Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 20

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alsid Tafili

Alsid Tafili (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 about a footballer who fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - still as non-notable as the first AfD, failing both
  WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 23:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, as he fails both
  WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was redirect to Merrick-Simmons House. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Addison on Amelia Island

The Addison on Amelia Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

B&B advert. Is not on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Nassau County, Florida although it is part of the Fernandina Beach Historic District, along with 121 other buildings. JaGa^talk 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Fernandina Beach Historic District, on the off-chance that the search term is useful. Subject is not independently notable. I added what one might call a passing mention to the article--I hope not everything on Amelia Island is closing, because that would ruin my Spring Break plans. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Merrick-Simmons House which is what it is. The B&B company just happens to occupy it. --Oakshade (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right--that's much better. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great catch. Can we close this and turn it into a redirect per Oakshade? --JaGa^talk 04:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're the nominator, we're all in agreement, so I think a non-administrative closure would be fine. Anyone? Ron? Drmies (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 January 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} 01:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching tree

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

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

• On the fence. Delete. A few mentions of the word do not make it an encyclopedic subject. Maybe this can be moved to Wiktionary, but it has no place here. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is hardly a neologism, and has been cited in thousands of news articles. Please, read
  ugly now, doesn't mean it can't be fixed. WP:AFD is not for fixing articles. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hmm Bearian, it seems that you have more than a few mentions there. As much as I hate to agree with you (haha), I am going back on the fence. (You called in the Rescue Squad, so you don't need me, I think.) Should we also have a redirect for Coaching Acorn? Drmies (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The news search does prove it is a real thing, and quite a notable thing since they discuss various coaching trees in news articles. Dream Focus 07:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dream Focus, the RescueSquad's recurrent argument is that "x number of Google hits=it is a notable topic", even if few or none of those hits actually explain what the supposed subject, beyond merely naming or mentioning it. I don't think it's that simple, but to each their own. Drmies (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have to use common sense. You look through the results. If something is covered in the media then its notable. Dream Focus 19:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For example, Coaching trees are discussed in John C. Maxwell's book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership in the chapter on "The Law of Reproduction" when he covers the coaching trees of Bill Walsh and Tom Landry. He noted that half of the active NFL coaches the year of publication (1998) could be traced to these two. This is way more than just fancruft, this is serious study.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an encyclopedic topic.--
  WP:FOUR) 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{
  spout 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Seems to be enough sources to create an encyclopedic article.
  spout 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kanata, Ontario#Schools. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katimavik Elementary School

Katimavik Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Elementary schools are not presumed notable, and there's nothing to indicate that this school is notable enough for an article.

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to Kanata, Ontario. (or possibly List of schools of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per prev. AfD.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a
  reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect No reliable sources. Five Years 13:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per standard procedure. Kudpung (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per lack of notability for this particular school. Note that this is a recreation of previously deleted page (see first AfD) that does not solve these same issues that led to its deletion there. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kanata, Ontario#Schools per usual practice. It is already listed there. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To appropriate district/area article.Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, didn't notice the sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic device

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

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

Long list of dicdefs. Most, if not all of these, already have their own articles, so this is a terribly redundant list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Clearly a notable phrase as shown by the results of the Google Scholar search, as shown here [1]. Informative, referenced and well written piece. Could even be expanded on! Not much more we can ask for an article here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a definition from a notable encyclopedia or dictionary of literary terms. The article proposes, it seems to me, a sort of umbrella term that catches everything, and thus nothing. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep insanely common term in Literary discussions, would probably respawn itself within a couple weeks, though I agree it shouldn't just be a list, Sadads (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's the problem, I think. It's really a very generic term, and the article in its current state duplicates content from elsewhere, which dilutes efforts at sharply defining each of them. If it is to be kept, it should come in the form of a general definition followed by links to main articles. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable entry, although could use a clean up. (Btw - the AfD doesn't seem to be transcluded - still shows as a redlink. )
  talk) 00:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Is that what that is? I've seen it happen before. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 21 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Avenue (Evanston, Illinois)

Chicago Avenue (Evanston, Illinois) (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. Does not appear to be a

Delete I don't see any notability here at all. Unless some is added, this should be deleted. It could be merged as suggested above if one or two reliable sources were found.LedRush (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When this was prodded I said "As the connector between two notable streets, I believe it may be notable. The problem is that it is probably hard to G-test in the presence of

WP:FOUR) 21:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears like another ordinary suburban road. Dough4872 02:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No
  reliable independent sources have been provided. This article is basically just a road map in prose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No significant independent coverage; about the only coverage I could find was this, and it's from the city. Worth a mention in Evanston, Illinois#Transportation, perhaps, but that's about it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:47, 21 January 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 (read down). This has to be one of the worst AfDs I've ever seen, simply due to the incredibly large number of non-votes. Using Ye Olde Bean Countinge Method, we come up with 7 keeps, 7 merge/keeps and 3 deletes. This would appear to indicate some form of article should be kept here, but that reckons without the uselessness of the commentary. Hazardous Matt didn't give a reason for his decision, Antonashi thinks that WP:CRYSTAL only applies to the "delete" group, WWEFan's argument is

So, merge. Simple enough. Except the merge comments cannot be understood to be simply "merge it all", because that would violate

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

)

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

The subject matter is a professional wrestling stable that has yet to debut on television let alone establish some sort of notability to warrant an article. After a few months of existence, an article might be noteworthy, but until then, the subject doesn't deserve a page.

