborated with AdventureQuest Worlds one time. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment well I thought I had exhausted Google Scholar search, but I keep finding more. Yes they are probably minor coverage, but still (just one for now, there are more): Manhandling Joysticks & Pushing Buttons a thesis by Elizabeth Valentine - 2004 - eda.kent.ac.uk. Page 40, 2 comic struips to illustrate Valentine's thesis about differences between male and female gamers; Page 47: Image 7 comic strip; Pages 53 and 54: "(Images 32 and 33) shown overleaf, illustrate common misconceptions about gamers." -84user (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is one of the most well-known gaming webcomics around. That being said, it's incredibly shit, but still highly notable. Kaysow (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The History of WebComics has 6 different pages that mention this comic. It's also available in a library near my work but isn't open again until Monday morning. I have no details on the depth of coverage at this time.Hobit (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A well-known gaming-related web-comic. There's a certain
  TALK 11:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No reliable sources means no article; all sources that I've found are either trivial mentions, or self-promotion by the comic's author. That several people express
  liking the comic is no grounds for it getting a free pass against sourcing policy. >Radiant< 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "No reliable sources means no article". But there are reliable sources. You might not like it, you might wish they didn't cover this comic, you might wish we didn't cite them, but they do exist and we do use them. So don't make blatantly factually incorrect statements like this, please. Policy applicable here is
    the general notability guideline (at a scrape). Fences&Windows 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - while the sources aren't the strongest, it is enough to surpasses the notability threshold, even if just barely. Rami R 11:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I just expanded the article with referenced material. There is enought reliable source material for the topic to meet
  WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You should provide online links to the sources you cite if they're available. the Publisher's Weekly article you cited is most certainly yet another passing mention. We need reliable sources that tell us something more than the fact that ctrl+alt+del exists. --ScWizard (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added content that cited to other articles as well. As for the Publisher's Weekly article, it says "Ctrl+Alt+Del have big audiences and robust merchandising sales," which tells Wikipedia readers something more than the fact that ctrl+alt+del exists. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - how many times are we going to have to have this debate? I know lots of people hate Ctrl-Alt-Del, but it's notable: it's been covered by enough sources to pass our inclusion guidelines. To say there are 'No reliable sources', as Radiant does above, is entirely fallacious. Some of the coverage is minor, yes, but there's more than enough in this article to demonstrate that this is a significant webcomic. As for specific claims of notability: it's very popular, makes enough money to support its creator, has been involved in collaborations with several notable videogames, has been adapted into an animated series, has been mentioned by multiple print sources... what more do people want? Robofish (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has a reasonable reception section, which allows us to treat this content
  notability. I don't read it, I didn't like it when I did look at it, but it is notable. Let go of your hate. Fences&Windows 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I've read every comment here as well as the whole article and its sources and do not see how this meets the notability standard of: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Anyone who thinks it does meet this standard just needs to list the reliable sources that give this significant coverage, but they've failed to do so. Without such sources, this article is just a total mess. The reception section here is particularly a horrible mess of original research, neutral point of view violations, undue weight given to unreliable sources, and sweeping claims being sourced to single, self-published sources. For example, the statement "Ctrl+Alt+Del has seen its popularity decrease throughout the years and has not won or been nominated for a Web Cartoonist's Choice Award since 2005" is sourced to just a single self-published "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" site which makes no mention of a loss in readership, no mention that their awards stopped having a video game comics category, and no mention that the awards have apparently ceased to exist at all years ago. But hey, no reason we can't cherry-pick self-published information and use original research and unsourced statements to say negative things about living people, eh? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You read this article cited in the Wikipedia article and concluded that it is not significant coverage within one reliable source? As for the rest of your comments, there's no reason we can't cherry-pick information from the article and use original opinion and unsourced statements to say negative things about the article, eh? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I don't share your misunderstanding where I think our notability standard is "significant coverage within one reliable source," as you've put it. I have a clear understanding that Wikipedia:Notability says "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and a clear understanding that the plural "sources" means "multiple" which is greater than your potential "one reliable source." Again, anyone who thinks this topic does meet the notability standard just needs to list the multiple reliable sources that give this significant coverage. A simple "Here's significant coverage in reliable source A, significant coverage in reliable source B, significant coverage in reliable source C, etc." is all that's necessary. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I've heard of the Manila Times article. That's certainly non trivial coverage from a published reliable source. --ScWizard (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think this Lincoln Journal Star article and this Manila Times article are enough to establish notability. People will continue to push their POV using unreliable internet sources, but that's a separate problem. --ScWizard (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For all of the reasons and all of the sources that everyone has already mentioned. It may not have the sheer volume of reputable sources that, say, The New Yorker has, but what Webcomic does? I can't help but feel that there is a certain sense of
  talk) 13:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. > 2 indep. sources. i.e. fulfils WP:GNG. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does it have the same level and breadth of sources that a GA/FA has? No. Does it have more sources and demonstrated notability than several stubs here? Yes. The fact that you can point at
  WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but it does make a point). The fact that they've garnered enough notability to be parodied/featured in the other strips demonstrates their notability (at least in the community). Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• weak keep. I was going to close this "no consensus" as there is some doubt about whether or not some of the coverage mentioned is "significant" and I have my own doubts but the Manilla times article is "significant coverage" and the coverage in "A History of Webcomics" (dead tree) is likely significant. That's 2 and 2 is "multiple". Of course more would be better but I think those 2 along with the "maybes" mentioned just slightly pushes it above the bar. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also [13] which is solely about the topic (though a narrow part of it). Hobit (talk) 11:18, 25 February 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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Mauersberger

