< 6 December	8 December >

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Terrin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aimee Terrin (2nd nomination)

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

This singer still appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Google doesn't turn up anything reliable, and her official website is really just a front page with links to her MySpace profile as well as a link to CDBaby downloads. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per no sources listed, no sources found, fails WP:N, WP:BLP. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any coverage for this artist; appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I can't find anything to indicate notability either. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2009 (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. Secret ^account 17:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponymous streets in Hudson County[edit]

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

This is Listcruft. The contents of this list are not notable, and the links contained in it are not even helpful as a navigation tool. For instance, I don't think anyone is going to use this list as a navigational aid to find the article on Frank Sinatra or George Washington. There are very few other lists of eponymous streets on WP, and the ones that do exist are for only the most major cities on the planet (London and New York were the only ones I could find), not for a random county in New Jersey. Not only that, but the New York and London lists actually link to the articles about the individual streets, as opposed to this article which links only to the articles about the people after which the streets were named. SnottyWong talk 22:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list about a non-notable subject. Why is a list of eponymous streets in Hudson County relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of Hudson County, streets, or eponyms? Them From Space 02:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable list of non-notable streets. Under WP:50k, a city or community has on average one notable street per 50,000 inhabitants. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. unsalvageable in principle, and i did think about it before saying this. might as well create "list of things named after other things in new jersey". this article verges on monty python territory, sorry to say (society for putting things on top of other things).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a keep rationale from the article's creator on this AfD's talk page. Them From Space 05:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is obviously discriminate, as only streets named for people within a single county in the US are eligible for inclusion. Since most of those streets would not qualify for articles of their own (or at most 14 would by the 50K rule) a list is entirely appropriate for containing this information. Finally, naming or renaming a street in honor of an individual is something that is bound to generate coverage. Such political machinations rarely occur without commentary from the press. These topics should clearly pass WP:V and be appropriate under WP:5P as part of our mandate to include topics appropriate to subject-specific encyclopedias, gazetteers, and almanacs. The fact that more of these articles have not yet been written is not an argument for deletion. Article obviously needs cleanup and sourcing, but that should have been worked on by the nominator WP:BEFORE coming here. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 3,141 counties in the United States alone. Would you be ok with 3,141 articles about the eponymous streets in that county? List of eponymous streets in Stark County, North Dakota and List of eponymous streets in Clay County, Arkansas and List of eponymous streets in Fisher County, Texas and on and on and on. Because that's the message you're sending by !voting to keep this article. And let's not stop at U.S. counties, after all, Wikipedia is global. Let's add List of eponymous streets in Eketahuna County, New Zealand and List of eponymous streets in the 11th arrondissement of Paris, France. We could probably double the number of articles in Wikipedia if we started a WikiProject Eponymous Streets. We could just overlook the fact that about 0.001% of the eponymous streets in the world would actually be notable enough for their own article. After all, enormous lists of non-notable information are exactly what WP is all about. SnottyWong talk 18:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with all of those articles. As I stated in my rationale for this article, the naming of a street in honor of a person is a public act by a government that is bound to result in coverage, would be done by legislative action, and would certainly only be done for a notable individual. Since notability has nothing to do with fame, importance, or popularity, I think you have vastly underestimated the number of streets named for notable people, since they have obviously been singled out for this kind of honor through some sort of process that brings these people to the attention of the public to begin with. If the people for whom the streets are named are notable, then a list of these notable street namings is completely appropriate for inclusion. I don't believe that all of the streets are notable enough for articles here, there should be enough information to create a suitable list. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability at all. And ridiculous list. NBeale (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When someone has a street named after them, there is a reason, and it in the local newspapers of the time. So it got coverage, and the person is clearly notable. This isn't just some small hick town in the middle of nowhere, population 34, where the locals couldn't think up names for their streets, so farmer Brown said to name one after him, since he was the only one who lived on that road, and the others agreed. No. The naming of streets in a major city, are done for notable people only. And whether something else exist or not, is not a valid reason to delete an article. Nor is the concern that thousands of other articles might come into an existence now. If someone wants to make an article for the location of every single street in the United States named after Martin Luther King Jr, so be it. Dream Focus 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR to see why that proposal is unencyclopedic and goes against policy. Them From Space 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, no problem. If someone wants to create an article about a notable street, I don't have a problem with that. That's not what this AfD is about. This AfD is about a list of non-notable, indiscriminate information. The vast majority of streets in this list are not notable enough for their own article. This is nearly equivalent to an article about List of streets that start with the letter T in Hudson County.SnottyWong talk 13:18, 12 December 2009 (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 Not an article Speedy keep, non-admin closure ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Current events[edit]

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

bunch of nonsense and non-noticable. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Khalsa Darbar[edit]

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

~~Church with no notability (closest thing to it is a teen being stabbed in its parking lot). Reads like an ad~~ Withdrawn per below (December 8, 22:05) ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Lots of references at this Google News archive search, with controversies such as a dispute over whether Sikh marriages can be performed in a hotel which serves alcohol and meat and a Sikh priest who stayed at the Ontario Khalsa Darbar, defying a deportation order. When you do a Google News archive search, enclose the phrase you are searching on in quotation marks, especially when the phrase is made up of relatively common words. – Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only minor notability. There are sources, and it does exist, but it has no notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. In my opinion, this is a case where the guidelines should be bent a bit. It is a significant establishment for the Sikh community in the Toronto/Mississauga/Brampton area, so my recommendation is more gut-feel driven than guideline driven. That said, the article is badly written and in dire need of a re-write. PK T(alk) 15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A place of worship like countless other places of worship, no doubt significant to those who attend it, as is every other church, temple or synagogue. That does not make it notable and there is no assertion in the article that it is in any way notable (architecture? dimensions? age?). News coverage is about things that happened in the vicinity, not the place itself. Delete Emeraude (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It just needs more one or two references...Rirunmot 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up extensively. There are sources that show notability, so this can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I did it myself. This is one of the largest Sikh temples in Canada, and it attracts tens of thousands of celebrants for major religious festivals. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, while I don't believe the Google news search is a legitimate source to use to claim the quality of "notability", that it is the largest Sikh temple in Canada is enough for it to be notable and for me to withdraw my nomination, and !vote Keep. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:05, 8 December 2009 (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) 11:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plash[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN, sources aren't in the article. If they get added you can invite me to return to this opinion. Miami33139 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also a possible copyvio - the entire article has been cut and pasted from its website. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability at all. NBeale (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USAePay[edit]

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

wp:advert also fails wp:N. Mattg82 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Doesn't read like an advertisement and the company seems to be at least somewhat estabilished, but I can't find evidence of actual notability. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No solid evidence of notability is found Ashwin.sri (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, and obvious advertising, focussed entirely on the benefits this service offers: offers direct processing through its website, integrated processing through shopping carts and custom applications, secure processing through payment forms and payment buttons, recurring billing and customer database, integration support for developers through multiple programming languages APIs, and reseller programs.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability at all. Advertising. NBeale (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florix[edit]

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

The article does not meet the General notability guideline. All attempts to find reliable and independent sources have failed. The creator and main editor's only argument for inclusion thus far seems to be that other non-notable articles exist on Wikipedia, which is not a valid argument for such. This is mentioned on the user's talk page. Brian Reading (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are over 100,000 apps on the iPhone. Wikipedia has an app for non-notables: AfD. Humor aside, this app fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this application. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Looks like advertising. NBeale (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even an indication of notability, no significant coverage. --Aka042 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Austin[edit]

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

Not notable. The subject fails the general notability criterion, the only Google hit relating to her (not other Diane Austins) is a self-published source, no Google news hits, and noting in Google books. Now according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (highlighting relevant criterion): 1: Unable to find evidence of this; Google scholar turns up a few article co-written by Austin, with more being written by another "Diane Austin" 2: Not covered in article, would have showed up on Google 3: Same as above 8: Article says subject has been "instrumental in developing the field of vocal psychotherapy". If this field is still being developed, there wouldn't be any "major well-established journal"s Mm40 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominator. Fails WP:GNG. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her work seems to have had little impact – fails WP:PROF #1. Cannot find any papers in WoS and a vanilla GS search only show results from a notable medical researcher in Wisconsin who coincidentally has the same name. WorldCat shows that her book is not widely held in libraries (only about 70). Google searches for claims on techniques she invented are similarly unimpressive. For example, free associative singing shows top hits that are either from this WP page or from the subject herself, implying there has been little to no "uptake" of this concept by the wider community. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability whatsoever. NBeale (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor academic Vartanza (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion did not result in any consensus whether such a list would have to be deleted. Before this is developed further though, I think both sides here (indirectly) admit that further discussion might be required to determine whether an expansion of the list makes sense. Regards So Why 12:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of country subdivisions[edit]