P.S. I tagged the article for speedy deletion under A7, but a primary editor removed the tag. Instead of reverting it, I decided to bring it up at AFD instead. Feedback ^☎ 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge and add any sourced and notable information to The Nexus (professional wrestling). Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm staying neutral on this one. Like I've said before, it'll more than likely be recreated after Smackdown airs and more sources start popping up, so I guess it's not a big loss. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well there's one day left and I've been noticing more and more people
  crystalballing by predicting that the group will split up. You can't cite Crystal when people say "this group is going to be notable" and then make your own predictions. Wikipedia is about sticking with the facts. The facts, as I see them, is that this group was created from a tight-knit group that's still around. All these men (save for Jackson) have a penchant to staying true to a group, and so I really see no reason for them to just suddenly split up like a random tag team made on a whim. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Merge with Wade Barrett. The Corre is a seperate entity from The Nexus. Mentions can be made in that article that following Barrett's ejection he went to Smackdown and formed a new group, but until the group is established as being as signifcant as previous stables (SES, Nexus, Legacy) then we might as well just make mention of it in the respective articles of its members. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 00:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be better to list a passing reference in the individual wrestler's articles, but keep it in the Nexus article rather than Wade Barrett. The Nexus article is already a centralized point of history for a group that involved Barrett, Slater and Gabriel. A few lines in a subheading may be the best way to go. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We didn't make an article for the Nexus after one week of existance, so why should we make an exception for this group?  WWEFan225 ^Message_{Contributions} 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Because when Nexus was formed not only did it not have a name for the group, but the group of eight were relative unknowns fresh off NXT. The notability of Nexus is the reason why it was created so quickly. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 22:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep We had this exact same discussion before with the Nexus, literally almost the same words, so I'll say there what I say here but more clearly: clearly this is going to be involved in a storyline. Wade Barrett is in the middle of a major push, this storyline spans not one but two WWE shows. It involves something close to a dozen people or more, including members of a now-famous group. You don't have to know anything about wrestling, or even have seen wrestling, to know that this is clealy the start of some major story arc. If we delete this or merge it or whatever we'll be right back here in six months when they're fighting the Undertaker or John Cena or whatever...why? It's one thing to say that, in some causes, people jump the gun--but they're telegraphing a major plot point here loud enough people are picking it up on radar in Russia, it's not premature to rightly point out that when everyone on screen is screaming "This is IMPORTANT!" like they're mad then clearly, WWE thinks this is important.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep They are just like any stable and will become a major plot and will influence WWE majorly, its the new stables coming through that hold the future for the dwindling tag team division, also this stable includes 2 Former Tag Team Champs, the last ever ECW champ and a 'Future Hall Of Famer' - WWE. And Thats The Bottom Line, Because Stone Cold Said So! --Jimsta28 (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Wade Barrett. All keep votes violate
  WP:CRYSTAL. The group has not established notability yet. Nikki♥311 06:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or merge with [whatever]. Future event that might be notable, but nonetheless
  WP:CRYSTAL. [CharlieEchoTango] 09:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect/Merge with
  Talk) 12:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep The Corre just became an official stable this past Friday, but came together a week or two ago. They are already a big storyline, just like Nexus was when they first debuted. When The Nexus debuted, you knew they were going to be a major storyline. Well, The Corre is already a major storyline. Even if this gets deleted, it will be put back up next week when the storyline grows even more. Just because they haven't done much, doesn't mean they will just fall off the radar and never become an important group. You know they will be a big group. Zsmalls629 19:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we don't know it will be a major player in the scheme of things. For example, World Elite. That group did nothing notable. Hazardous Matt (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention if it this article does get deleted and subsequently recreated the following week, it would be speedily deleted under

WP:G4. -- Θakster  21:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep The stable is officially listed as part of the Smackdown roster on the WWE website. It's notable enough to be acknowledged there and deserves the same treatment here. NJZombie (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  WP:CRYSTAL. None of the keep statements so far has noted why it's notable now as opposed to possible notability in the future. -- Θakster  21:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Definite Keep WWE.com has officially added all the member to its Smackdown brand and The Corre is on its Power 25 here : http://www.wwe.com/inside/power25/ (Its number 10) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsta28 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did this guy seriously vote twice? Feedback ^☎ 04:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did indeed. And anyway, Power 25 doesn't necessarily signify notability. I could very well pick out from the archives joint listings for Jeri-Show and ShoMiz. None of these groups have an article and I'd say at this point they're more notable than the Corre. -- Θakster  14:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this non-signing Power 25-loving double-voter is the guy who created the article. I think that shows how much good judgment was utilized when creating this unnotable article. Feedback ^☎ 14:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry I forgot to sign, and I only double voted because I wished to show that WWE officially recognize the group. I'm sorry if it was the wrong thing to do. --Jimsta28 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep An entry doesn't lack of notability only because someone is too blind to see it. The Corre is officially recognized by WWE.com and it's enough. --94.163.110.214 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC) — 94.163.110.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP KEEP KEEP This is The Nexus Deletion discussion all over again. You all claimed that they weren't notable just because they wen't around attacking The RAW locker room and Ricky The Dragon Steamboat and yet look how Nexus is now it's under the leader of CM Punk and much has happened since their Debut on Viewer's Choice Raw. Need I remind you The Corre was founded by the SAME man who led The Nexus on their reign of terror over Raw for a good portion of 2010. Can we at least give this a few weeks before trying to kill an article about this group I mean it is possible (kaybe) that they did take out Teddy Long on Friday. While anything can happen in 6 days from now that's how pro wrestling works backstage rumors and dirtsheets and etc.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 18:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors and speculation are not grounds for keeping an article regarding a splinter faction that has failed to do accomplish anything significant. And there are quite a few !votes suggesting the content be merged with either Wade Barrett or the Nexus (which I believe is optimal), so it isn't as if the content would be lost. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haz it has only been 2 weeks these things tend to grow. Just because it's just one paragraph about its 2 week existence don't mean that's how it'll stay. We ALWAYS EXPAND these kind of articles. GIVE IT TIME for Christ Sake this was what was the VERY 1st ENTRY of Nexus was [2]. But its expanded VERY VERY MUCH.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 23:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't saying that the article wont grow and expand, it just hasn't done anything worth of note at the moment and is as I put it earlier just the Aftermath of Nexus, the difference between Nexus and The Corre is the fact Nexus had a WWE Title shot in waiting which was worth of note and if I remember at the time they all were going into the SummerSlam Main Event which is a big four PPV there certainly was notability with Nexus, The Corre has done hardly anything to gain notability which suggests that it would be more suited to merge the current information in another article.