Rainer Mauersberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

So here's what I think happened. Young Laura comes to Wiki to write an article about her dad, Rainer Mauersberger. The article actually looks pretty good, and he appears to be Notable. There is the COI issue, so if anything it needs a COI tag. Anyway, later her dad himself logs on via IP address and requests it be deleted (see his note under the "redirects for deletion" tag. What are we supposed to do here? 1. we don't know it's actually Rainer who is behind that IP address. 2. he appears to be Notable at first glance. 3. Do we delete articles about people if the people themselves request it? I mean if we can confirm it's actually them requesting it. I'd personally like to honor such requests in most cases (except public figures etc), as god knows I wouldn't want a Wiki article about me if I were notable. 4. Since there is a request for deletion, I am listing it here for discussion. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He has 35 cites at G-Books and 50 cites at Scholar, and winning the Otto Hahn Medal might readily be construed as passing a notability bar; the website of the Max Planck Society, which awards the medal and has an enormous impact on scientific research, has 190 hits for Mauersberger there. For my own part, I'm against the notion that you can have an article about yourself deleted, notability be damned; no doubt there are all manner of criminals and celebrities who'd just love to scrub otherwise notable and documented facts about themselves from the public eye. In any event, we don't swallow much on an anon IP's unsupported say-so.  Ravenswing  04:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on basis of GS cites which are very small. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Are you sure? This search shows the top five as being 148, 128, 88, 87, 87, not that far off the top hits for interstellar spectroscopy. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your figures give a respectable h index of 16, better than on the link at the top. In his CV he claims an h index of 39. Don't know what is going on here. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Comment The Otto Hahn medal, at least according to our article on the subject, is an award for promising junior scientists, so it doesn't really pass the level of
  WP:PROF on its ownsome. I see no other rationale for notability. Striking my delete !vote on the basis of David Eppstein's remark - it's strange, normally Gscholar is pretty good about this sort of thing. His CV is here, if anybody who knows observational astronomy cares to take a closer look. Ray^Talk 08:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow Keep. This is one of those instances where my skeptical feeling about GS seems justified:) WoS shows an h-index of 37 with ordered cites of 100, 99, 97...conclusive pass on
  WP:PROF #1. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Keep on basis of these h index findings. Odd about GS, which is usually fairly reasonable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep based on Agricola44's findings. Ever since I found one of my own articles in GS marked as having been cited over 80 times, whereas only 1 or 2 of those citations actually checked out, I have stopped using GS for anything because it is too unreliable. Oh, and don't forget Ike Antkare... --Crusio (talk) 14:09, 22 February 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) 02:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Horne (strongman)

David Horne (strongman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pure

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's certainly lots of assertion for notability, but I can find no significant coverage about him. It is unclear that he meets athlete as a strongman. It appears he has won a competition named after himself? And the competition itself seems to not have any real coverage in reliable sources although I found some stuff in a blog. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom, per Whpq. I saw nothing remotely notable either.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:52, 23 February 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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wood (lawyer)