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

This list is a content fork of multiple existing lists, in an ill-conceived attempt to combine them into a single article. For example, each entry includes a type, the ISO 3166-2 code, the capital, and a flag, thereby duplicating content from articles in Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions, Flags of country subdivisions and its links, Category:ISO 3166, etc. But all of that existing content is broken into per-nation articles for a reason. The current work-in-progress version of this article has about 500 entries, and is 84K long. There are ~4200 ISO 3166-2 entries, so that means a completed version of this page would be about 700K in size. That article size is not viable, and we already have appropriate ways of splitting the content into manageable pieces. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it just say what they are called and how many there are, and link to the article in question? Polarpanda (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be at the existing Table of administrative divisions by country article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it is. I don't think this idea is feasible, so best to delete it before too much time is wasted on it. Polarpanda (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it quick before it multiplies I mean, someone could put every Massachusetts township in this list, much less every US county. I suppose in some sense it's not indiscriminate, but I don't see what the point is of dumping all these (presumably already extant in most cases) lists onto a single page. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It very specifically counts first-order administrative regions. This excludes townships and counties. Many of the lists are not extant. This is a project that highlights state or province templates, articles, or capitals that have been added for some countries but not for others. I would love to break it down better into sub-articles instead of one massive article; any hints how? Table of administrative divisions by country does not contain the names of the subdivisions; it just says that "the US has 50 states", etc. Flags of country subdivisions is incredibly incomplete and not growing as fast. I do not know of a list of subdivision capitals. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 14:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it doesn't say at all what it counts; it gives no statement other than its title as to what is or is not included. Also, while Table of administrative divisions by country does not include the lists, it does link to articles in each case that I've checked thus far that do include lists and (equally importantly) maps. Compressing all of that into one big article (especially considering how huge Table of administrative divisions by country already is: 89,012 bytes as of 1 December) is pointless. Mangoe (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. This content is already present in a couple of hundred articles, and many of these articles are very good, with maps, additional information such as demographics, and larger flag images than useless decorative 22 pixel icons. See States of Brazil for a good example. I would say that Table of administrative divisions by country and Category:Lists of country subdivisions are simply methods of navigation for this WP:Summary style approach to a lot of data. And the table page is an effective way of navigating, as it provides context for the links (e.g. number of divisions for each country) instead of just being a list of links. I would also say that Flags of country subdivisions may be incomplete, but at least it follows summary style conventions by linking to sub-articles (e.g. Flags of Brazilian states), where gallery markup can be used to more effectively display the images. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page also serves to collate each first-order subdivision in an effort to highlight which countries (e.g., 3166-2:MA have only or mostly stubs as articles for their subdivisions. That way we can focus on bringing all of them up to a minimal encyclopaedic standard because, as User:Andrwsc mentions below, they are all notable. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Let it off your chest the past 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the effort that's gone into making sortable tables, but I think that the limitations of sortability will become apparent as it goes on. I'm thinking 200 nations, and let's say an average of 40 provinces/states/counties per nation-- a sortable table with several thousand lines might be beyond the capacity of sorting, I don't know. However, if they have to be broken down into 25 separate tables, I'm not sure that a sortable table is superluous. Mandsford (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think a list by country is enough, together with a list of those lists. If this one were done properly it would be too large, and I do not see an advantage in collocating different groups in different countries with the same first letter in their name. Nor do I see why one might conceivably want to sort, except within those for a particular country. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal Move to List of First-level administrative country subdivision capitals. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 07:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remove all of the flag template tags to avoid template limit and decrease byte counts, making it into only a list of subdivisions (linked) & codes & subdivision capitals (linked), would you folks possibly decide to keep it? Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 09:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2 Temporarily suspend action on this proposed deletion because the admin that started it, User:Andrwsc, engages in Wikipedia:WikiBullying#Making "no-edit" orders in User talk:Thecurran#Flag templates 2.0, ignores simple questions and requests in User talk:Thecurran#Flag templates, thwarts my attempts to trim the article by deleting my reasonable links in Special:DeletedContributions/thecurran, goes so far as to block me in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Thecurran without warning, cf. User talk:thecurran#Blocked, and chooses not to Wikipedia:DISENGAGE#Stay cool in User talk:Andrwsc#If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.. This deeply conflicts with Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and creates an environment that is not conducive with improving the article. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 03:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to give this article a pass because you and Andrwsc got into a scuffle. Its existence is a problem no matter who wrote or originally complained about it. Mangoe (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mangoe originally commented about the size. I already reduced it from ~90 kb to ~50 kb and have plans to further reduce it but these plans have been hampered. I thought I was duly addressing your concern. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 05:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did not occur to me that Thecurran's recent template creations were solely to reduce the size of this page. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case, as he/she is using constructs like ((flag|AR-B|name=Buenos Aires)) instead of the much simpler ((flag|Buenos Aires)). However, saving bytes by using cryptic codes isn't going to solve the problem, as WP:Template limits will come into play well before the page is completed. It is not feasible to transclude several thousand templates onto one page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((flag|AR-B|name=Buenos Aires)) is for the province. ((flag|Buenos Aires)) goes to the distinct federal capital, which is shorter as ((flag|AR-C)). Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3 Should it be decided that the page is to be deleted, please consider moving it to a Wikipedia:Userfication on a subdirectory of my Wikipedia:User page. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 05:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while not perfect, the nominator's rationale - that a complete article will be >700k is not among the criteria for deletion. Perhaps that criteria could be invoked to delete the dozens of ethnic lists like List of Irish Americans, of which by WP criteria of a single drop of Irish blood in an American passport holder gets you in, there's likely 30 to 80 million potential people to be listed, making 4200 look like child's play. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an imprecise analogy. The 4200 potential entries of this list are all certainly notable, whereas I doubt that millions of Irish Americans pass our general notability guidelines, so obviously that list would never reach that size. But let's say that List of Irish Americans did grow to an unwieldy size; what would we do? Of course, it would be split into sub-pages, probably alphabetically (e.g. List of Irish Americans: A etc. per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists)). But that's my point—we already have the ~200 articles that include this content (and much more), in an obvious per-country structure. What we don't need a a superset article that will blow away Wikipedia:Article size guidelines by a wide margin. We don't need this Wikipedia:Content fork of existing articles. My nomination was obviously not to delete the useful content, but to delete this specific page, and there is a difference. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46's point that be[ing] >700k is not among the criteria for deletion is an important one, especially since there are proposals that would cut it significantly. Please address the points raised rather than the analogies used to bolster them. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Let it off your chest the past 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being >700K is not a criteria for deletion, but it is most definitely a criteria for WP:splitting, per WP:Article size. And if you split this article, what do you get? What we already have. I'm looking forward to the logical conclusion of the work-in-progress state of the current article, and at that point in time, the resultant WP:content fork is a reason for deletion. We can delete this now (and save a lot of effort), or delete it later, I don't care. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please try not to use sarcasm here. If you really mean you do not care, then your vote would count as an abstention. According to Wikipedia:Article size#Very long articles,
With some web browsers with certain plug-ins running in certain environments, articles over 400 KB may not render properly or at all.

So non-articles, without sections, that are less than 400 kB (which is quite probable with the near halving I have worked on) should not pose the gargantuan problem you keep referring to. When you say, I doubt that millions of Irish Americans pass our general notability guidelines, so obviously that list would never reach that size, you quite strongly imply that there will never be 4200 or more notable Irish-Americans. I would much rather avoid such statements.Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Let it off your chest the past 16:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read WP:Almanac. This is clearly information you'd find in an almanac, one of the things Wikipedia aims to be. Dream Focus 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the previous discussion. The information already exists in Wikipedia. I am not proposing that we delete clearly encyclopedic (or almanac) information! I am proposing that we delete an unwieldy content fork. Why is this a difficult concept? It's all quite logical: when complete, List of country subdivisions would have to be split up, per WP:Article size guidelines. Ok, how would you do that? Perhaps the most logical way would be to split by country and have a top-level page that directs to each of the per-country pages. Not surprisingly, that's how it is already done. We have Table of administrative divisions by country directing readers to articles such as Regions of France, States and territories of Australia, etc., and most of those are very useful articles with maps, flags, demographics, etc. I don't see any possible way for continued work on the tables within List of country subdivisions to result in anything that is a net positive for the encyclopedia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed drastically reducing the bytes to avoid both template limit and article size and you have not responded. Please desist from using that plank of your argument until you have responded to those proposals. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Let it off your chest the past 00:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose to fit ~4000 entries on one page? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By limiting the table to the official English name and an ISO 3166-2, even possibly excluding the capitals if necessary. If it is impossible to maintain as a sortable table, we can make it a non-sortable table. If that too is impossible, we can split it into the appropriate number of entries per page. 50 is obviously fine or the US one would not work, so it would be more than 50 per page. Wikipedia constantly offers 500 entries per page on things like revision history searches, which hold much more data, links, and option buttons per entry so the upper bound for a table should be well over 500. That means even in the worst case scenario, we would be splitting it into nine pages. Nine pages is a good deal easier to link together than around two hundred disparate ones that are not checked by the same people, right? Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Let it off your chest the past 15:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect This page is 51 kilobytes long. The article isn't that long now. Deleting something because you believe it might want day be too large, makes no sense at all. Deleting it because the information already exist elsewhere, makes sense. Redirect to [Table of administrative divisions by country]. The information should be placed on side pages if not already there. Dream Focus 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an insane article. We already have, or would accept, subpages for each individual country, but why take those useful articles and combine them into one big totally unuseful article, one that would have to be updated each time there was a change, patrolled for vandalism, checked, etc. There are 62 average counties per state in the U.S., take 62 x 50 x 170+ countries (obviously that's an estimate) and you're talking about a huge number of entries shoved into a tiny page, when most of these are already handled elsewhere. Not assuming bad faith, but most of these Keep !votes seem like they just want to argue with the rationale of the nominator. Ask yourself instead whether or not you think this article actually makes the encyclopedia better. I don't. Shadowjams (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list is meant only to encompass first-order country subdivisions such as states or provinces but not counties or parishes. A proposal to move it to a more apt title is posed above. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Let it off your chest the past 15:34, 12 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motorsport Scooters[edit]

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

Fails the primary criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." There are not any independent sources that take Motorsport Scooters as their subject.

The article claims that the subject is well known, but there is no citation to verify this claim. The only two mentions in the media are trivial and incidental:

The subject of this news report is the increase in scooter sales due to the desire to save on gas. Motorsport Scooters is only mentioned as a source for some sales figures. Nothing in the news report gives reason to think that Motorsport Scooters is notable. Also, none of the facts in the article are can be sourced to the MSNBC report.
This news article is basically the same. A single sentence mentions Motorsport Scooters, again as a source for some sales figures. Several other non-notable dealerships are also mentioned in passing in the article. But the subject of the article is the popularity of scooters, not Motorsport Scooters.

If an editor were to sit down and try clean up the Motorsport Scooters article by deleting every statement that can't be verified by an independent reliable source, there would be nothing left but a blank page, with the possible exception of the fact that the dealership supported a charity event, although the charity is not independent -- they received compensation from the subject of the article in exchange for good publicity.

It might be worth considering to delete Motorsport Scooters and create a page Scooter Toy Run, except that has received no coverage either. By the way, the primary author of Motorsport Scooters has been upfront about who they are and I don't believe that there has been any egregious violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Dbratland (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support deletion per explaination above. Prince Waters (talk page) 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading it again, it clearly was not neutral. I took out everything that could be considered biased or opinionated. The main reason for the creation of this page was to discuss there community involvement in the neighborhood of North Park, San Diego. If this is something that should be held off until they become more well known, then I understand completely and it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonMediaAaron (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could combine "Motorsport Scooters" and the "Scooter Toy Run" into one page. MoonMediaAaron (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It wasn't/isn't neutral, but it's also lacking reliable sources to establish notability too. I'll happily withdraw my AFD !vote if you can fix that before the AFD is over. tedder (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the stub templates. When I was learning how to write an article, I read that the subject needed to be notable, so I focused on there community involvement. I think turning it into a stub is a much better fit. And when the "Scooter Toy Run" receives more notoriety, I will create an article for it. MoonMediaAaron (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbing is fantastic, but it needs reliable sources (books/articles about it, for instance). tedder (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Added references to their website. The first reference, is a link to the home page, where the items they sell are made perfectly clear. The second reference is to the "About Us / History" page, written by their in-house content writer, Erik Aker. I developed their website, but they have complete control over the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonMediaAaron (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue remains unresolved: there are no independent sources that establish notability. --Dbratland (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Noticed other companies with Stubs and I thought any company could have one. But again, if that is not the case, then I guess there is nothing I can do. MoonMediaAaron (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, could this be a random website that talks about Motorsport Scooters? MoonMediaAaron (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found an article on Lambretta.net with a picture that has "Alex Cohn" and other dealers from around North America and it says: "The Vegas rally brought about a gathering of some of North America's best known scooter dealers - left to right: Alex MacKenzie of Casa Lambretta USA, Guillermo Alfaro of Lambretta Works, Inc., Barry Gwin of San Francisco Scooter Centre, Gene Meredith of Scooters Originali in New Jersey, Alex Cohn of Motorsport Scooters in San Diego, and Vince Mross of Lambretta Works, Inc." Is this what you are talking about? MoonMediaAaron (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is lambretta.net known for being a reliable source? Please read WP:V and WP:RS to understand what we are looking for. If, for instance, the New York Times wrote an in-depth article about Mtoorsport Scooters, that would help. If they have nontrivial mentions in a few books, that would help. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. tedder (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can find is an article in San Diego City Beat named "2003 Best Of". Located here San Diego City Beat. So I guess Motorsport Scooters does not qualify right now. But they are having there 2nd annual "Scooter Toy Run" on Dec. 13th and should hopefully receive some press coverage. Thank you guys for your help and feedback and I am sorry to waste your time. MoonMediaAaron (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, MoonMediaAaron. If you remind me on my user page, after the AFD closes I can move the article to your personal space so you can continue to work on it (such as at User:MoonMediaAaron/Motorsport Scooters). tedder (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this might be sufficient? KUSI News Video About Motorsport Scooters & Scooter Toy Run 75.60.95.57 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurance W. Marvin[edit]