Talk) 03:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You may be right but it won't help that some asshole brought up deletion after just 2 apperances. If this was 6 or 8 weeks after their debut and they still hadn't done anything then yeah you would have a better point but still they've only been on

SmackDown for 2 show, TWO GODDAMN SHOWS GODDAMMIT. Can we at least see what happens this Friday before we continue this completely assanine discussion started by some stupid asshole who lost his ability to think many years ago otherwise he or she would know that these guys are probably who're responsible for Teddy Long being in the Hospital (kayfbe).--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 03:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Please refrain from some such language as "asshole" in reference to some users, its uncivil and does not help the discussion. It's interesting though you bring up that they've been on 2 shows which is part of the exact reason why its better to merge with another article, we have no idea how long this faction will be around let alone whether they'll do anything of note.

Talk) 03:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Wouldn't it also be a good idea to wait till after the next episode of Friday Night SmackDown to judge what the next thing we'll do. I know someone in the industry and while he refuses to tell me (for obvious reasons)anything about this Friday with The Corre he did tell me WWE Creative Team writes these stories based on the rumors flying around the locker room and the WWE Universe.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 04:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you did know someone backstage, which I highly doubt since you conveniently bring this up now, it still wouldn't be notable for inclusion as there is no reliable source backing up this information and it'd still be

Talk) 04:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

A source for knowing someone backstage?? Again (for obvious reasons) he doesn't tell me all that will happen and all that.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 04:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you need a source though I highly doubt you do know someone backstage, however what you're alluding to is what we'd call

Talk) 04:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

NascarKing/Voices, to reiterate what you have already been told, remain civil. Afkatk is correct. If you do have a source within WWE, then what you are stating is both prediction and original research and is not permitted. For more information, please read

WP:OR. Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge all content to The Corre (without redirect). This is a stable of notable wrestlers so it should be kept. However, the title should be deleted because there is only one "Corre" and that Corre is a redirect so there isn't a point of having duplicate content in two separate articles. Minimac (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I never once said I know what will happen this Friday. All I said was the Storylines they write are written around the rumors and dirtsheets that create subplots in the locker rooms and what is being heard around live events (as in fans and all that).--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 20:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of that improves the notability of the subject. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who believes this has stalled to a pointless debate that no ones gonna win at this point? Cause it feels like that stupid deletion debate over Survivor Series again.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 21:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is going around and around, so this will be my last post in this AFD. Regardless of what may have occurred with Survivor Series (I'm not sure what you're referring to), this AFD is not pointless. There have been multiple suggestions for retaining the information in relevant articles until the group becomes notable (which it may or many not do), a solution to simply deleting the article. Please re-read my above replies to your earlier justifications. I'm sure you'll see where I'm coming from. (And if you don't mind, could you indent your replies to keep them properly threaded?) Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really do have to question if you all even do watch WWE on a regular basis otherwise you would know you've got a group 4 guys consisting of a man in the middle of a major major push, 2 very talented rookies who in my opinion would be much much better off with Barrett, and a baheamoth in the prime of his career. If you cannot see that these 4 men are on track for greatness, I have to queston not just your loyalty to WWE but to Professional Wrestling as a whole. Look at this not from a wikipedia terms or point of view but from say I don't know a fan in the stands.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 21:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to question your motives at times, when you say look at it from a fans view point, its both an incorrect view point and against wikipedia editing policy please feel free to read up on .

Talk) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Incorect? That's the whole point of what do you mean incorrect?--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry meant to leave you with a link here

Talk) 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• I would like to state again, it is becoming clear this group, the Corre, is involved in an important storyline. They're clearly, and obviously, going to be involved for a prolonged engagement barring some unforseen event. This storyline covers not one but TWO different shows. I said it before, if we delete this we'll just need to remake it later, since this is obviously something important. And if you merge it with Wade Barrett (I don't know why you would since it'd make just as much sense to merge it with any of the other dozen or so people involved now in this story arc including apparently Vikki, Teddy Long and Dolph) then it will rapidly be large enough to warrent a split into a seperate article anyway, knowing how complex and continuity-heavy wrestling story arcs are--especially these "NWO-style Invasion" type story lines. So again I stress that this is really pointless, frankly it's just the whole "But...but will Nexus be relevent?" thing again, and I reiterate my Strong Keep vote.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm surrounded by idiots. (WP:Competence is required) Feedback ^☎ 00:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just people who believe in not demolishing the house while it's still being built. And you're lucky I don't report your calling us "idiots" as a personal attack. This I say, because I'm the Tom, and I'M AWESOME! Tom Danson (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking everyone to

cruft that must be removed." This is one of those situations. Also, I give you benefit of the doubt there for the "WP:ATTACK" accusation. I was under the impression that if you say something that is 100% true, it can't be an attack. Feedback ^☎ 10:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