Michael Wood (lawyer) (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 is about a lawyer who received some media attention as a result of a single event (giving evidence to the Iraq Inquiry), but is otherwise a non-notable lawyer. Iftelse (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More importantly, he's one of the 34 members elected to the
  Federal Reserve Board, these individuals don't get much coverage, but I'd say that he and others would fall under the category of "Politicians... who have held international office". To interpret it as not including members of UN bodies would seem to be contrary to the purpose of favoring holders of an international office. Mandsford 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above and also because the chief lawyer to the UK's diplomatic service is the kind of position that should confer pretty much automatic notability. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - judges and commissioners of significant UN bodies would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mandsford, Mkativerata, and Bearian. Clearly, there is notability beyond a single event.--JayJasper (talk) 22:14, 24 February 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. Scott Mac 21:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry D'Amigo

Jerry D'Amigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor/junior leaguer who has not been in the NHL. Was twice previously nominated for deletion. The result both times was Delete. Fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Meets the
  WP:NHOCKEY.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep He definitely meets
  WP:NHOCKEY as he was won Rookie of the Year at the NCAA level.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The reason that he currenty has an article, is 'cuz he's a hockey player. He doesn't meet NHOCKEY's criteria, however. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you quote something in WP:HOCKEY which indicates that you can't use "hockey player" sources to meet WP:N? It certainly isn't clear to me, and as I indicated below it seems to say exactly the opposite. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The criterion of NHOCKEY being misapplied here is to claim that "Rookie of the Year" is a "major award" comparable to being a First Team All-Star, an All-American or a top ten career all-time scorer, the other elements of N#4. This was not the original intent of the clause. Presuming that a Yahoo blog counts as a
  WP:ROUTINE.  Ravenswing  01:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • First, that wasn't a yahoo blog article it's a yahoo sports as yahoo blogs have yahoo blog written on then. Also, you consider these routine coverage then I don't know what isn't then. This article [15] interviews him and his dad about his demotion. I don't thing thats just an article on an announcement as
    WP:ROUTINE says and most players don't get interviews like that when they get sent down unless they are a big prospect. This one reports on his season to date [16]. This one [17] writes on his impact on the Rangers. These are all on the article, so I don't know how you can say that the article sources are all routine coverage. You can find more on google easily.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Also, here's a yahoo blog [18]. You can also tell by the fact that yahoo blogs almost always have a comment section. Articles rarely do.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am on the fence with this one. He definitely was not notable the first time I nominated him. But alot has happened in the time between then and now, he has been written about a fair amount up here in Canada I am sure. I would have to look for sources to be sure though. It's definitely not a slam dunk delete or keep. -DJSasso (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep From WP:HOCKEY "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." it is clear he has non-trivial coverage. [19], [20] are enough by themselves. [21], [22], etc. are way more than needed to meet WP:N. And to argue that articles that are solely about the subject are somehow "routine" seems to turn WP:N on its head. Sure, we don't count coverage of matches, but sole coverage of a single person in an independent RS always counts toward WP:N. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to meet
  WP:GNG.RonSigPi (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Doesn't meet NHOCKEY requirements.USA1168 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Rookie of the Year at the NCAA level. Doesn't that fall under number 4 of NHOCKEY. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I would say it doesn't. It's a significant award, but I don't know that I'd call it "major". Powers ^T 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well then, how about the GNG? Hobit (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't investigated the sources enough to say. Powers ^T 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CLARIFICATION THE NCAA RotY last season was not D'Amigo, but
    talk) 13:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I said at the NCAA level not the NCAA Rookie of the Year. ECAC is a conference award much like the AL rookie of the year in the MLB. Also, D'Amigo was a rookie in 2009 not 2010.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, weakly - Honestly I'd never heard of rookie of the year awards being given at the collegiate level, but if they are...meh, it scrapes by. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 21 February 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) 02:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Ovoid design

Ford Ovoid design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Originally prodded by