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

Article about an investor is written like an advertisement for his services, and does not show the subject's notability. I can find no significant coverage of this person except promotional sites (a different Laurence W. Marvin seems to be a well-published historian). Glenfarclas (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominator. COI issues, no notability, cannot find sources. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides being so badly written as needing a complete re-write from scratch, there are no sources to verify that this person is notable. Zero news Ghits. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are not the yellow pages Vartanza (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2009 (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 per WP:CSD#R2 (was redirected to Indian national cricket team but unlikely that anyone would use that name to find that article). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Cricket Team in Bangladesh 2010[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the place to post articles about future events Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I surrender. Another editor redirected the page while I was sorting out Twinkle not posting the AfD properly. No idea how to proceed now. Over to someone who knows! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XPX (file type)[edit]

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

no assertion of notability as a file format Ironholds (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the present article is not notable (the XPX file format). It is possible that the FormNet company and software is notable enough for an article, but I cannot easily assess this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, and article is pretty welll content-free NBeale (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una Healy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was recently listed at AFD and relisted following the debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Una_Healy. However, following this sockpuppet investigation 3 users voting delete have been blocked for being the same person. Accordingly, I no longer believe the first AFD reached a reliable outcome. I do feel that good points were put forward on the delete side so the obvious solution is to restore and relist for further discussion. As this is a procedural listing I take no position on the outcome of this Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Would being a backing singer for Ireland at the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 count as outside notability? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - not that I can see; backup singers are like ponies: not inherently notable in and of themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails notability tests; redirect to her band. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Saturdays are quite an equal band and all five of them sing lead vocals so are all notable IMHO. Readers might in interested in various biographical information about Una Healy (and presumably Mollie King and Vanessa White too) which it would not be appropriate to have in the main article about the group so keep I say. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 09:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's a member of a notable band (charting music, acting credits, etc) and including her personal information in the band article would only make that article harder to read than it needs to be. In this case merging is a bad idea, and she obviously passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC criteria, so deletion isn't appropriate either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems to have done a bit of note outside/before The Saturdays. Won the Glinsk Song Contest twice, and was an All-Ireland swimming champion. Otherwise, as per Smokey and MGM above. Peridon (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. "represented Ireland ... as backing singer" is surely not enough NBeale (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are thousands for news sources for this singer which seem ample to demonstrate notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About 140 - of which this seems to be fairly typical. Do we really need ar artcile about every minor celeb? NBeale (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The media considers her notable enough to mention her whenever possible. And the Wikipedia has no limit space wise, no sense not making it as complete as possible. Dream Focus 16:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She won the Glinsk Song Contest in Ireland twice[1] ("The longest surviving song contest in Ireland",[2] and "the biggest song-writing contest to be held in the country"[3]), and she had already received some coverage as a singer before joining The Saturdays.[4][5][6]. If the article is deleted at least some of her biographical info should be included in The Saturdays. Fences&Windows 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have read the keep arguments and they seem to make her notable enough for her own article. Facha93 (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it does meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons above. I think she's notable enough for an article, as are Vanessa White and Molly King (Kyleofark (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per reasoning above. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is crazy. I expect to find wikipedia pages for individual members of pop groups who have had numerous hit singles. 82.41.218.178 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Saw Una Healy's EP on itunes, has acted in movies, is a famous singer prior to entering the group. No reason for deleting the article. Vanessa White has gained fame as theatre singer/actress, is a prominent singer within the group. Known throughout England before entering the group. Orane (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McCaughey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, I couldn't find any reliable sources on google to back the claims in the article, thus fail WP:V as well, article was kept the first time primarily with faulty rationales, and lack of discussion Delete Secret ^account 19:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:ATHLETE on its own: he is portrayed as an "amateur", which goes against, "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis;" or "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." On another side, Ghits and Gnews hits are extremely lacking, and I can't find any reliable secondary sources which discuss him. Fails both WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Angryapathy (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability whatsoever. NBeale (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amateur racer and not even particularly notable by amateur standards -Drdisque (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tna cross the line[edit]

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

Preview of some new game, no sources. Contested PROD. Favonian (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, and probably WP:GNG as well. Shem (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, the article is almost all crap: the name of the game is wrong (the correct name is "TNA Impact!: Cross the Line"), Midway Games no longer exists and has nothing to do with the game, it's not going to come out this year, it's only coming to the DS and PSP (no console or PC versions). The only confirmed info is that it will be published by SouthPeak Games and will be for the DS and PSP. TJ Spyke 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TJ Spyke 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:CRYSTAL, although when more details are announced for the handheld versions the artice, under the correct name, should be created. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2009 (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. Secret ^account 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nidal al-Hamdani[edit]

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

Marriage sourced to single reference. No evidence of independent notability given, and notability is not inherited.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dynablaster (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added one source for this article, referencing Saddam's four wives/mistresses. Certainly notable in run-up to the war. Pamdhiga (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Sarek and witht he nom. It's at least got to say it in the article, and even doing some work I'm not convinced otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2009 (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 (A7). Non-notable member of a non-notable band. Note that "The Flowers" band this is referred to is a Korean band (which doesn't exist) and not the Chinese band, referenced below. MuZemike 20:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goh Eugene[edit]

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

The article subject does not meet the notability threshold for a stand-alone article as outlined at WP:BAND, not to mention it is an unreferenced BLP. Note that I had originally mistakenly redirected this article to The Flowers, however it would appear that that is not the correct target article.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per criterion A7. I have added the template to the page. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Jones[edit]

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

WP:BLP that doesn't assert notability under any points of WP:BIO, sourced almost exclusively by blogs and self-published bios. The one newspaper article is about the coaching school he started, which ~~is a) a dead link, and b)~~ does not establish notability. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No 'substantial' coverage by independent sources; nowhere near notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in the Selby Times appears to be substantial coverage, and the link works fine for me. – Eastmain (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. With respect, I don't think a puff piece in the local rag of a town of 13,000 people counts as substantial coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as per Mkativerata. College student who (just this year) started a local football coaching club with his dad. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability: one article in local newspaper is not remotely enough NBeale (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment article sounds promotional rather than encyclopedic. Notability is questionable.Cablespy (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be pure vanity/promotion -Drdisque (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patapage[edit]

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

Non-notable software product in beta stage. As far as coverage I was only able to find [7]. This alone is not significant independent coverage. Perhaps in a while there will be notability, but this currently fails WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a promotional article. Looks like most of the coverage is press releases and blogs. Gigs (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously not notable at this time (The software in in beta stage, so it is not currently possible to evaluate whether its original structure will be appreciated by users.) and unambiguous advertising (It takes the interoperability and Ajax-based web development to its extreme.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even attempt to show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2009 (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. Secret ^account 16:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wafa el-Mullah al-Howeish[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Utterly unsourced. "Rumoured to have married Saddam" - but we don't even have a source for the rumour, let alone any verification that the rumour is notable and not some total internet bollocks.

This survived an Afd two years ago which is the only reason I'm not going to speedy this as an unsourced negative BLP.

This should only be kept if: 1) it gets cast iron sourcing 2) the sourcing indicates that the rumour is significant and not just some gossip someone made up and got repeated. Even then, merging somewhere might be good. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unsourced BLP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- should we add Nidal al-Hamdani to this AfD? That has exactly one source, and it isn't enough to establish independent notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No put it separate since this one has survived AfD before. Gigs (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced BLP that even notes that there is no evidence for its single assertion of notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Madre[edit]

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

No mentions of this order, or its parent "Madrism" sect or any other term or "notable people" can be found in Google searches. I suspect a WP:HOAX, but the ((db-hoax)) tag was removed by an editor who felt this hoax was not blatant and required discussion at AfD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probable hoax. Polarpanda (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment This may warrant further research. I do see some source with just a basic google, but what is reliable and what is not? Maybe list at some discussion forum before hasty decision...WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources about this order; no News Ghits at all, and only 10 total Ghits. There is an order of Madre de Dios, but that is not this. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like a hoax, and certainly no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2009 (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations[edit]

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

This highly detailed essay on statistics based on a single source is totally unsuitable material for an encyclopedic article Polargeo (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [Note: ZP5 has eviscerated the article [8] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Delete POV fork of both Global warming and Global warming controversy Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain with comment I created the article after concessional talk on my talk page, where a prior version was speedy deleted. I suspected the AFD serves and agenda that is not in wiki's best interests. The infant article has sufficient primary and secondary source support now added ~~(will add soon)~~. It meets the necessary requirement for relevant material. There are abundant other articles on wiki for which is it may cross reference, yet it takes on the very important Climate Assessment issues. Frankly ~~the~~ an editor with admitted~~s ed with~~ COI disagrees (William M. Connolley], the AFD complainer then drive by tags with no talk, and this AFD is unfounded in fact, the AFD should be dismissed. I request admin oversight for the possibly of disruptive editors who are not assuming good faith in the article. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin, even if I usually don't banter that around a lot. Good faith applies to editors, not to articles. And it is somewhat ironic that you complain about other peoples bad faith while demanding good faith yourself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your oversight. Good faith must certainly apply to WP:FIVE. My concerns are for the articles reasonable existence, without a disrutve AFD. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Hipocrite. The whole thing is largely original research and quite frankly also rather unreadable. It should have been speedied. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with KDP. It's unclear what this article aims to achieve. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article seems to put forth a mostly novel topic. Even if there were citations, the research would still be synthesis of the sources, and unsuitable for Wikipedia. The topic is an interesting one to me, and I'd actually enjoy seeing this work continued, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and should be hosted elsewhere. 18:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigs (talk • contribs)
Delete (preferrably speedy). Gobbledegook, and what can be interpreted looks like OR. The editor who created this does not understand the subject. Note that the same editor recently created Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment with similar themes which was speedied William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Except for rewording Examples of Sources of Uncertainty as Uncertainty Source Examples and adding the section References to point to the source, that article was a verbatim copy of the sidebox at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=103. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, and yet it was deleted (which is to say the issue wasn't the content per se (well, except it was a copyvio), but the appropriateness). The "theme" is the overwhemling importance (in ZP5's eyes) of Bayesian probability, which ZP5 has been pushing elsewhere [9], [10] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, make up your mind, you say my contributes ~~comments~~ are first useless, and then when I try they are POV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