What Feedback said is definitely not a personal attack of any kind. Whoever believes that is an idiot.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - New stable that will become big very soon. Muur (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Merge with the Nexus article. The Corre haven't done anything to make them notable, but as they're formed from original members of the Nexus and only really exist through Barrets exile from the group and the other two refusing to go through Punk's initiation then they're very relevent to the Nexus, even if just as a short paragraph for now. BulbaThor (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as Own Page The Corre is it's own group on WWE Smackdown seperate from the Nexus. Three of the four members were part of the Nexus but The Corre and The Nexus are not the same group and have shown that they will not co-exist.Midnight XII —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment WWE has also now created an official Facebook Page for The Corre here : http://www.facebook.com/TheCorreWWE --Jimsta28 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Important WWE faction which split off from one of the biggest wrestling storylines of 2010 to attempt to do the same thing on a different show in 2011. Will be involved in many major feuds unless all members are injured, fired or both. 68.225.171.64 (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They've existed for a fortnight on WWE's B-show; people said Cody Rhodes&Drew McIntyre should get their own page then they split up. If these guys make it past Mania, maybe they deserve one but until they do something there's nothing to write about. This is the very essence of week-by-week. Tony2Times (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Nexus article was created almost the day of the group being given a name and yet, despite its shaky sources and an AfD, the article was decided upon to be kept. That's exactly the same situation that seems to be playing out here. The group have a tendency to stick together, not like your example, McIntyre and Rhodes were a random pairing of singles wrestlers and that hardly ever works out. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can obviously tell that The Corre is going to be a major stable and that the WWE has big things planned for them. Why else would the WWE create a Facebook page for them? WWE has put The Corre, as one, on their Power25 also. The Corre has already taken out Teddy Long (who else could it be?), which will most likely lead to The Corre becoming involved in a major storyline. Its also pretty obvious that sometime down the road The Corre and The Nexus will once again meet. We saw the two stables together this past Monday on Raw and you can bet that won't be the last time they meet. For those who want to delete the article because they haven't done much, you are just looking at The Corre's CURRENT storyline. Yes, they haven't done anything noteable...yet. Look at where The Corre will be in 2 months from now (yes they will most likey still be around). Remember who makes up The Corre: Wade Barrett, winner of NXT season 1, former leader of The Nexus, Heath Slater, former Tag Team Champion & Nexus member, Justin Gabriel, former Tag Team Champion & Nexus member, and Ezekiel Jackson. 75% of this group were former Nexus members. For those who want to merge The Corre with The Nexus article, why? I know, like I said 75% of the group were former Nexus members, but they are not attached to The Nexus. The Corre is an entirely different group. It would be different if The Nexus split the group in half, with one half going to SmackDown and the other staying on Raw, but The Corre is not part of The Nexus. Zsmalls629 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of

original research and speculation. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 00:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback, It feels almost as though you're taking this a bit personally. You keep stating that the competent editors believe it should be deleted. So that means anyone who disagrees is the opposite, incompetent. I'm not arguing with anyone. All I said was that Wikipedia should be about the facts. That in mind, this is just another article on Wikipedia. The point is to further Wikipedia as a source of information. There is no sort of personal victory in believing that you're right. There is no personal victory in trying to prove that you are right. I've noticed this from several of your comments here and other places. Your comments, while not personal attacks are borderline offensive. Please don't try to brush me off as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. I've been here for over 5 years and although I don't have as many edits as you, it doesn't mean I know any less. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but your suggestion is to keep this debate between people who 'know better,' and that anyone who isn't familiar with guidelines shouldn't be regarded as important enough to listen to. That's not an acceptable way to treat fellow editors. An AfD is decided on how many Keep vs Delete vs Merge votes there are, not how much knowledge or experience every editor who votes has. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 04:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, please read my words correctly: "Let's just try and keep the conversation between the editors whose opinions (be it in support or opposition of the deletion) are supported by guidelines, policy and most importantly,

refusing to get the "point". I never said you were incompetent, on the contrary, I basically said that you were one of the only competent people in this discussion. You terribly misunderstood. Feedback ^☎ 13:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

My comment, yes it did have a lot of

WP:Crystal in it, but I had to make those comments to emphasize my statement. Feedback, I do get the "point". I voted to keep The Corre article, just like many people who voted. Some people still wanted to delete the article after I voted, and after I did vote, more news regarding The Corre came out, so I decided to comment on it, backing up my vote, even though some of it was based on CBALL. Zsmalls629 17:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Dude, its all based on CBALL. Speculation is the only reason you want to keep it. "Because it will be notable bla bla". They've only been active for 2 weeks and AS OF RIGHT NOW AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT they are not notable and therefore shouldn't have an article. If you don't understand that, then yes, you're refusing to get the point.Feedback ^☎ 21:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article does get deleted, may I please be sent a copy so I may repost it when they do all of this stuff people (including I) are predicting, I still wish it to keep, but incase it isn't. Thanks. --Jimsta28 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's current state is terrible. Its 100% week-by-week results which is against WP:PW's manual of style. The consensus is to avoid week-by-week results and to point out key moments in the prose instead. Seeing as The Corre has only been active for a week or two, it doesn't have enough key moments to supply 3 sentences, let alone an article. Feedback ^☎ 03:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article is absolutely nothing but week-by-week with the play-by-play to go with it of a group which is, by and large,
  Nexus article of persons attempting to declare "RAW NEXUS" and "SMACKDOWN NEXUS" (Case in point). The state of this article is an utter mess. Perhaps in sometime if the stable has garnered notoriety independently, then it will be deserving of it's own article. But at this juncture, it honestly is about as notable as the "Angry Miz Girl". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 02:54, 28 January 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. Non-admin close here. — Timneu22 · talk 23:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Chicago (band)

Deer Chicago (band) (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-

• Speedy delete. The "references" aren't coverage at all. I tagged for speedy. The article may "make a claim" of significance, but a 20-second review of those links shows there is actually no significance. Google searches are not promising. — Timneu22 · talk 20:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Airplay on BBC is an assertion of notability, but a thin one. I felt that AFD was a more likely path. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No prob. I googled and checked the refs, though. Didn't seem like A7 was out of the question. — Timneu22 · talk 20:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One EP, played on local radio. No significant coverage. Not yet notable.--Michig (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to

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

)

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

Apparently contested proposed deletion, there were both attempts to remove the PROD and to redirect to Bad Girls Club. Reason given in the original PROD was: "Season 7 hasn't been announced, neither have the girls for that matter. Also, if it didn't obviously air, how is there more information? This is more of a fake article until proven, but as I said, Season 7 hasn't been announced yet." Passing this on procedurally (and with respect to the wishes of both the original proposer of deletion and the person who originally removed the tag), my nomination is not to be taken as an implicit vote one way or another. j⚛e decker^talk 19:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect til sources/more info can be found.
  chat 20:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per above, the season is currently undergoing casting. Only source to back this claim up is Oxygen's official website, although, there's not enough sources to confirm more about this season. Until we can get more than one source and can add more to this article, then it should be redirect. AJona1992 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have removed the fancrut out of the article and placed it with the same format from the previous seasons. But there's no confirm, yet, pickup of a new season. So until then, I will still go for a redirect. AJona1992 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and section blank the page. Then when Season 7 is announced, it'll be put into order. Alexgx (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note an article can't be left blanked, in this case, redirecting the page to Bad Girls Club seems to fit. AJona1992 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars available in Japan