I endorsed this prod with: "Possible hoax, only 5 ghits". Author contested. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I doubt it's a hoax, but it doesn't really matter, This is just a factoid, not an entry. If someone wants to write an entire entry about Ford design, that might fly. Hairhorn (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The term "ovoid" design refers to motor vehicles with what we tend to think of as having "curves" or being "streamlined" as opposed to a box-shape. True, the term ovoid shape comes up in descriptions of the Ford Taurus, but it's not unique to Ford-- the Nissan Altima gets that reference also. The article is unsourced, and like Hairhorn, I'm inclined to say "even if true, so what". However, it's hard to take seriously statements like "The inspiration for the aesthetic was the oval Ford badge." Sorry, no. Mandsford 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Find On Road Dead...er, I mean Delete. Unsourced article that is at best inaccurate, and probably pushed into hoax category by the "inspired by the Ford badge" statement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete nothing in gnews [23]. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 22 February 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.

Troh César Hougnonhouon

Troh César Hougnonhouon (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 WP:NFOOTBALL - recreate if/ when plays first team football in fully professional league or achieves GNG Zanoni (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: wasn't properly listed at AfD until today. GiantSnowman 18:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another creation of Zombie433, complete with fake information and statistics. Player fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Zombie433 has been blocked since August "for adding dubious material to biographical articles". That notwithstanding, there are five sources here, not a single one of which mentions Mr. Hougnonhouon. Mandsford 21:03, 17 February 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) 02:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha'rai (book series)

Ha'rai (book series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An unpublished book by an unpublished author. Editor of the article is the author of the book. Editor made an addition in December 2010 that said, "Due to recent, drastic changes in formatting, publishing schedule, and even title, this article is no longer a valid information source." I've also nomitnated the author of the book, Riley Hulick, for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete delete delete, blatant self-promotion of non-notable internet story. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, Sadads (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the "book" and the author, who is a high school kid. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 24 February 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) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Hulick

Riley Hulick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Editor of the article and subject of the article are the same person. Article says he is an, "author, animator, director, and artist" and a High School student. His only authoring works is an unpublished book, Ha'rai (book series), that I've also nominated for deletion. Has self-published animation videos and won two non-notable, minor awards (my opinion) for his videos. Bgwhite (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, blatant vanity page for a guy who put something non-notable on the internet. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He sounds like a high-achiever for a high school kid, and I congratulate him on his ambition and productivity. Unforunately, he isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Not yet, anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 24 February 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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Day

Wendy 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)

I don't see any notability per

• Keep Not hard to find sources for this... see this on the Marketplace.org website, for instance. [Here she is on a panel on rap journalism. Or see Billboard, July 19, 2008, about her running a record label. The article could use a rewrite. Note: I just removed most of the article as a copyright violation of material on the Rap Coalition site. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably wasn't a copyvio since it's pretty obvious who Wdayrapco (talk · contribs) is. --bender235 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep
  rap music has to rescue this one. I have already done my share of rescues this month. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Where is she located? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{
  yak 15:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep - Right on the knife edge of notability. If this article is cleaned up and reliable sources are added, it can probably be kept.
  talk 15:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I think this article can be rescued, but I'm unfamiliar with hip hop in general, so I'm ill-equipped to do it. A Google News Archives search for '"Wendy Day" rap' turned up several articles. This NPR story seems like a good start, as does the book it excerpts from, The Big Payback,
  ISBN 9780451229298. On the other hand, that article says a lot of things not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, so I'm a little confused. Perhaps this article needs a rewrite? Hopefully, someone can take it from here. -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 05:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Based on notable news sources others have pointed out already covering her. Dream Focus 09:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The NPR story (and the book that the story is about) that Brianyoumans linked to above demonstrates pretty conclusively that she is notable. When I just add the word "rap" to a Google News search of her name, lots of reliable sources discussing her in depth pop right up. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 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. delete all. May be temporarily undeleted to allow transfer elsewhere, or content e-mailed to creator on request. Scott Mac 22:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bevilacqua Dynasty

Bevilacqua Dynasty (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 am also nominating the following related pages (listing the userspace pages as they're basically the same content):