The topic ~~theam~~ is important because wiki climate change articles have neglected it, for reasons I can not seem to find, but for the rash AFD underway. The topic presents a required NPOV, my views are for a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an interesting essay, but any encyclopedic discussion of the uncertainties should be in the articles on the specific reports (e.g. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). I don't see anything useful that can be merged. -Atmoz (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This just isn't an encyclopaedia article. Re-written into more normal English, the article title would be "The characterisation of uncertainty in climate assessment" or "Uncertainty characterisation in climate assessment". On related article in the series on climate assessment might be "Model parameterisation in climate assessment". Another might be "Data processing in climate assessment". Interesting topics, perhaps, but not encyclopaedia articles. The family of "uncertainty characterisation" is even more vast. I don't think we should have articles on "Uncertainty characterisation in population estimates", or economic models, or population viability assessment, or "Uncertainty characterisation in estimates of Wikipedia traffic". I don't think topics like these make for very good encyclopaedia articles.
There's another problem with this article and that is, as William says, it's gobbledegook. It also appears to be OR. In addition, Papa Zulu's response to William's comment sounds to me like the typical justification used for a POVFORK. Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But move it under the user's area until it is expanded a bit. From the list of preceding commentators I see that the gang's all here (a figure of speech). --GoRight (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC removed my peaceful comment [11] Do not remove, this could be considered talk page edit waring. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is known for such antics but of course he whines when others do it to him, [12]. --GoRight (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given his comment was within a few minutes I would have thought edit conflict and browser delay more likely. On the other hand I can understand why his patience is running a bit thin. --BozMo talk 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might, perhaps, move it to User_talk:ZuluPapa5/CAUC. Oh, wait... But what is the difference between "move to user area" and "delete"? And why "until it is expanded"? This article is already easily *long* enough to exist. Unless by "expand" you're referring to something other than length? Comprehensibility, perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William, your insults are not helpful. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Second GoRight, move it to a userspace, get it cleaned up a bit, take on board the considerations of original research and so forth, and move it back to Wikispace once it's finished. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see absolutely no value in userification here, and I think it would only lead to an MfD which would again end in deletion. Gigs (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. Google's only return on this contorted expression is this article: [13]--BozMo talk 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try this [14] for Climate Assessment Uncertainty. Scholar may be better. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it would appear that ZP5 has given up any pretence of serious editing of this article [15]. Can we speedy it now to put it out of its misery? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbledygook!! Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Delete per nom. The article cited in Nature is very interesting, but this does not constitute a Wikipedia article, and there is no evidence of notability of the topic mentioned. Nor does the article say anything much. NBeale (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two keep !voters have suggested moving this to userspace. The whole article is already in Usertalk space at User talk:ZuluPapa5/CAUC including much of the original essay just waiting to return after the AfD. Some of the small bit of information ZP has added during the AfD to try to save the article could have been added to IPCC Fourth Assessment Report as it is very specific to that particular report and not climate assessment uncertainty in general. Polargeo (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a POV fork of both Global warming and Global warming controversy. Also delete userfied version at User talk:ZuluPapa5/CAUC to stop recreation. Verbal chat 12:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I think that's too harsh. As I said, the Nature paper cited is interesting and it is possible that some of the ideas here could be re-used or that more refs will come up. NBeale (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Comment by Article Creator[edit]

A “Good Cause” for deleting this article wasn’t sufficiently established with reasonable objections on the article talk or in this AfD. The article is objectively titled and notable because is crosses areas of climate assessment, applied psychology, and error reduction methods. It is supported with the necessarily relevant primary and secondary sources which give a high degree of confidence for its inclusion. It is likely that this AfD may have been a drive-by incident or some form of project war. Wiki will be better to keep it.

As well, the nominator has edited the article [16] but may have neglected pursuing less aggressive dispute resolution, to allow fair development, before nominating. (Post note: The nominator may have indicated [17] this article is a "content fork". Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article had WP:SNOWBALL chances for survival because its content fits in the middle of an overheated climate change project. There may be editors in the project who are acting as if WP:OWN see [18] and disrupting other project articles space and balance [19] with possible prejudice for stalking content they do not create or that fits their POV [20].

Addressing Concerns

To address the concerns raised in this AfD process, I created a To Do list on the article talk page. I’ve performed over 45 article edits and 30 talk page comments (including ToDos). First, this article cannot be a POV fork: A) because the POV from what is forks was not discussed and B) no other article covers the IPCC guidance methods for climate assessments as like this article does. The article content must stand on its own merits.

Essay style – I restarted the article and included both primary and secondary source support from highly relevant reliable sources.

Wikify – Added other sections, sources, See Also. I am drafting a figure to add.

Cleanup – I corrected my typos and transpositions to the best of my ability.

Expand – When rewritten, the article was expanded. I have other material drafted and there are other relevant and specific sections that can be included.

Disambiguation – This article crosses context with climate change, modeling and psychology. The psychology category was added.

NPOV – I've done my best to keep the article balanced. Difficult to do further without specific comments.

In summary, I’ve improved the article and placed this AfD in a greater context. Given the contention for escalated disputes by long term editors in this project, the AfD reviewer(s) might be cautioned to seek a second opinion before acting. Wiki will be well served to keep this article.

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011[edit]

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

Speculative article that is unreferenced. Violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - although this game is very likely to be produced this article does not have any references, it could all be speculation. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above user is right. While it's almost guaranteed that such a game will happen, no such game has been announced. If the game had been announced, I would support redirecting the game to the series article. Since no such game has been announced, just delete. TJ Spyke 23:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a good chance this game is indeed going to be released, but there isn't enough information as of yet to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TJ Spyke 02:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal balling at it's finest. !! Justa Punk !! 04:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The last line of the article said it all. There is no actual information released, so no good reason to have an article yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been said above already. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing about it and WWE hasn't even annouced the game.--Curtis23 (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV Torso[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Two singles claimed, neither of which has charted. No record label given, indeed no references of any kind. Was tagged for speedy delete; admin declined because two of the three members were in Sound Team, which has its own article - frankly, I don't think that band is notable enough for an article, either. This band simply has no significance that I can find. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just not seeing significant coverage for this band. Sound Team was notable by WP standards, but had poor commercial sales. I don't believe the notability is inherited from a marginally notable band. I of course wouldn't be opposed to a recreation once the band gains steam (they formed in 2008). For now, delete, wait, and see. Angryapathy (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage that isn't local news is [21]. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having members that are part of another notable band is one of the WP:MUSIC music notability criteria. If Sound Team qualifies, then you can't delete this because you don't believe in that rule. Of course, you'd need evidence that those people are actually in the band, but the link Joe Chill listed takes care of that. You only need multiple sources if the sources themselves are the proof of notability per WP:GNG; in this case we're using another one. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:MUSIC only have one part that mentions previous bands (specifically WP:BAND): "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." The artists are neither independantly notable, and have been in only one notable band. Still fails WP:MUSIC. Angryapathy (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MGM's interpretation of WP:MUSIC isn't convincing. Even if it satisfied MUSIC, i think WP:N supersedes it, and this fails that under the local criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Polargeo (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2009 (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. Regardless of the possible meatpuppetry, the clear consensus among established editors is that this person satisfies our inclusion criteria. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corey smith (musician)[edit]

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

Speedied three times previously (twice for A7, once for copyvio). Current iteration provides sources, but the only one that would qualify as a third-party reliable source only suggests some limited local popularity. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep on this one: I have found lots of news sources covering him. Admittedly, all are local papers - but they are local to different regions of the US (Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina), suggesting he is actually rather widely known. I'd generally look for a national reference, but this wealth of geographically disparate state-level stuff is making me lean keep. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His album The Good Life can be viewed on cmt.com. Which is a quite bigger than local popularity —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingGSUeagle (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of Wikipedia’s greatest assets is the fact that it can be constantly updated to provide a higher quality of information. Nominating an article for speedy deletion due to its lack of third party information is an incorrect procedure. This article should be tagged for inadequate citation, after which the author should be given time to find valid sources.NetiGSU (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this isn't a nomination for speedy deletion, just regular boring old deletion. Third party sources should generally be found before creating an article, particularly when the topic's Notability is questionable (See WP:Your first article). The article is nominated for deletion because the nominator has no reason to believe that appropriate sources exist. If an article is deleted, the author still has all the time in the world to find sources. If such sources are found, the article can be recreated with the new sources, and the deleted content can easily be restored by an admin. -Verdatum (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Corey Smith has been featured as a "hot artist" on livenation.com several times and has his own artist page on RollingStone.com. He is clearly more than a local celebrity. GeorgiaSouthernWeehunt (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Corey Smith is a popular country music artist. A simple google search will tell you that. The article is not perfect, I'll admit, but it is still a notable topic. Landonjgsu (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gonzonoir. -0- Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Something odd is going on here. GeorgiaSouthernWeehunt, Landonjgsu, NetiGSU and KingGSUeagle are all studying at Georgia Southern University (as per their user pages). They all joined wikipedia at the same time, and have all edited in the last day or so, having not edited for a good few weeks. I suspect that this may be due to class assignments. WP:MEATPUPPET should be born in mind. Quantpole (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the above, the guy clearly seems notable. In addition to the stuff Gonzonoir found, there is also this [22] from the washington post. Quantpole (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of any potential vote-stacking, the references represent a wide variety of papers, so there is no issue of limited local coverage, and this is topped with a substantial article in the Washington Post where he is the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known musician, I'm surprised the page is this poorly done. I'll try to contribute some cleanup, and I understand the nom based on this page, but it's a keeper. Shadowjams (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I first learned of Corey Smith while in Ecuador back in 2006, so it isnt like he is very obscure. TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shy Guy (flipnote series)[edit]

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

No notability established. Already been speedy deleted once as have the related articles. PROD contested by author. Favonian (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources whatsoever; in trying to make sense of the article, I note that the Flipnote Studio article suggests that this is probably a user-created series, and as such unlikely to be notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is collection of not notable information about a animation series, which is not notable. Armbrust (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Creator has a history of creating articles that are deleted - including this one in a previous incarnation noq (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alisher Jalilov[edit]

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

Did not play a single game in a fully professional league and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Prod template removed by the author without explanation. Geregen2 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify further, somewhat ambiguously, he is listed in the article as belonging to the team "Rubin Kazan II". There is a farm club for Rubin called FC Rubin-2 Kazan which plays in the fully-professional Russian Second Division, but Jalilov does not play for that club. He plays for the reserves team of FC Rubin Kazan. Russian Premier League reserves and youth teams participate in a separate competition specifically for reserve teams which is not a "fully professional league" for the purpose of WP:ATHLETE. Geregen2 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no evidence that this article would pass the general notability guideline and the athlete appears to be a non-notable reserves player. Jogurney (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaber Mohamed El Gazzar[edit]

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

Contested prod. Resume of an academic with questionable notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free CV host. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Autobiography, non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO, unreferenced, resume posting per Wikipedia:NOTLINKEDIN. MuffledThud (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete per A7~~ Delete Muffled has this one pegged perfectly. There are almost no Ghits for this him. Angryapathy (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an A7 case: a bona fide academic with actual academic publications is not really what A7 is for. However, the subject appears to satisfy neither WP:BIO nor WP:PROF. A newly promoted Associate Professor with a rather recent PhD date (2003). I did some google searching but could not find any evidence of citability of his publications. Nothing else in the record indicates notability. Also, as pointed out by others, this does seem to be a WP:AUTO case. Overall, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing obvious shows on GS. The publications he's listed in this autobiographical CV do not seem to be from mainstream peer-reviewed economics journals, so this is likely to be a low h-index case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete in view of above evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wings Across America (WAA-08)[edit]

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

Looks like a neat project, but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature. Also, the article looks entirely too much like a personal web page being used to track the event, rather than an article in an encyclopedia. I had tagged for PROD but the page creator disputed the tag. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, yeah, someone turned this page into a painfully blatant advert for this. On a policy note, I see no independent coverage of this event, so I say delete per WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advert. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. I honestly tried to get the article a little closer to WP:STYLE but gave up about halfway through. It's entirely unsalvagable. Even if it is a notable event, the article should be restarted from scratch. -Verdatum (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software4you[edit]

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

Notability not established - despite the creator and CEO of the company "guaranteeing it". Just seems like advertising to me. noq (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and improve, despite clear WP:COI from CEO of company in creating this article (and removing the Prod). There's a reasonable number of GNEWS hits[23] for this company in the mainstream German-language financial press (Handelsblatt, FinanzNachrichten, Austrian Press Agency, etc.) MuffledThud (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kept the aricle short and sweet for that it is not seen as advertising (what must not be in Wikipedia) and not to create a conflict of interest.

Notability: I understand that I am not the right man to decide on that. However, S4U is active since 15 years and several thousand users in 150 mostly very large organisations are using our solutions. As MuffleThud already mentioned, there are a number of gnews about S4U.

Of course I would be happy if the article would not be deleted. Nevertheless you know the rules and regulations much better than I do.

If I can do anything to improve the article, a little hint would be appreciated.