List of cars available in Japan (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 form of

• Delete
  chat 20:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete The definition of unmaintainable. Pity there isn't a speedy for this.
  96 22:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hopelessly inaccurate and totally unsourced list. --DAJF (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coming soon: list of cars made on a wednesday! l'aquatique[talk] 01:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmaintainable and
  unverifiable, and "available" is a very vague descriptor. Who knows, maybe there is a Škoda "available" to buy at some random used car lot somewhere? :D --Kinu ^t/_c 22:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as cruft. Better to handle this kind of info via categories. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:40, 26 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semyon Ioffe

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

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

Fringe researcher bio has no real footprint outside directory and promo pages. No GNews hits; GBooks gives one false hit and one perhaps genuine hit but nothing having to do with the fringey content that is highlighted in the article, which reads more like a resume than anything. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the comments above are somehow biased. I would not have posted this article had this scientist had no digital footprint. there are multiple references in science journals and magazines when searched through both google and yahoo. This respected scientist is not a "fringe" researcher. This article was specifically posted as a continuance of an article about Dr.Igor Smirnov to ensure that the history of the technology that these 2 men discovered and developed doesn't disappear because this is the kind of information that isn't available on the internet as it is almost entirely in russian, Dr. Smirnov was a Rasputin like figurehead in the Russian media from the 1980's till his death. I met both of these met in the last 20 years and one of them has already passed away. It is extremely important that their work be documented online.--Newyork48 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Someone should tell him that his Twitter SPAMing kind of undermines the "respected scientist" image. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have met this man and English is not his first language, you can tell in his tweets. Your comments are very immature and have no place on this page which SHOULD BE FOR DISCUSSING REFERENCE TO HIS WORK AND WHETHER IT IS NOTABLE not what he uses twitter for which he is obviously trying to bring attention to his blog posts which is exactly what twitter is for. I have linked to a number of scientific journals where his work is published available for viewing online as well as requesting printed versions. I'm pretty sure that the wiki article explaining the rules to whether something is notable or not doesn't say, check google books and articles. Please try to keep the comments civilized.--Newyork48 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying. Scientists whose ideas are already widely notable usually aren't trying to get attention for them on Twitter. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And hows that exactly? I looked over the twitter account and its basically just links to new blog posts. i also read the blog posts. they are written to underscore new developments in their technologies operating testing with the government as well as new developments they make because, just like any technology, it is always being improved and developed for a wider array of applications. I'm pretty sure any scientist or any author for that matter posts everything they write on twitter if they had a twitter account which is exactly how new ideas get shared. We've gotten very far from the point again here. I re-wrote most of this particular article, and provided reference to printed publications. I would appreciate it if it was looked over and re-evaluated, thank you.--Newyork48 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't show us all these people giving him respect, how can we tell he's a "respected scientist"? Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only tiny impact on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Can't find these multiple references, agree with nom.
  talk) 11:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. User by the way is a SPA creating articles about individuals involved with and technology distributed by Northam Technologies, which itself does not appear to be notable (Google search turns up mostly press releases, one mention in Wired). Ioffe is an executive of this company. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What is his h-index?
  Nergaal (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Jonathanwallace. Ioffe does not appear to be the subject of serious coverage by independent 3rd parties. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:45, 21 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Mughal

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

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

Comment. This person does not seem to meet the notability guidelines outlined in

• Delete: As the original creator of the page, I was formerly in favour of including players such as Mughal, but I am now of the opinion that he is non notable per
  WP:CRIN and he does not have any other notable merits. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: As the recent revision to
  WP:ATHLETE.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet
  WP:CRIN, and not enough sources provided to establish notability via another route. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:48, 21 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Barzagli

Fabio Barzagli (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 lacks reliable sources that independently establish the subject's notability. A Google News search delivers only 9 hits, and a search for fby and barzagli produces nothing that might be useful to the article. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per Drmies. I did independent searching and found nothing; however, I think there's a chance that other sources MIGHT turn up, such as local Italian papers (in English; or translated using iGoogle possibly) or possibly computer-music related publications. My advice to the article creators is to cut the article to bare bones, have ONLY acceptable references (ie not YouTube, not stores) and find a few good references along the lines of
  WP:RS. So I'm saying I may change my vote depending on what happens, but at present, it's delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. As requested by JohnCD I agree for deletion of page.--rossalabastro (creator and main contributor) 21:17, 20 January 2011
  • Comment - I express no opinion about this page; I declined a G7 speedy deletion because it was not clear from the history that this user was the author of the only substantial content, and advised that if deletion was required, PROD or AfD was the way to go. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 January 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. Improvements to the article have lead to the nomination, and most of the delete !votes, being withdrawn.

Carter House Inn

Carter House Inn (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 structure built in 1982 as a replica of a building doesn't pass notability. This is just another B&B advert. JaGa^talk 18:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was intending to argue keep -- as soon as I saw the picture, I knew exactly where this building was, even though I live several hundred miles away. But Google is not turning up notability. Admittedly, some of the articles behind pay walls may turn up notability, but what I can access isn't coming up with anything I can use.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. Unlikely to be notable as architecture. --Elekhh (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw delete as referencing has been improved. --Elekhh (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete (Changing to Keep, see below) Non-historic building, spammy article. However, there is a lot of coverage about it in the local paper, the Times-Standard [3] [4], with an occasional mention in more notable publications like the San Francisco Chronicle. And its restaurant gets a Grand Award from Wine Spectator Magazine, which is fairly rare. With a major rewrite (which somebody else can do - I don't have time) this article might become a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a replica of a Newsom and Newsom home. These two brothers were premier architects in California in the 19th Century. A re-work to limit the article to the details of the architecture (removing most of the focus on the business), which is also significant as an Eastlake/Queen Anne home is relevant to the Wiki and should be covered. Notability as a reconstruction is already present in the article and the home exists within Old Town Eureka. As a matter of architecture detail, the stacked bay windows are an excellent example of Eastlake Architecture. Despite a busy schedule, I have already done some work to improve the article before. Norcalal (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The decision whether to keep or delete an article is not based on bare assertions about the subject. Also, the fact that it was based on a design by notable architects (do the Newsoms have an article here?) does not alone make it notable. What is needed is