Bevilacqua Dynasty Part II Primogenita Line of Verona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Victorbevilaqua/Bevilacqua Dynasty Part III Secondogenita Line of Verona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Victorbevilaqua/Bevilacqua dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Victorbevilaqua/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Victorbevilaqua/Submit wikipedia article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bevilacqua family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles appear to be made out of thisn air, despite the amount of work put into them. See examples such as the author's repeated claims that a "Morando Bevilaqua" founded the city of Trento by building a castle and a church in the first century BC, and that this castle is current the Buonconsiglio Castle, and goes on with the same tone all over. Claiming at times that they're counts, but referring to their domain as "principality", and simply inserting them inside major events without any source I was able to find online supporting this. But really, the idea of them as founders of Trento by building a castle in the first century before Christ pretty much sums up the credibility of these articles. I've consulted a history of the Bevilaqua family that was available online, [24] and it mentions a completely different history for it, with no mention of any of the events these articles make. To me, it's really a case of somebody working a lot to insert his own family (the author of these article's Victor Bevilaqua) in history, with no basis to do so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a very strong recollection of having dealt with these articles before, but I can't find anything to back that up. They feel very, very wrong, their content is (as mentioned above) unverifiable, and I recommend that they be deleted. DS (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've come across these before too and support the above proposal to delete. I fully acknowledge that this may all be esoteric, yet accurate information, but unless the author comes forward in the near future with well-documented
  talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some of this may be true, but there seem to be many exaggerations or vaguely misleading statements. It is also poorly written and almost impossible to figure out in parts. Out! (I'm not sure you can get rid of the user pages; unless the user is causing problems by adding inappropriate links to them, I think they are the user's business.) Brianyoumans (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I don't really care about the user pages. They can be noindex'd if they are kept.
    talk) 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete due to questionable
  original research. Edison (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Userfy and ask him to move it to Familypedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - does Familypedia accept material that's known to be false? And tis sort of content does show up in search engines - at the very least, it gets mirrored. He can save it to his own hard drive and work on it there. He can even install a local copy of MediaWiki. DS (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the articles, list the userpages at MFD. Apparent hoax. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'em all unless some verification can be found. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment More care needs to be taken before declaring a hoax than has been taken here. If a stud racehorse (perhaps not a good analogy with respect to notability) sired a long line of racehorses that fairly consistently won races, it would be a hoax to claim that the racehorses flew around the world on gossamer wings meeting important figures from history, but claiming they won races would be a slam dunk. The "Bevilacqua Family" absolutely, without a doubt, exists. Check Google Books. They are covered extensively in multiple independent sources. While Reliable Sources exist, Notability is another matter. Other than a scandalous missionary that seduced Christian Chinese women in a wide area around the mission in Shandong in the 1730s (The spirit and the flesh in Shandong, 1650-1785 page 124 &125 David E. Mungello), and 20th C Bevilacquas that were terrorized by Fascists, the family seems to be notable for nothing more than owning mansions and sitting for portraits, unless there is some alternate spelling of Bevilacqua I do not know of, or some other such problem. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone is doubting that the Bevilacqua family exists. What we're all doubting are the claims made in the articles about the family's role in history, which no one has been able to find sources for. Real family, dubious statements of history.
    talk) 01:57, 25 February 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) 02:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Modern Languages Dublin

Institute of Modern Languages Dublin (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 language institute. Travelbird (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 24 February 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) 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: The H!ts of Autumn 2011

So Fresh: The H!ts of Autumn 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

One of hundreds "best of 20XX" albums. No notable. Travelbird (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Album has not been released yet and even the article itself appears to be in an unfinished state. Delete per
  WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ADVERT. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ar1681 (talk) and jc3881 (talk):

• Delete - As mentioned above, there really is no point in having this article since the album not only has yet to be released, but also seems to be in an incomplete state.
• Delete - Incomplete article, album has yet to be released. No notable indication given. Needs firstly to be completed, to be able to judge correctly. Dutchdean (talk) 18:43, 22 February 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) 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association of college recruiting executives

Association of college recruiting executives (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 gives a 5 hits for this organization, one is this article, the other 4 are linkedin posts by a Ken Charles. At the moment I'm not really sure that this organization actually exists, much less is notable. Travelbird (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails
  verifiability. There is no indication that this organisation actually exists. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, as above. It's likely that an older organisation has more presence offline than online, but there's only so far I'm going to go to research that, it's the article writer's job. bobrayner (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: This is a very old organization and does have more of a presence off-line as the previous members did not want a lot of publicity. We are trying to make the org more current. There are 15 member companies that are partnered in this org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrodd55 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Simply stating that its a very old organisation isn't going to help keep this article. What you need to do is provide independent
  reliable sources writing about this organisation such as magazines or journals. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 21 February 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. Ironholds (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LiveCode