HDBrinkmann —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unambiguous advertising: a software company that operates in the planning and budgeting market. The company’s mission is to provide technology and turnkey solutions that speeds up and reduces the costs of planning and budgeting processes. More "solution"-speak, all about how this speeds up and reduces costs. I found neither general interest sources, nor any indication of historical or technical importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thinly veiled advert. No assertion of notability. That the product is sold in 150 countries is meaningless considering that anyone anywhere can buy it over the Internet. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's advertising. WP:ARTSPAM. Haakon (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided to judge notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2009 (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 Hebron massacre. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebron massacres[edit]

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

This page violates numerous parts of the disambiguation guidelines. Accordingly I have set up a MOS:DAB-compliant version at Hebron massacre (the correct title for a dab page in this case). Note that the purpose of a dab page is to direct the reader to the correct page, nothing more. Anything contentious or disputed, or where sources differ, should be dealt with in the target article(s) and not on the dab page. This page should simply be deleted. NSH001 (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hebron massacre. Presumably there's no article on the 2002 incident. Josh Parris 14:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Hebron massacre for the reason Josh Parris gives, but move instead of redirect to preserve history (and then clean up to the current version of Hebron massacre) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'd be happy with that (tho' I think losing the history would be no great loss) --NSH001 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A redirect keeps the history intact too and avoids all the trouble moves cause. The new version has too little in common with this anyone to require any attribution. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would leave the history of the one disambiguation page segmented in the histories of two pages. I am unaware of "all the trouble" moves cause, but will be happy to perform the moves and history merges myself, if this is so closed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2009 (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. Secret ^account 16:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teruaki Georges Sumioka[edit]

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

Sumioka "is a philosopher, film theorist (Film Grammar and Media Business), and creator", we're told. "In consequence of Wittgenstein's Language game and Speech act of Ordinary language philosophy, he studied Ontology of Act and Agent of Act from the aspect of Logic against the Epistemology of modern Subjectivism begun by Descartes." Et cetera. Putting aside linguistic oddities in the phrasing, his philosophical endeavor may or may not be impressive -- but none of it is sourced. Or on film: "After Baumgarten, he thinks that beauty is the sensitivitical argument on truth. To explain this, he turned his attention to Diagogue in film instead of Dialogue and found Diactic instead of Plato's Dialectic. This Diagogue exists not only between the persons in a film but also between the filmmaker and the audience, so that the T Grand Structure of film consist of both Diagogues." When I turn my attention to film I tend to see formulaic plots, gruesome dialogue and, if the film is Japanese, formulaic/hammy acting; but I don't claim significance for my insights. If significance is claimed for Sumioka's insights, I want to see some signs of a secondary literature about them. Neither Google Scholar nor Google Books provides such signs. True, I only searched for the man at those two via the roman alphabet; when I look in Japanese, I see stuff by him, retailers' adverts for his books, and bloggery; I see nothing substantive.

Nihonjoe prodded the article but Roundthetwist (the latest in a series of SPAs to have shown interest in this article) added a source for one claim in it; I inferred a rejection of the notion that the subject wasn't notable and therefore removed the prod notice.

We have reliable sources to back up the claims that Sumioka has worked, or is working, here and there. These claims are by themselves not of interest. What does he do when he works? No reliable, independent source yet adduced says anything about his insights, let alone that they have had much effect on anyone other than Sumioka himself. So what might be notable is not referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, only as academic I found them at once in google.

--Roundthetwist (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, and I see that you have already started to add more sources to the article. I wonder, though, if there are independent sources for (e.g. discussions or at least mentions by other scholars of) his theoretical insights. -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nominator. Non-notable. I couldn't find any reliable source. Oda Mari (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a basic propaganda piece, original research, advertisement, and rife with information from primary sources only. This also appears to be a spam campaign across multiple Wikipedia projects. I can find nothing which verifies notability per WP:BIO. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone enlighten us as to the contents of the sources? I don't speak or read Japanese. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list above:

https://qir.kyushu-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2324/10324/7/05_chapter2.pdf
- Chapter 2 of an identified book. It cites "Sumioka 2005" at one point.
https://qir.kyushu-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2324/10324/1/11_appendix1.pdf
- Bibliography of this same book, identifying "Sumioka 2005".
http://www2.meijo.ac.jp/kato/2008/ok2008_films.htm
- Course description by another teacher, in which he lists this book by Sumioka as one to which he'll refer.
http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~takamasa/subsemi/index.files/odoru2.pdf
- What appears to be a PDF derivative of a Powerpoint or similar presentation. At the end, this lists this book by Sumioka among its sources.
http://vision.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp/japanese/happyou/pdf/Kuroda_2009_P_241.pdf
- Sumioka is cited as the authority for the assertion that 映画と同じようにそれを見ている者に作り手が伝えたいことを伝えるということで共通しているお笑いについて考える．お笑いにおいては「フリ」と「オチ」が存在する．(I regret to say that the meaning of this statement eludes me.)
http://www.meiji.ac.jp/isc/syllabus/bodies/yoro-g.html
- Somebody's course description. A different book by Sumioka is one of the nine sources he says he'll refer to in his twelfth lecture.
http://www4.kokugakuin.ac.jp/syllabus2009.nsf/1dffb8e30522fa7e49256e5d0007b791/ce3ba680964a9bf14925757d0012c4c9?OpenDocument
- Another course description. This second book by Sumioka is listed as one of the 18 he'll refer to.

-- Hoary (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC) revised 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you cannot see is the very story on "Diagogue" and the "T Grand Structure" that you have deleted.--Roundthetwist (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you are talking about. What "story on 'Diagogue' and the 'T Grand Structure'" have I, or has anyone, deleted? Or do you mean the Wikipedia articles on "Diactic", "Spiral Up Structure", "Action line" and "Multicoverage" that were deleted as a result of this "AfD"? (English-language Wikipedia has never had an article on "T Grand Structure", although thanks to Janine Garnier the notion and Sumioka do get a mention within the convoluted article Implied author.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be little of substance. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any evidence of notability. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As well as an article without source, any opinion without evidence is nothing in Wikipedia. Now, reliable sources are fulfiled. Then, without prejudice, check WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Enough, so we have to KEEP IT by the guideline. That is all.--Gunpowderrice (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome, new editor. My opinion is that no evidence has been adduced for any claim made in the article for more than humdrum notability. This claim of mine itself has no evidence, but of its nature it need not and indeed cannot have evidence; on the other hand, it could easily be refuted if evidence existed. Now, which of the nine criteria of WP:PROF does Sumioka meet? (Please don't say that as a 教授 he has met criterion 6: a typical Japanese university has hundreds of 教授.) And which of the five criteria of WP:AUTHOR does he meet? -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2009 (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. Withdrawn, borderline WP:SNOW. tedder (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Falls Independent School District[edit]

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

Non-notability. I am an alumnus of this school district and have occasionally attempted to revise the article so that it might live up to the standards of Wikipedia, but in all honesty it does not. There are two semi-famous alumnus of this school district John Arthur Martinez and Leonel Manzano but neither of them provide enough justification for keeping this article around. Theturtlehermit (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Theturtlehermit (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - long consensus is that school districts are notable. School districts are government bodies and a convenient repository for information for schools who are not separately notable. I would add that Highland Lakes Elementary as a Blue Ribbon school arguably justifies its own page as does the high school program. TerriersFan (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment, two of the articles three sources are dead links (I'll be marking them as such shortly) and the third is a list of schools that on the 35th page (out of 42) says Highland Lakes Elementary, Granite Shoals, 2004. No mention of the school district other than the known connection between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theturtlehermit (talk • contribs) 13:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the links. TerriersFan (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though we don't appear to have a formal policy governing this (at least that I could find), the current consensus seems to be that secondary schools and districts are inherently notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per TerriersFan. School districts generally have a good deal written about them- they show up in government lists, they have graduation/attendance data, and so on. It's a pretty safe bet this one does. tedder (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education.--Milowent (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education as noted by User:Milowent. The clear on ongoing consensus here has been that school districts, as local governmental organizations, are notable. Likewise, marginally notable schools (especially middle and elementary schools) are almost always merged into such articles. Deletion would create a difficult and dangerous precedent. In any case, having notable alumni is acttually one way to prove a school is notable! Bearian (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split If a school isn't notable, there's usually no references, hence no verifiable information to be merged. If it is notable, it doesn't need to be merged. Also, while having notable alumni is a good reason to include a school, the district didn't do anything to produce that notable alumnus, you can't use that to make it notable by association. I'd much rather see school information merged to cities and towns than some school district no one really knows about. All this information can be put in appropriate articles regarding cities, towns and counties without adding another layer of bureaucracy. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concede I was unaware of the standing policy regarding school districts (part of the reason I listed this article a a part of WPSchools before creating this AfD). Based on that and the other points brought up in this discussion I concede the argument. Would an appropriate admin please close this AfD? Thank you, TTH Theturtlehermit (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S.o.r losers tv[edit]

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

While a TV show based on the book of a succesful children's author might be a good topic, this article isn't suitable for the job. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. I can find no evidence that this show exists. Sarilox (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indications whatsoever that this is notable, regardless of whether or not it exists. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The book exists, the author exists, but could find no evidence that the TV show exists. The article certainly provides none. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life(film)[edit]

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

(Please don't move it to fix the title, there's already another film at the proper name) Main actor and film title didn't pop up any IMDB links or any other Google hits you'd expect from a movie. Unverifiable. Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I had no luck with googling 'life movie ccr' Polarpanda (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Movie isn't even out yet, article can be recreated once we have a source Pirate^Argh!!1! 11:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete movie hasn't released per WP:NFF guidelines. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't think of an applicable speedy deletion criterion, but I wish I could. No sources have been provided. Every single person listed as being involved with this article is a redlink, except for the writer/director/producer whose name is a three-letter acronym linked to a disambiguation page with no clear referent for him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NFF. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 23:20, 9 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion & The Sail[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Lion & The Sail

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

meets none of wp:music, coudln't find any refs, good looking article though Pirate^Argh!!1! 10:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find any reliable independent sources. Polarpanda (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I hate it when band articles look really neat but aren't notable in the slightest. According to the article they have an independent release in 2010, which suggests they won't be able to satisfy our notability criteria, at least not in the near future. SMC (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find any coverage from independent, reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 00:25, 8 December 2009 (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 List of characters in VR Troopers. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grimlord[edit]

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

I don't think this character warrants his own unsourced article; there is already List of characters in VR Troopers. Some guy (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to character list. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2009 (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. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim J. Henriksen[edit]

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

No real notability claimed for this person. PROD removed, but the only non-primary source is a passing mention and since both the band and the Esperanto society are redlinks, there's nothing really here for WP:BIO. Black Kite 07:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kim Henriksen is a pioneering musician in the Esperanto world, part of two of the major bands. There's not a lot of rock-music literature in the Esperanto world, but I'm sure there's something out there. -- Yekrats (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs to cite more sources, but I know from my general knowledge of the Esperanto movement that Kim Henriksen is about as famous and notable within the world of Esperanto rock music as several filkers and filk groups we have articles on are within the world of filk. I'll ask around among people more knowledgeable about Esperanto music than I am and see what I can come up with in the way of more sources to cite. --Jim Henry (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kim and his bands are known to most, if not all, of the 2 million Esperantists on the planet. It's easier to find an Esperantist who has never heard of Lydia Zamenhof than Esperanto Desperado, and so I don't think deletion is appropriate in this case. Kavaliro (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC) — Kavaliro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: I have now more than doubled the size of the article in an attempt to demonstrate notability, as kindly requested by Black Kite and Dædalus, by citing the book by Arika Okrent, an independent linguist interested in constructed/planned languages. A discussion of Henrikson marks both her point of departure and the conclusion of her chapter on Esperanto. It appears that his musical contributions are highly significant to the international Esperanto culture at least. Objectivesea (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kim Henriksen and his bands are well-known and important to Esperantists of many nationalities. Ailanto (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuff Truck Bag[edit]