WP:Reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. I have provided some links above that could be used. If you are in a mood to improve/rescue the article, that is what it needs: Reliable Sources in the article, demonstrating significant coverage and therefore notability. Changing the spammish tone would help too. If you do add better sourcing, please let us know here, so that people who have already expressed an opinion may reconsider. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I have wondered since I came across the article....that if it is a premier lodging for the entire region and most critically acclaimed restaurant of the region (perhaps on the entire California coast north of the SF Bay Area) as well how do we treat that here without looking like a travel guide. I believe there is reason to save the article. Also, I do not think the Carters (owners) want this article to be in bad taste since they are so well known for their taste. Being from the region, I wondered who wrote the mess in the first place. I will look at it more as my schedule allows. And pare it down to notability issues that can have support of reliable sourcing Norcalal (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See improvements and deletions. I have little time at the moment for a total rewrite. Norcalal (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A Revamped Article for Your Reconsideration: A lot of time the issue with these nominations is not the underlying topic, but a really poorly done article. I think that was the case here. The following has been revised:
  • Promotional tone removed.
  • Article clearly focuses on notability with both restaurant (more so) and architecture (less so).
  • Additional citations added and all are now formatted.
  • Article Wikified with layout and content.
  • These changes are on top of the improvements already undertaken by Norcalal.

The article still has a ways to go quite honestly though. For instance, one of the sources in the architecture section is the company website. But, there are several editors who have shown an interest in the last year and it no longer reads like a B&B advert. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me. I'm OK with withdrawing the nom. --JaGa^talk 08:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the improvements made in the article and its sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think my vote is implied by my post but, just in case. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:41, 27 January 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 Mandsford 02:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generationals (the band)

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:BAND - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep.
  WP:BAND, being cited as a rationale for deletion, specifically states that a band which has had their music performed in a major media work is considered notable - which this band has done. Not only have I found a news article confirming that they did this in the Times-Picayune, I've also found two more news articles dedicated to the band in The Advocate and the Austin American-Statesman (which I can email to anyone looking to fix up the article). I would advise Burpelson to reconsider his nomination. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Here are reviews of the band's Con Law album in Spin and Allmusic. These, along with the Pitchfork track review already referenced in the article, are enough significant coverage in my view to meet criterion 1 of
  WP:BAND.  Gongshow ^Talk 04:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have added these sources (plus a couple more) to the article.  Gongshow ^Talk 22:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Gongshow. Want me to email you what I could find? Ironholds (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, I'll be glad to take a look.  Gongshow ^Talk 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Edit. Thanks Ironholds, the sources you sent have been incorporated into the article.  Gongshow ^Talk 02:36, 28 January 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.

Generations of jet fighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Unreferenced list-type article that acts simply as a "link" page to the various "# generation jet fighter" articles - a role already covered by Fighter aircraft. Defintion of the aircraft in the various generations is quite controversial and prone to OR, as well (I've seen a comment somewhere that the Chinese themselves consider the J-20 fourth generation - !). Overall this duplicates both Fighter aircraft and Category:Generations of jet fighter and, especially compared to the former, doesn't possess any encyclopediac value. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was going to say 'merge' but the material is already present at Fighter aircraft. I do note that the latter article needs a lot more inline cites. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not really add any value to what already is in other articles and due to the nature of biased nationalistic sources is unlikely to be reliable referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a +stub article that was recently created and has the potential to expand, that is all that is required for an article to pass inspection. In addition, this article is very helpful to end-user providing summarized accurate information that will fill out over time. There should be a "KEEP & EXPAND" +tag at the top of the this article not an afd +tag! Zabanio (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fighter aircraft, getting rid of the current contents. This will keep the "potential to expand", while pointing to the location that currently has much more elaborate (and much better sourced) information on the topic of generations of jet fighters. A redirect can be in any time turned back into article, but there is no reason to duplicate the information right now. --Kubanczyk (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Redundant - There already are articles on each of the fighter generations, and Fighter aircraft#Jet-powered fighters covers the same topic in greater depth. Nothing here worth merging to the other articles. - BilCat (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant per BilCat. Anotherclown (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fighter aircraft: redundant to that article and the category. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That a concept is ambiguous does not mean it cannot be discussed here. So are such terms as Democracy , to give the first example I thought of . If different countries use different generations, let the article be expanded to reflect it. And how it can be redundant to the Category:Generations of jet fighter escapes me, since this article is the only article even in that category, though I would have expected the articles on the individual generations to be there also. I note the simultaneous attempt to delete the Template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 20. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact they weren't in that category was a mistake on my part when re-categorising them before, which I've now fixed. However this article is still extraordinarily redundant to both
    WP:POV in a hurry. (If you doubt me, take a look at the edit history of HAL Tejas at some point...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. As much as I do not like the fighter generation categorization scheme, I cannot in good faith endorse this deletion. Maybe merge
  Qwertyus 17:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Er...what? I'm not sure what the reasoning for that is. And how does this article add value to the encyclopedia vis-a-vis the fact the subject is already covered, referenced and much more extensively, in Fighter aircraft? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Bushranger except that the referencing needs serious work over there at fighter aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fighter aircraft covers this topic in unnecessary detail.
  Qwertyus 04:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gushan District. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaohsiung Municipal Nei Wei Primary School

Kaohsiung Municipal Nei Wei Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Nothing I can see that makes this elementary school notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to its locality, Gushan District, as per standard procedure. No AfD debate necessary. --Kudpung (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Kudpung. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 26 January 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.