LiveCode (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. lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• LiveCode under the name of Revolution is given significant coverage in Wally Wang's Beginning Programming for Dummies, 4th edition. Chikako
• LiveCode is a re-labeling of the product Runtime Revolution which has been available and used extensively for almost 10 years. I suggest that the title be modified to include the phrase formerly Runtime Revolution (or later titles e.g. RevStudio, etc.) Marc Siskin
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. Advertisement (LiveCode is a much richer and far more powerful evolution of that original program, supporting multiple platforms, devices and many fundamental language extensions such as object-oriented behaviors.) for a minor programming language. Were this language significant, I'd expect to find books about it from people other than its publisher. Note that some book and scholar hits seem to refer to some kind of music software with a similar name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tone of the article has been modified to make the point of view more neutral. Bibliography, references and external links added. The fact that another software product may have a similar name doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. Devin Asay (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have updated the page to remove this reference that could be interpreted as advertising. I have added a number of additional links, including to one of the LiveCode courses being taught in higher education, one of the recent independent reviews and a number of 3rd party resource sites including documentation and 3rd party development frameworks.
• LiveCode is an established product with a relatively small but growing developer community. As Marc Siskin notes, the recent name change may contribute to the lack of references, but this should change as 3rd party LiveCode web sites update their sites. Regarding lhcoyc's "Advertisement" complaint, suggest the superlatives be toned down and features described in more neutral language. I know of a number of 3rd party web sites that deal with LiveCode (formerly Revolution) programming. External links and references can be improved by including those. - Devin Asay (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "established" and "relatively small" dont go well together. Without

notability here. 3rd party websites may or may not be reliable.--RadioFan (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment RE "relatively small". Size of a user community isn't necessarily the determining factor in whether something qualifies as notable. I would argue that LiveCode is the most notable descendant of HyperCard, an enormously influential product in the 1980s and 90s. Perhaps this point ought to be made in the article--i.e., citations that make this point. And granted, 3rd party websites are of varying reliability, but a large number of sites that cite or are devoted to LiveCode (or whatever development tool) I would think are indications of notability. Devin Asay (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hypercard is certainly notable but that's not what this AFD is discussing. Can you provide

number of sites mentioning LiveCode doesn't do that much to establish its notability, significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources does. I'm still not seeing that in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Having now read through the Wikipedia guidance you referenced, I see your point re notability. Significance should be established by coverage in reliable sources.Devin Asay (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added supporting citations from established tech publications to the article and modified the tone for a
  neutral point of view. Bibliographic citations have been added. External links significantly expanded to include a sample of reviews, tutorials, support sites, and third party frameworks. Two claims in the main body of the article still require citations; citation needed templates added. Further comments appreciated regarding this article. Devin Asay (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment I agree with Marc Siskin's suggestion that either the title be modified to include the previous name, or that the previous page that was about Revolution (the product, not the company) be reinstated with a automatic forward to the new page. In regards to the request for sources, are there any old Hypercard discussions still on the 'net that refer people to Metacard, which became Revolution and now LiveCode? As Metacard/Revolution/LiveCode are essentially one in the same, any reference to Metacard or Revolution should be the same as a reference to LiveCode for purposes of referencing. Just a brief search brought up these pages:

http://www.hyperactivesw.com/mctutorial/

http://zathras.de/angelweb/xtalkinterviews-scott-raney.htm

http://zathras.de/angelweb/xtalkinterview-jacqueline-landman-gay.htm

http://www.macintouch.com/hypercard.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/27/revolution_runtime/

Gypsyware (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the above, the Register appears to be a reliable source, not so sure about the rest. Its just not rising to the required level of "significant coverage" This isn't a mater of finding

Google hits

on the name or previous name. It's about establishing notability. Echoing an earlier !voter above, I would think that a notable language would have a book written about it, especially one that has been around for a while. While I appreciate your eagerness to see an article included, I'm just not seeing notability here.