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

I have speedied a previous article on this title as G11 in the past, and it has come back in a new form. It still absolutely lacks notability, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by not speedying it again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article, or on the web, suggests this product is remotely notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Devils advocate, but tf this is deleted then then why keep the entry for Chia Pet. --Dozi0509 (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you serious? There's any of coverage for Chia Pet. Joe Chill (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. by clear consensus. BLP1E is not so important a consideration as ONEEVENT and NOTNEWS. Yes, it has had press mention, but the point of NOTNEWS is that "not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

surely WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies here. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless trivia. There is a mention of the name on Given name - the mention there is justifiable but could use some more context. Beyond that it does not warrant its own page. Keep. While I agree with what I say, there was a clear consensus for keep in the earlier nomination. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me, but I laughed out loud when I read this: "While I agree with what I say[...]" -- I should hope you do! JBsupreme (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly do agree with what I say - hence my revert back to 'delete' in light of the clear consensus that has emerged below! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I applaud you for standing behind your beliefs and principles. It is not always an easy thing to do. JBsupreme (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, I do not think this article is notable enough to stand on its own. Given name seems the most appropriate place for this. ArcAngel (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E certainly applies here. If that wasn't enough, I'm pretty sure the event of her naming wouldn't pass WP:EVENT. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The mention in Given name is in desperate need of context and if this can't stand on its own, it can definitely be included in an article about naming laws. WP:BLP1E says we shouldn't have articles about certain people to avoid undue weight, but it doesn't preclude mentioning them completely. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly not pointless trivia, this article needs a bit of wikilove that's all. Please do not delete.Tris2000 (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote does not address the proposed reason for deletion at all. Nobody asserted that it was pointless trivia. Its also not Original Research, Coatracking, or a Chesterfield sofa. That doesn't change what it is, which is a BLP1E issue. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, sorry if I wasn't clear but the reason why I said that it wasn't pointless trivia was because I was referring to something said earlier by Mkativerata, which she has since put a line through. But to tackle the proposed reasons, WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, I have to disagree and I will explain. First of all, with regards WP:NOTNEWS, it has been covered in major World media, from the Telegraph and the Independent in the UK (quality broadsheet media), to the Daily Mirror, to the BBC, to Pravda in Russia, to papers in Poland and the States (Chicago Sun-Times to name one). And of course it has been mentioned many times in Scandinavian newspapers. It has been mentioned over 12 years in the press. See these Google News links if you don't believe me. So, I say this is certainly NEWS. Now for ONEEVENT, well yes the fact that he was named once or was born once or whatever it is you are saying, of course, but because this happened in 1996, the story is being repeated again and again in future. Recently a Swedish couple tried to name their son "Q", "Metallica", "Ikea Lego", etc etc and each time Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 has been brought up in the media (because Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 was one of the first). So he set a precedent in some way. You could say that any of the hundreds of court cases listed on Wikipedia eg List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases are also ONEEVENT which they are, but if they are used and quoted subsequently when similar cases come to court or to the public eye, then it is much more notable and deserves an article of its own. So I vote, strongly, for keep. --Tris2000 (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all due respect to "Brfxxy", there's nothing here that can't be mentioned in List of unusual personal names. I can't see a merge, since this is one of the most unlikely search terms imaginable. If someone wants to make an article about laws in Sweden about registration and approval of names, that would certainly be welcome. The article exists only because someone can't figure out where else to put this information. Mandsford (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant analysis of this unusual name. Most everything on Google appears to be commentary on our article, which isn't independent coverage. Coverage on Google News is just that, news. The prior AfD was in 2006 and contained poor arguments all around. A redirect to List of unusual personal names might be fitting, even though that list has problems of its own. Them From Space 21:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Covers the intended name, not the person. BLP1E doesn't apply. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP applies to all articles that have substantial biographical information about living individuals. This article is substantially about the boy and his parents, so the entire BLP policy, including BLP1E, applies. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ONEEVENT most certainly does apply. I think this was kept in the past because Wikipedia editors thought it was "cute" and liked to see it grace the pages of WP:UA. Thankfully our policies are beginning to catch up to common sense so we can finally get rid of cruft such as this. JBsupreme (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's presence on WP:UA itself gave it more notability, as it is mentioned in this context in USA TODAY here! See my comments above why I vote for this to be kept. Tris2000 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing it on Wikipedia's list of unusual articles does not make it more notable. If anything, we can move it to WP:DAFT. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but do see my long comment above and my reasons for keeping. This really should not be deleted, IMO. --Tris2000 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mandsford says it all for me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If true, I think this article should be kept, especially for those in research. What some deem as trivia could be helpful in studies elsewhere. Case studies are especially significant for inductive research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsrocks (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per BLP1E. WuhWuzDat 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, to answer the BLP1E reason directly, this article simply fails to qualify for said criteria. The article is clearly about the name itself, which necessarily deals with the people involved in the naming of the child. The fact that this involves people does not in and of itself make the article a biography though. Biographies maintain their primary focus on the person involved, whereas this is about a name and the events surrounding the creation of it. Anyway, I think that it's instructive to look at what links here for the article, as well. The content, the links provided in the article, and what other articles link to it, clearly suggest that there is a larger, non-biographical topic here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Group[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CORP -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rather weakly. Google News archives show a fairly long and substantial corporate history for this. You will have to dig fairly deeply past results relating to Flint, Michigan and routine announcements of product lines, acquisitions, and trade show appearances; but it appears that this business supplies technologies used in banknote printing as well as labelling. That's a connection with public affairs that makes them borderline notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Searching for "Flint Ink" instead of "Flint Group" gives better results for ascertaining their notability. This story suggests involvement in a technical breakthrough that will be visible to consumers. This story calls them the 2d largest maker of printing ink in the world. Books results go back to 1941. I've no idea why these businesses give themselves vaguer names that distract from their core businesses, but it does make searching for sources harder. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Delete I see no independant, non-trivial coverage by secondary sources for this topic. Angryapathy (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article certainly could use some cleanup but the stories linked above establish this company as notable. As noted above, there is quite a bit of coverage but it takes work to winnow through to find the reliable soruces. Another example is this article from The Hindu. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The search results for "Flint Ink" show clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several searches under some other varieties shows lots of important news stories, e.g., this from Bloomberg. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (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 Australian rules football in Canada. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Deer Magpies[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable Australian Rules Football team in Canada (that very combination would suggest non-notability). There are very few google hits, and none that would remotely suggest this team meets the (very generous) notability standards for sporting teams. Mkativerata (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not entirely familiar with notability for sporting teams - is it the same as WP:ATHLETE? I can't find it, though I'm sure I've seen it somewhere.. anyway, despite my Wiki absent-mindedness, I was able to locate this, this and this via Google News. No idea if this helps or hinders a case for deletion; I'd have to review it in relation to the specific guidelines (if I can find them...*goes notability hunting*). SMC (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as while useful, the above news articles aren't helpful in showing notability. For the most part, they're just a report on various admin matters. SMC (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, changed from delete, as while my argument above still stands, The-Pope's suggestion fits even better - it's a perfectly reasonable search term. SMC (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian rules football in Canada.The-Pope (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2009 (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 Jeffrey L. Fisher. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff L. Fisher[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Lacks GHITs of substance and with zero GNEWS. Article references are to primary sources and external links are largely to primary sources or video sales sites. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm having similar problems finding 3rd party reliable sources covering this person. Lots of material on the name without the middle initial but that is an NFL coach, not this person. RadioFan (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeffrey L. Fisher, which is a plausible target. I can't find significant coverage for this one. Tim Song (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2009 (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. So Why 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic, Inc. (organization)[edit]

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

Non-notable organization dedicated to non-notable redlinked "philosophy"; no substantial coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 05:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are presently two non-primary source references to the subject of the article. Both non-primary source references cover the subject in depth. It is my current opinion that there are insufficient references presently on article, to verify notability, to include WP:ORG. If article is improved I am willing to reevaluate my opinion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unorganized, not enough references, not known well enough, and if it is it needs more references it back it up. House1090 (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (statement by creator) In my view its notability is marginal on the side of meeting the standard. There are multiple mentions in local media, including the 2 articles used as refs, an additional article in Palo Alto Weekly in August 2003 that I have not been able to access, and numerous news references to tree planting, traffic mediation, and receipt of national and county recognition. The members publish and speak at conferences; there is some national and international mention of it as a result. In the interests of neutral tone, I initially left out mention of awards received but have put that in since the article was nominated for deletion; similarly I have added other material after initially putting in only what I felt was necessary without undue weight. I don't think this is a major, major group or philosophy. I will continue to search for mentions in larger newspapers, but there is a problem of lack of records for earlier years and also the San Jose Mercury News paywall. Another issue is obviously that the name generates considerable noise in Google searches (hits for General Magic, Inc. are hard to filter out, and Magic, Inc. is often referred to simply as Magic). A better idea of coverage is gained by searching for Schrom's name together with Magic; I have not as yet searched as thoroughly under other names mentioned as members, but suspect other coverage will come up in such searches. I think a problem with establishing notability in the case of groups like this is that working for sustainable living and the realization of human potential entails a focus on the local, but I see national recognition of this group's principles and emulation of their practice among those with similar concerns. . . . And that's why I thought it merited an article and wrote it up. I have been having trouble documenting the awards, largely for the same reason of lack of online listing of earlier years, and will continue working on that and on news searches. In the meantime, absent strong documentation of the awards I don't think the article is ready for dividing into sections, but if you think it's disorganized, please feel free to move things around and section them to make it clearer. . . . On Valuescience, I'm being scrupulous and not simply linking inline to Value Science, and philosophy is not an expertise of mine, but my suspicion is that they are fundamentally the same, so I have added a "See also." If they are the same, Valuescience is not non-notable, and it seems a strong point in its favor that Stanford has had a course in it for 30 years. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been looking at the references provided:

Stett Holbrook, "Magic vs. Illusion," Metro Silicon Valley

I'm puzzled. Stett Holbrook is "the food editor and restaurant critic for Metro Silicon Valley - why is he covering this subject? I'm guessing that he is connected with the group, as all his other stories at MSV are food- and restaurant-related. If this is the case, this is not "independent coverage" as required by WP:NOTABILITY

Magic Website - obviously not an independent source of information
Joshua Fried, "A Different Path: In the heart of Palo Alto, a Group called Magic Lives and Works Cooperatively," Stanford Magazine, January-February 2004

This is the Stanford Alumni magazine. Joshua Fried appears to be a freelance journalist. I do not know if this magazine is counted as a reliable source or not, so I can't comment further

A 2003 profile, Grace Rauh, "A Magical World: Cooperative House an Island in a Chaotic World," Palo Alto Online, July 30, 2003, refers to approximately $70,000 a year in cash, roughly half donations and half payments for services, and in-kind gifts of roughly $50,000.

This looks good to me, as it is from Palo Alto Weekly, a community newspaper.

See also David Schrom, "Can We Use Science to Know Our Ends?" (pdf), Letters to the Editor, BioScience 54.4 (April 2004)

This is a letter, written by one of Magic's staff - not independent

Stanford University's page on the campus oaks refers to Magic's survey and planting activities.