Miles Filus

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

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

Zero independent reliable sources and so not notable. Severo^TC 16:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreferenced BLP about an individual. He is a Polish, Australian, and American songwriter, composer, writer, poet, guitarist and singer, world traveler, climber, entrepreneur, business owner, IT Manager, IT Specialist, network engineer, paralegal, IBM and cisco specialist, etc. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what an odd BLP about a non-notable person. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely non-notable and may qualify as
  WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Completely unsourced notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:42, 26 January 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 (

Hocketball

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

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 15:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely
  96 22:37, 20 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Patrick Constantini

Jean-Patrick Constantini (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-

• Delete - Lack of notability; possible self-promotion? SNaismith (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alternate spelling of name: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Give results in line with the article's assertions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's had an interesting career all right, and I'm actually surprised that someone working at his level for so long could have failed to have any impact. But apparently he hasn't. Google Books throws up a similar load of uncommented credits, seemingly no e.g. "the film was ably produced by Jean-Patrick Costantini", just lists. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:25, 26 January 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. we seem to have no reliable independant sources put forward for this so it fails

Hyper-Real Religion

Hyper-Real Religion (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 term, virtually coined by a single author, who himself is non-notable, and referenced mostly by his blog postings. Jeff3000 (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of notability; reads more as a personal belief. SNaismith (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The creation of the term "hyper-real religion" is credited in the article to Adam Possamai who appears to be very much notable. The term appears to have gained currency, as evidenced by a google search of the term. Certainly the article could be improved, but I don't think it should be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A google book search of the term only refers to Adam Possamai and has not gained currency in reliable sources. Given the term is only really being used by Adam Possamai, at best the term should be merged into the Adam Possamai page, as the term by itself is not notable. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created the page and understand that my references weren't adequate. However the concept and its author are notable and have been acclaimed in academic circles as a new understanding of
  The Church of Satan. I am new to wikipedia but I agree with Wikidan61, I thought that the article would be more appropriately marked for improvement rather than deletion Alangnixon (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment All of the sources you note in the article are from a single author, Adam Possamai, and thus the term had not recieved attention in other circles, and is not notable. Given the term is only really being used by Adam Possamai, at best the term should be merged into the Adam Possamai page, as the term by itself is not notable. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Comment. The topic itself is notable, and is definetely and emerging field of study within religious and spirituality settings. The problem, however, is that there are a variety of terms used to describe 'Hyper-Real Religion,' with out any one being standard or, as far as I can tell, more used than the others. Other terms used include Popular Spiritualism (book exmple, which also includes a chapter on Hyper-Real Religion), Contemporary Paganism (book example, Magic (or magical) Religion (book example), Modern Paganism, Virtual Religion, etc. Adam Possamai is one of the few calling it Hyper-Real Religion, but his writings are influential, and have been peer-reviewed with, varying, acceptance by the academic world. This article needs expansion, not deletion, and potentially a name change to a more general, widely accepted term, if one can be found. Ravendrop (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The links you sent don't use the word hyper-religion, and until a consensus has been made in reliable sources to call the phenomenon a hyper-real religion, the term is not notable, and is actually
  original research
  . Wikipedia should not be creating the consensus on a term. Regards, -- 12:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.

List of best-selling albums worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Per

Additional comment: “List of best-selling albums worldwide” is not encyclopedic since it is not well-defined (for example, “The World’s 20 best-selling albums as of January 2009” would be better defined). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination updated in light of discussion; see Summing up below. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Perhaps in need of cleanup, but still a useful and important list. SNaismith (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, “useful and important” do not constitute WP’s notability criteria. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, contrary to what the nominator says, the topic is often discussed in reliable sources, either on individual records (X is one of the bestselling records worldwide), or as a list (e.g. the "Billboard Magazine: 300 Best Selling Albums (Worldwide)", or articles like this one from Associated Content. This book has a list of Best-Selling Albums of All Time. Less relevant perhaps, but also of possible interest, is that this list (and similar ones like the one for books) are very popular, with this list getting some 150,000 page views per month, which is massive.
  Fram (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The topic of the article is a single piece of information, i.e. a list. Discussion of an individual item (supposedly) on the list does not constitute discussion of the article subject i.e. the list.
• A list published in a magazine such as Billboard would be likely unusable as a WP article for copyright reasons.
• The Associated Content “article” you mention is in fact part of an advertisement for a musical; it does not purport to be a source of such a list.
• “Massive” popularity of a WP page does not constitute notability per
  WP:N
  .
• Futhermore, see additional comment added at the top. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perfectly encyclopedic list. --Michig (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would care to comment on the reason given for the proposal i.e. lack of “discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources” and the additional comment at the top re being encyclopedic. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could leave quotes from WP:N aside for a moment and think about how deleting this list would improve the encyclopedia. It wouldn't. Worldwide best-selling albums are often the subject of coverage by reliable sources. If you look on Amazon for instance you'll find plenty of sources there that cover this area, e.g. MTV Pop and Rock World Records 2011, Guinness Book of World Records, and similarly a Google News search should show you that this is often the subject of newspaper and magazine articles. To be honest, it's a pretty obviously worthwhile list to have in an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying that sources exist does not constitute a convincing argument. Guinness does not publish the list (AFAIK, it covers only the top 2); being of a similar subject, I expect the MTV book is the same. If suitable sources really existed, most likely, they would have been used by now (the page has been around for some time). As for thinking how deleting this list would improve the encyclopedia, I would hope that it would be obvious that time spent by editors on

WP:OR in trying to compile the list themselves, as is done currently, is time wasted. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Apparently that's only obvious to you. Given that we have a properly-sourced list that others feel has encyclopedic value, it certainly is not

WP:OR and it isn't time wasted...speaking of which, your position is clear, my mind is made up, so there's no reason to spend any more time on this discussion. --Michig (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Summarising so that the quality of this editor's argument can be judged at the end of the discussion:

• The editor suggested some potential sources for the article.
• It was explained that they did not cover the subject (as required by
  WP:N
  for a list topic).
• The editor then claimed that the article is properly sourced anyway (without citing or commenting on any of the sources used).
• Despite prompting, at no point did the editor attempt to discuss the specific points raised in the nomination (in particular, on how the given clause in
  WP:N
  impacts this article).