• Keep. The Scotsman (major UK broadsheet newspaper), The Register, MacWorld, MacNN, Network World and PCWorld are all valid independent news organizations which do meet the criteria for notability under Wikipedia
  notability guidelines. Specifically they are valid as reliable sources, for demonstrating significant coverage and as independent sources. These sources do provide critical analysis, for example the platform won the Annual Editor's Choice award from MacWorld in 2004. When measuring against these criteria I count 10 of the 14 references as meeting the criteria - as specified on the Wikipedia notability page. There are two books, one of which is out of print (being in print is not a requirement for notability) and the other of which is linked in the Bibliography - Programming for Dummies, which extensively covers the platform. There is a link to one of the University Courses where the platform is taught. I have added a link to a paper given on the language to the WWW 2009 conference which is another valid source as the paper was invited by the conference committee. RunRevKev (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Keep. Another publication that is an independant reliable source which has covered is MacTech Magazine. MacTech is a print publication that has been in existence since 1984. There are two references to articles that covered Runtime Revolution, now LiveCode. In addition to the two article references there have been online news briefs covering the changes covering developments such as the change from Runtime Revolution to LiveCode. MJKTor (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Himalayan Academy Publications and Hinduism Today has used LiveCode for inhouse publications and web content production using internet enabled desktop applicaitons and as a CGI on it's web servers and for educational tools for over 12 years (since 1999 when it was called "Metacard"). Our daily blogs are generated by desk internet enabled desktop clients built with LiveCode and such dynamically generated pages as http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/lexicon/ use both LiveCode CGI and a LiveCode stack for content on the web server. We network volunteers around the world to do remote data entry and content development using LiveCode internet enabled desktop clients.
  

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/audio/transcription/

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/livecode/

Kailasnatha —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am concerned about the number of users who appear to have arrived only for this AFD. Have they been solicited from another site? Stifle (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that as well. Vote canvassing? Sock puppets? Coincidence? its hard to say. I'm still concerned that so many of the references being pointed to in this AFD dont mention the product at all. Still not clear about the name change and if these are the same products or not. The Register is reasonable as a reliable source but some many of the others are questionable. --RadioFan (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article from macnn.com:

Runtime Revolution has dropped the "Revolution" moniker from its self-described "HyperCard descended" cross-platform rapid development environment and updated it under a new name, LiveCode.

Cunard (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sufficient coverage in
  reliable sources. LiveCode (formerly known as "Revolution") has received paragraphs of coverage in this article from The Register. It has received an in-depth review from MacTech. Both of these sources are reliable and independent of the subject. They are enough to allow LiveCode to pass Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 27 February 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) 02:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket World Cup media

Cricket World Cup media (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 primarily a collection of non-free images with insufficient rationale (the images have sufficient rationale for use in parent world cup articles). As for the rest of the content -- part of the content in the lede belongs in the Cricket World Cup article (already present), part in the individual world cup articles (already present). As far as actual media being discussed -- logos, mascots etc, they are already in the individual world cup articles. Delete —SpacemanSpiff 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 13:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my reasons here and the reasoning of the nomination.
  Nev1 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as this article is essentially an image gallery which is not what an article should be. Setting that aside, all the logos fail the
  WP:FAIR USE guidelines for images. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. --Diego Grez (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:16, 20 February 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 G3 as hoax. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China Smith (2012 series)

China Smith (2012 series) (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. This article appears to be

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 17 February 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, unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Campus Notebook

The Campus Notebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy deletion per A7 removed with no changes made to the article. Not a notable organization, no reliable third party sources.

There is also a COI issue here, with the account creating the article sharing the name of one of the founders, and the issue of sockpuppetry by IP, the account placed the hangon, two minutes later, the IP deleting the CSD tag (it has no other edits before or after.)

Wha? 07:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, db-web, db-spam. Hairhorn (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. The Campus Notebook offers all students the ability to earn scholarship money through our academic social network. We offer tools allowing users to become part of a class-based, online, academic network helping them learn from each other through collaboration. - Whpq (talk) 15:50, 18 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of Italic origin

List of Spanish words of Italic origin (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 article was traswiki'd to Wiktionary in March 2010 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish words of Italic origin reached no consensus. The transwiki'd content has since been developed into wikt:Appendix:Spanish words of Italic origin. The content is therefore duplicated, making this page redundant.