A one-sentence mention - not "significant coverage"

At the moment, I'm not totally convinced that the organisation is notable enough for inclusion, but I'm going to think about it for another couple of days before weighing in with my opinion. Incidently, Yngvadottir, are you involved with the organisation yourself? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. I only learned about it from the Holbrook article. Metro Silicon Valley is another community newspaper - based in San Jose, and thus less involved in goings on in Palo Alto than Palo Alto Weekly. (They also have a tradition of investigative journalism that Palo Alto Weekly does not, so far as I am aware. I would love to use the 5-page Palo Alto Weekly profile, but so far as I can see it's unobtainable. I only see it mentioned in an annual report by the group itself.) As to Holbrook's qualifications - since the economic downturn began, Metro has had cover stories by all its writers (it may have happened before then but I have only noticed it since then and suspect cost-cutting is a factor). They have editors, and people have more than one interest; I don't see that as a reason to discount the article as a source. Similarly, Stanford Magazine goes out to alumni worldwide and is not utterly parochial, although I know nothing about Fried and he didn't have to walk far to cover the group. I originally kept the article lean and used the two long sources to establish notability on the basis of more than one feature in an independent, reliable publication plus some national respect (it seems to me Stanford's academic reputation counts for something in allowing the Valuescience course). Since it was challenged, I have added sources to establish that it is mentioned with some frequency in the region (one way of establishing notability) and that it has respect from the national/international community in its field(s) - that's why I added the publications by members. The letter to the editor is there as an additional explanation of Valuescience. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - I just thought of the fact that I have seen Holbrook and others at Metro make the standard "full disclosure" required by journalistic ethics when they write about a company in which they have an interest or people with whom they have a connection. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Holbrook - I didn't discount his report, I just mentioned that I thought it was strange that their restaurant/food critic covered this story, as it was so far away from his usual 'beat' as it were! I am still undecided, and will consider this a bit more tomorrow, and then come back and make my !vote. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The Metro Silicon Valley (Holbrook) and Palo Alto Weekly (Rauh) primarily, but with a bit of help from the Stanford Alumni (Fried) to scrape by on general notability. I'd still like to see if Valuescience is the same Value science, because right now its lean on publications which I'd expect to see on topics so closely tied with Universities. -Optigan13 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently sufficiently notable, though it needs a little trimming to avoid a promotional self-important tone. After a quick read of the article, my prejudices were very much against it, but then I examined the actual references, or at least those that were online. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I feel that the coverage at the Metro Silicon Valley and the Palo Alto Weekly meet the requirements for significant coverage, as both of these newspapers had an article about the organisation rather than just a brief mention. The article requires a bit of tidying up for tone, but the organisation meets WP:ORG - my 'weak' support is because of the phrase in that guideline that says On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability - however, my gut instinct is that this meets the requirements. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:09, 15 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing crusaders[edit]

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

Article is about an apparently non-notable Semiprofessional sports team. There is no readily apparent in-depth, reliable sources about this team. A sports team having a winning record is not in-and-of itself a measure of notability; my church softball team is pretty darned good, but it doesn't merit an article at Wikipedia. I suppose it is possible for a semipro football team to demonstrate notability, but this one seems to lack the sort of indepth, reliable sources mandated by guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, so should probably be deleted. Jayron32 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our charitably elastic standards for sports notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 google news hits [24] If it's semi-pro there must have been some coverage of the events it won, surely. Polarpanda (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. Semipro sports in the United States are often not covered by mainstream media. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails sports notability guidelines ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Riddled in WP:peacock terms, probably to try and bolster notability, (eg. "are one of the all time winningest teams in the midwest" "one of the greatest teams ever") Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:51, 7 December 2009 (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 userfied. We must assume that this is a confused new user. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 09:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony vierneza[edit]

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

This article is a biography of a teenager who supposedly owns five resorts and has won some sort of award. Notability is asserted, but this seems like a hoax. It looks like a WP:COI, and it fails WP:V. PROD removed by article's creator. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3, blatant hoax vandalism. --Jayron32 05:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a hoax, but I'm not sure. That's why erred on the side of caution and went with PROD and now AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy userfy to User:Anthonyvierneza. If the article creator wants to write this sort of thing about himself, he should be allowed to do so on his own user page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe so, but he obviously didn't want to do so on his userpage; he wanted an article. I oppose userfying. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious to me that the user wouldn't want this information on his userpage. He only registered yesterday; perhaps he isn't familiar with userpages yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - To the creater's page. Even if he doesn't want it there, he can always request a speedy deletion, per WP:G7 or WP:U1. Failing that, speedy delete it as a hoax, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Legend in his own lunch-box. Self promo page of non-notable, owning something doesn't presume notability. No verification and found nothing close to WP:RS. Also oppose userfication, admins need not run a babysitting service. If user want to create a userpage and contribute to the greater good of the encyclopaedia then user should do so - there is enough information on user's page to ask for help should s/he require it.--ClubOranje^T 07:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Author repeatedly removes AfD notice despite warnings, possibly will do so again as re-incarnation--ClubOranje^T 09:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Secret ^account 17:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-onym[edit]

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

Article is a dictionary entry on -onym but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Articles are supposed to be about an underlying meaning, not the words; this article is just about words.
Article name violates WP:Naming conventions, article names are supposed to be noun terms (sometimes verbs).
This article covers 4 distinct different types of -onyms; articles are supposed to be on a single meaning.
The article duplicates the scope of the Wiktionary; the wiktionary specifically covers suffixes; the wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Most of the article is a list of words, which are collapsed. The wiktionary article is easier to use, and if you want to know what a word means you only have to click on it (same number of clicks) and Wiktionary actually defines the words properly. Wikipedia has a deletion guideline that prohibits lists of words Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Tips_on_dealing_with_other_material anyway.
The article is a poor navigation tool; the statistics show about 50 hits a day, which is very low, some of the actual articles get a thousand hits a day (e.g. backronym).
Article has not done enough to be encyclopedic; it's just a definition of what -onyms are and a dictionariac list of onyms; the wiktionary does that, and is where several hundred different suffixes may be found (including -onyms).

Given the deficiencies, I'm recommending Transwiki to wiktionary. - Wolfkeeper 04:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the event of transwiking, suggest creating Soft Redirect to Wiktionary via ((wi)) --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is not merely a dictionary, but this one has information beyond merely a raw definition, and so contains encyclopedic information about it beyond merely the definition. The information here goes FAR beyond what is normally in a Wiktionary definition. It is perfectly valid to have an encylopedia article on a word, and as such, I don't see the eminent need to delete this one. --Jayron32 05:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of words are we going to have all the words beginning with 'a' as well- 'asynchronous' 'atypical' etc. etc. I find absolutely nothing that cannot go into wiktionary, or isn't already in wiktionary; it's clumsy dictionary article, in the wrong place. It's of no use where it is. Any effort here is better spent on the dictionary entry in Wiktionary.- Wolfkeeper 05:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the "list" part of the article is inappropriate, then feel free to remove that part from the article. Deletion is not a valid cleanup method, and I think this article has the potential to be improved. That it is not perfect today is not a deletion concern. There are good references at the bottom which could be used to expand it to a quality article about this suffix. --Jayron32 05:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references all point to dictionaries or similar word-list based products. The article didn't come from anywhere that wasn't dictionary-like and it doesn't seem to me that the article has anywhere to go that isn't dictionary-like either. This is inherently a dictionary topic.- Wolfkeeper 06:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see nonarguments and arguments to improve it, not to delete (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:NOBODYREADSIT, etc.). I already pointed out when reverting the nom's blanking of the article that it was not a dicdef (a dicdef is a definition only, and this is not only a definition), it is more in the nature of a list and navigational tool. Wikipedia has lists and glossaries and indexes, including ones on suffixes and other [[[affixes]]. I'd favor renaming and/or reformatting the page and making sure it's linked from all articles from -onym words. WP:DICDEF is being followed rather slavishly here, and yet it's not even being read in its entirety, e.g. "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few synonymous or otherwise highly related terms)." I'd say all -onym words are highly related! Or, to view it as one topic, that topic is -onym words, not just the suffix -onym itself. Or think of it as an article about the suffix -onym with a lot of see alsos. Шизомби (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is for example, pseudonym (somebodies pen-name) and anachronym (an acronym nobody currently knows) highly related???? These are not materially related other than lexically (i.e. they have the same ending). Big deal. Plenty of words have the same ending. I repeat, are we supposed to have articles on all suffixes, because that's not my idea of an encyclopedia. What makes this ending so special?- Wolfkeeper 06:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article is more than a dicdef in the lede, by the list, and by the references - there are articles and even books on the topic. I might ask, what makes it so offensive? (Most people find a single question mark to suffice, and multiple ones to be bad etiquette.) Yes, -onym words are related for precisely the reason you stated that they share a suffix (at least that reason, but not limited to it: they are also types of words and names), hence even one question mark was seemingly unnecessary. The slippery slope argument about hypothetical articles that could be created strikes me as irrelevant as the article under discussion is this one. Though if you want to extend it to existing articles like List of phobias and so on, you could do that; we could discuss that. But if you indeed want to talk hypotheticals, then yes, conceivably there could be an A- (prefix) since Wikipedia is not paper. I suspect that such an article would be of less use because of a much larger number of words and less relation between them. The affordance of lists, and categories, and glossaries, and indexes, and templates, and wikilinks and so on is that we assume that readers may be interested in things that are related, that navigation is highly prized, and that readers are potentially interested in learning about things they didn't originally come here to look at ("Random article" in particular recognizes this, I think). Could somebody interested in a particular -onym word actually be looking for another one that fits their needs better? Or know they want a -onym word but have forgotten how it began? Or might they want to learn one they've never heard of, about a topic they didn't think of? One could do intitle:*onym, but that is perhaps more complicated than the average user would be willing to take the time to learn, particularly the forgetful reader. (It would also be no use in search for "A-" (not) words because there wouldn't seem to be a way to create a search that would differentiate them from words where the A is just a letter and not a prefix.) It's rather arcane, like many things on wikipedia for that matter (like my not remembering here how to wikilink categories without adding the page the wikilink is in). That an electronic reference should offer less navigability than a printed reference which groups -onym words is an odd notion. Leaving it to Wiktionary to have would mean a reader would have to go from here to the list there and back again. I don't think it's common for visitors to do that, or necessary to require that they should, if what they are interested in is encyclopedia articles about words ending in -onym and not dictionary definitions. Шизомби (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we do have Privative a, although it only contains five examples :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a really good example of how these kinds of articles should be. It covers several different languages, and doesn't try to list every single example. In my view that particular article is quite acceptable. Basically, if it's got an official name like 'privative a', then it's a perfectly reasonable candidate for an article; but most of the other suffixes and prefixes should be redirects to wiktionary.- Wolfkeeper 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the problem with -onym? if it's just the list, we shouldn't be discussing deletion of the article, but just of the list. Coverage of other languages can be added easily, I'll do it tomorrow some time. And the 'official name' of 'privative a' is due to the fact that Ancient Greek had three distinct prefixes a-, and they needed names to avoid confusion. What has that got to do with notability? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! You're talking about people looking up words in the wikipedia. That's what a dictionary is for.

Because of this difference, general encyclopedias (as opposed to specialist encyclopedias for specialist purposes) do not have articles on single suffixes. That's what dictionaries do- the core policy, the most important policy of all, is that the wikipedia is an encyclopeda!