Wrapped in Grey (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is one of the most important music list on Wikipedia. With 62
  reliable sources to support its notability, there's no reason to delete this page. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It demonstrates its failure to be encyclopedic in its first five words; from
  WP:MOSBEGIN: “If the page is a list
  , do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X"”.
• A reader of the article might well ask the following questions: “Who publishes the list?”, “Where is a reliable source that I can use to verify that an item on the list (as presented in the article) has not been omitted?”. He would, however, not find the answers in our article—why is that?

Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

While there are a number of possibilities for how this type of information could be handled in a more encyclopedic way within Wikipedia, the most encyclopedic option available in this case would seem to be to treat the list as a category. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fram and Bluesatellite, who have rebutted the nom's claims. I don't remotely find the claim credible that best-selling albums as a topic has not been discussed by multiple reliable sources, and every entry in this list appears to be well sourced. The fact that our list may combine entries from separate lists published by reliable sources is irrelevant, particularly given that
  WP:MOSBEGIN argument is simply without any merit as it applies to the issue of "encyclopedicness"; it's a style guideline, not an inclusion guideline, and in any event the precise language of the lede is arbitrary and can be rewritten if anyone else thinks it's a problem. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Whether an editor finds it credible that reliable sources do or don’t exist is irrelevant—reliable sources (per the criteria specific to list topics) have to be shown, in this discussion, to exist. Neither Fram nor Bluesatellite has proffered reliable sources; having Google hits does not prove or show reliability. Take, for example, Fram’s “Billboard Magazine: 300 Best Selling Albums (Worldwide)”. This is in fact a fake list that floats around on forums; Billboard never published it—it is not a reliable source. That

statistical analysis, not a “routine calculation”. These problems go away if the list is converted to a suitably-named category, “Albums having sold at least 20 million copies worldwide” or, more strictly, “Albums estimated to have sold at least 20 million copies worldwide”. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep  The Steve  11:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:CONSENSUS, your comment does not constitute a useful contribution to the discussion; if you do have a useful contribution to make, it would be very welcome. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Per

WP:AfD, I have nothing further to add to the discussion, and this is merely support for all those other Keep opinions.  The Steve  10:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. I would suggest that this discussion could probably be closed early per
  WP:SNOW.--Michig (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Given that you have so far failed to show any appreciation for, or willingness to discuss, the specifics of this particular discussion (i.e. list-specific notability requirements, the math related aspect of the presentation, or problems with the lead; all helpfully discussed by postdlf), I would respectfully suggest that you leave the discussion to those who have understood the issues raised. If OTOH you believe that you have understood the issues but believe that no discussion is needed because the perceived problems with the article can be attributed to a misinterpretation of policy, it would be helpful to state this and to clarify the intention of the policy in question. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORIGINAL SYN

The consequence of the approach taken by this article to handling this type of information is that it invites the reader to commit original syn. WP itself falls into the trap in this example: “16 of the 72 fiction authors with at least 100 million copies of their works in print did not write in English, and 16 of the 72 are women” (synthesized from a similar article and published on the main page). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully appreciate and understand the notability requirements, the encyclopedic nature of this list and what original research is. You clearly have no understanding of any of these, and this should be clear to you from the fact that other contributors to this discussion with much more experience here than you are unanimously in favour of keeping this list. Your insistence in responding to every other post in this discussion with personal criticism and dismissal of other people's views is also very disruptive and unhelpful towards this discussion.--Michig (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To pick just one of the misrepresentations in the previous comment: “dismissal of other people's views”, or, in more-collegial terms, “presenting an alternative view-point” and “providing evidence to the contrary” is not being disruptive, quite the opposite; it is core to the development a structured argument. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All entries are supported by
  List of best-selling singles worldwide
  and every other "list of" page should be deleted too???

  Basically, each article should be considered on its own merits (see

  WP:N to this effect. As such, there is little in this discussion that comes down to opinion—either the notability sources exist or they don't. The article currently attempts to establish topic notability with the following text “This is a list of the world's best-selling albums” (before going on to define the list inclusion criteria); this is in direct conflict with the guidelines on what list article should look like. A list article (like any other article) should have an engaging lead that establishes topic notability. For example, “Group/set/list of best-selling albums worldwide is/was compiled/measured/something by A^[1], and used/abused/something by B^[2]” might be a template for a suitable lead sentence. The article has been around for a long time, it should be a trivial job for one of its regular editors to concoct a suitably sourced lead; if so, job done, notability established, AFD closed. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No other participant in this AFD has agreed with you that notability has not been established. No admin is going to close an AFD as delete that is unanimously against the nom unless it was a clear BLP violation or copyvio, so it really doesn't matter how much you think your interpretation of these matters is correct if you haven't persuaded anyone else. And one person responding to everyone who disagrees with him in an AFD does not further his argument, particularly if he's completely alone in his position; it just makes him seem tiresome to deal with, tends not to win anyone over, and does not change the outcome. That one person further claiming that they are the only one in the discussion who is properly interpreting policies or guidelines just makes him seem tendentious, and also tends not to win anyone over. This is obviously going to be closed as keep. You should take it as an opportunity to reflect on why your views are out of step with everyone else's here, and think twice before posting another AFD that may also be unanimously against you. Just some observations and constructive criticism based on many years of XFD participation. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  As advised by

  WP:AFD, the debate is not a vote, it's er, a debate, during which arguments can be developed, views can be changed, on all sides. Indeed, things have moved on: Fram has found some very interesting sources and if you look below, you'll see that notability may well have been established. This is great as it allows us to move to the next part of the discussion. Comments on the question below (11:51, 24 January 2011) would be very welcome. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Wrapped in Grey had some criticism of my earlier sources, perhaps valid, perhaps not. Anyway, this time I give you an article from
  Fram (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]