I am also nominating 'List of Spanish words of Italian origin', which was split from 'List of Spanish words of Italic origin' following the earlier AfD.

List of Spanish words of Italian origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cnilep (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unmaintainable as a WP article as language boundaries between Spanish and Occitan etc are too fluid, this kind of thing comes under the scope of wiktionary anyway. Bienfuxia (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all articles of this type WP is actually supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the sum of all information about every topic. If we have a policy "not a dictionary" how much less should WP be a data base of all words of all languages? Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is scope for these sort of articles here, for example List of English words of Chinese origin, but not with languages this closely related - unless people from the Spanish language wikipedia would like to develop it into a higher quality list of course. Bienfuxia (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally that WP "is not paper" so there is room for anything. However that kind of thing is really more like a data base than an encyclopedia, however interesting it is to browse. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since all
  Italic languages by definition, doing this list correctly will necessarily include the entire core vocabulary of Spanish. Such a list would necessarily be unwieldy and unhelpful. Other articles of this type may be more manageable and informative, however. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Should we have articles on Korean words of Aztec origin or Finnish words of Arabic origin or the many thousands of other combinations? Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to discuss Icelandic exonyms etc again? —Tamfang (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really because "I like it" and "It's important to me" trumps "WP is an encyclopedia" almost every time. However I will drag myself to nominate the list of Chinese words in English. Watch for the AfD soon. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Transwiki and delete, Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary. >Radiant< 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one putative (uncited and probably wrong no less) example does not make a list. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 26 February 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 Deleted as a G7 Author Request. Note that consensus, were I to be judging this as a proper close, seemed to be leaning strongly to a standard Delete, so bear that in mind when evaluating a future version under G4. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cacabred

Cacabred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Queried AfD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources provided are not reliable and I sincerely doubt that this "Cacabred" is really one of the oldest names in England. If the info can be reliably sourced, it could be added to an article on the surname Cakebread later, should there be a need for an article on this - actually existent - surname. Travelbird (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither of the sources provided are reliable. One appears to be a spammish self-published web site and the other is an online genealogical database that anyone can register to edit. Within the database is a link to another self-published web site that at the least appears to have some sincerely researched content, though still by no means a reliable source. As Travelbird indicates, a more realistic path, possible only assuming there are reliable sources available, would be to have an article on the contemporary surname Cakebread and include mentions of this earlier alternate spelling. Cacabred could then be justified as a redirect to the Cakebread surname article. older ≠ wiser 13:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As one of my ancestral names, Godwin, can be traced back to Godwin, Earl of Wessex, ie before 1066, it shows that there are older and more abundant names in existence, making Cacabred not very notable. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I refuse to believe that a website offering to sell you DNA kits to prove you are a Cacabred is reliable in any sense of the word. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

just delete it it all now.

Thanks for an informative time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakebread (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 February 2011

The claim that it is one of the oldest was never refuted. The point I was making is that being one of the oldest names is not notable in itself. I think this Afd has turned into a speedy G7 delete anyway Putney Bridge (talk) 15:21, 18 February 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. –MuZemike 20:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dropout from higher education: A case study in one public university in Phnom Penh

Dropout from higher education: A case study in one public university in Phnom Penh (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 consisting of entirely

• Delete per nom as OR. Looks like a research paper for class. Travelbird (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not an
  original research, or proposals for original research. JohnCD (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Clearly original research. Bienfuxia (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY --Ezhuks (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:49, 17 February 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. Scott Mac 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Sweetman

Katherine Sweetman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A local artist who fails to meet

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —XinJeisan (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Media coverage is pretty localized, mostly around one event; don't see evidence that any of her work was a "a substantial part of a significant exhibition" (

  WP:ARTIST point 5). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep Comment  Satisfies WP:GNG. The burning-your-bridges resignation has seven cites.  In "Gringos que defienden Tijuana" (Gringo Tijuana to defend) Sweetman is the "gringo" in the title of the article, which is "substantial coverage" as well as international coverage. Coverage regarding the Free Phone is more than trivial.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]