Encyclopedia articles are on topics, not words. This is fundamental to what an encyclopedia is. That's also why practically no foreign words are allowed in titles; you don't need to, because it's not about the title word, it's about the topic!- Wolfkeeper 08:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not talking about people looking up dictionary definitions in an encyclopedia, though people may begin at that point, and thus logically enough there are sometimes dicdefs in ledes (and perhaps elsewhere). This is obvious, but maybe it needs to be stated: topics in an encyclopedia are often found underneath words; you enter a word into the search field to look up a topic. As long as there are encyclopedia articles that are not dicdefs on several -onym words, it makes sense to have a manner of going between them with minimal fuss. Pseudonym>-onym>Acronym is quick. Pseudonym>wikt:Pseudonym>wikt:-onym>wikt:Acronym>Acronym doesn't make sense to require people to do. Шизомби (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going from pseudonym to acronym makes no sense, starting from a word in the wikipedia makes doubly less sense. People look up words in dictionaries. Following that logic to its conclusion turns the wikipedia into a bad dictionary.- Wolfkeeper 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article gives a historical perspective on how these words came to be in its lead and has the added benefit of being a navigational aid which is one of the accepted functions of a list. It's not about the words but the meaning those words represent.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're perfectly describing a dictionary, that's a dictionary entry; that's what dictionaries do; they're for looking up meanings.- Wolfkeeper 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restore the content that existed up until April [25]. I still can't figure out the revision that followed. Mandsford (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Wikipedia: page(s) the use of show/hide is addressed on, but the idea is that it can make a long page shorter. In this case, it doesn't make it a lot shorter, and it seems odd to do it with a list (and each section of that list) as opposed to a section of an article. The result of show/hide for each letter results in the strange appearance of a large blank space. Also, if one wants to see them all, it's a bit time-consuming to click them all. I don't know if there's a "show/hide all" function available? Something more like the version from your diff would be better. Шизомби (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Wikipedia:Accessibility#Scrolling_and_collapsible_sections, which seems to indicate the way hide/show is being used in -onym is inappropriate (although actually when I do print preview in Firefox, it does display). Шизомби (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, why do you think lists of words are deprecated in the Wikipedia?- Wolfkeeper 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've read anything I've written here. Шизомби (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing how a simple list of words, which are chosen because they happen to have a particular sequence of letters in, can be improved in the wikipedia is inappropriate. Wiktionary is about words, how they are made, how they are used, and other relationships between them. Are attempts to make the Wikipedia into a bad dictionary really helpful?- Wolfkeeper 17:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A suffix is somewhat different than just a "sequence of letters." Please read my comments, if you would, and the pages I linked to regarding lists, categories, glossaries, indexes, templates, wikilinks, see alsos, etc. and the other things above you still seem to have missed. It's "inappropriate" to have a discussion in an AfD, which is defined (that word!) as the place "where Wikipedians discuss whether or not an article should be deleted"? Strange. I am not sure what you mean by making Wikipedia into a "bad dictionary," is Wiktionary a bad dictionary in your view? I don't desire to make Wikipedia into Wiktionary, be that dictionary good or bad. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Tips_on_dealing_with_other_material, it's not clear to me that it is a WP Guideline, as you state; it's not identified as one. How "common" the outcomes are, or how much consensus there is regarding that page or any of the individual items on it is not clear to me either. It looks like it was created by Radiant! [26] from perhaps personal impressions or preferences regarding how common such things are, unless there is some further history to it that is missing. It would be valuable if it were all sourced; ironic that WP space can go without {citation needed}. Some lists of words have been deleted, some survive AfD; some survive multiple AfDs. Шизомби (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's self-evident that the common outcome is that they do not survive AFDs. The number of suffixes has been reduced over time in the Wikipedia; there's literally a handful left. By way of contrast, in Wiktionary, the list of suffixes now covers the whole of English and many other languages as well. If you don't like the way wiktionary handles things, you need to handle that, not try to make the wikipedia like wiktionary; that doesn't work.- Wolfkeeper 21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-evident"? No, it's either common or not, which can only be determined on the basis of evidence; the reality of whether it is common or not is not self-evident at all. Funnily enough, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents/Archive#Are_some_prefixes_and_suffixes_valid.3F_-_Yes claimed there was a precedent for keeping them in AfDs, which is I suppose why you had it deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-oid? But truthfully, AfD Precedents was as bad a page as AfD Common Outcomes: no actual evidence. I am not trying to make WP into Wiktionary (which I scarcely ever edit), your Ad nauseam accusing of me of it won't make it true. I don't want dicdef-only articles with no possibility of expansion on WP, and have sometimes participated in ensuring their deletion, though it is not a personal priority. Likewise, I have participated in AfDs regarding lists of words in which I argued for deletion; there are different types of lists of words, which should be handled differently and not with zero tolerance, which is a rather defective sort of thing to pursue. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, it's something that a discussion should be opened on somewhere, apparently. Шизомби (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wiktionary does not accept this level of detail - it considers it "encyclopedic" - and they don't accept definitions as part of their "Derived terms" sections - as the nom well knows. Article name is not a problem, as we have hundreds of phrases and other non-nouns as titles, when appropriate. "Common outcomes" is not a guideline. I do agree that the 26-hidden sections are a poor implementation, but that is not a reason to delete; it is a reason to edit and improve the article. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether wiktionary is broken or not (it is), is not the issue here, the issue is whether the wikipedia's policies support the presence of this article- they don't in any way.- Wolfkeeper 21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facinating that, since August 2008, the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary has pretty much been controlled and maintained almost exclusively by you. There are other occasional editors which work on that page, but it's really become your personal campaign for over a year. Its odd that you, as the major editor and implementor of that policy page, should be the sole one argueing for the defense of its use here, apparently with little or no support from anyone else. Yup, that sounds like WP:CONSENSUS to me. Oh, wait. That's the opposite of consensus. --Jayron32 21:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a relevant diff, feel free to produce it; but this appears to be simply a personal attack.- Wolfkeeper 05:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, of course, the list is important to the article. A list of examples of -onyms is needed to illustrate the various points made in the introduction and the sections following it. After all Lists does say: "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information", and without this list readers would be left to their own devices as what is exactly is meant. So, the guidelines agree why we should have the list.

There is, however, one point I should like to make: why not reorganize the list somewhat on the lines of those suggested by the 1988 Scheetz study, into several classes as described in the section referring to it. I don't know whether the editor who created this section still can lay their hands on the publication, but I think it would give further substantiation to the list. Whatever happens, we should keep it. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it need not be a "simple list", as Wolfkeeper calls it. It can most certainly be a list which shows how the various examples fit into the classes; most important to an encyclopaedia! Dieter Simon (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find that the article completely lacks generality, it's only about English, and the article isn't about words for types of names for things, it's just about words with -onym on the end, a simple lexical rule is used to form the list. There isn't a true concept behind this, in an encyclopedia sense, it's just everything ending in onym; how is that encyclopedic? What do I really learn from this I can't learn from the dictionary?- Wolfkeeper 05:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The list of words ending in -onym is simply a collection of dictionary-style entries; it is not a glossary, since the words are connected by form and etymology, not usage. However, the lead section does contain encyclopedic, potentially useful information on history and usage. Cnilep (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with article modifications, per Cnilep. The useful material in the lead should be kept. The list of words should be pared down to provide two or three examples for each of the classes from the 1988 source. — æk ^Talk 14:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with that, a pared list just to give the flavour of what it is all about. I was trying to give the various terms some background relevance but found even among the first five or six, several were out of date, although blue-linked some of the articles they are linking had a name change. They need going through quite thoroughly. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the lead is the article, the ensuing list is a tad bonkers. A few examples to illustrate would be fine. pablo_hablo. 00:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the words on the list which do not have articles (apronym, astronym, etc.) could be removed, if they've all been transwikied. However, I think as long as there are articles on the other words, it makes sense to have a list of all of them that do. Шизомби (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they're removed, then how is this basically not an extended disambiguation page?- Wolfkeeper 02:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding the logic of a number of your comments like the one above, or the unanswered question about about the privative A, or what you meant by a "bad dictionary," etc. You'd prefer every -onym word be included in the list, rather than just those with articles? You'd be OK with the page existing as a disambig page? I'm not sure what you're saying. Шизомби (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying if you include all of the articles that match the -onym ending then it becomes a kind of disambiguation page where you're disambiguating between the different types of names for things. Disambiguation pages are not considered truly encyclopedic.- Wolfkeeper 07:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you include all of the words then you're basically writing a dictionary article on the -onym ending. Dictionary entries aren't considered encyclopedic either.- Wolfkeeper 07:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you include only a few of them and make the article about the -onym etymological construct then theoretically it's encyclopedic, but IMO what you have right now other than the list doesn't actually make it so; it's not sufficiently better than the wiktionary article to be worth keeping.- Wolfkeeper 07:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of having any words ending in -onym on this page should be to illustrate the concept of word formation for onomastics, not to define or itemize the words themselves. It is therefore not necessary to list all, or even a large number of such words. Include only enough examples to help readers understand the encyclopedic topic under discussion. Compare, for example, the small number of examples at RAS syndrome#Examples. Cnilep (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I find that an odd suggestion. Should a list of countries only have a few illustrative examples? Everything that has an article should be listed, or categorized, or in some way grouped. I also find Wolfkeeper's statement above that disambiguation pages "aren't considered encyclopedic" to be odd. Aren't considered encyclopedic by whom? Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Шизомби (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that -onym is not a stand-alone list. If kept, it might be converted to a stand-alone list - though that would open it up to all of the criticisms of non-encyclopedic character and arbitrariness made above - or to a description of the concept discussed by Sheetz (1977, 1988). In the latter case, examples should be illustrative rather than exhaustive. Cnilep (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough valid content to make a Wikipedia article about it. I don't care if some reduced bit of information is on the Wiktionary, which no one ever uses anyway. Dream Focus 17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What proponents of keeping this article seem to be missing is that articles on words are an exception to the policy of not including articles of a sort that should be in a dictionary, if anywhere. In the case of the -onym article, nowhere seems appropriate. It is true that the suffix -onym has been the subject of a book in at least three versions by George H. Scheetz. This hardly matches the widespread commentary about the word truthiness that appeared after its satirical use by Stephen Colbert on television in 2005. The work by Scheetz is the only reference listed about the suffix -onym. The other references are about words that happen to include the suffix, or classes of words or suffixes which include -onym.

It is unclear just what sort of published work Scheetz's book is. It is certainly not a popular work and it is not published by a university. It is the first source of the word demonym cited by Merriam-Webster editor Paul Dickson according to Wikipedia's article Demonym. Perhaps George Scheetz gets great joy from coining new words, but Wikipedia is not in the business of puffing up peoples egos. The possibility of Scheetz having other than scholarly interest in publishing "Names' Names" leaves some doubt to its suitability as a reliable source. It is hard to tell how many of the words in the -onym list are neologisms. It seems anepronym is not widespread enough to be in the dictionary. Of the four pages of internet search results that I got for it, the majority were Chinese language pages, perhaps concerning a debate about the suitability of anepronym as an English word. The rest of the pages seem to be wikis including Wikipedia that have gotten a contribution of -onym words from interested parties. Lists of words like this tend to encourage people who (altogether to commonly) have an inordinately if not pathologically excessive fondness for using obscure words. The most I can do is vote to delete the article, but it would better reflect the worth of the article if I could take it out into the alley and stomp on it before throwing it in the dumpster.--Fartherred (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. Scheetz was not a Dewey or a Webster to be sure, but it would be nice to avoid casting aspersions on him. He did his BA thesis on The Chicago film industry: beginnings to 1918 was (is?) a library director, significant contributor to Word Ways (see e.g. -gry); Marilyn vos Savant mentioned in her column she called him on the phone regarding that puzzle after a reader said he was "the best word authority in America"), The Dictionary of Word Play repeatedly cites him, reviewer for the Library Journal Book Review, member of the American Name Society and North Central Name Society, a founding member of the The Hansoms of John Clayton, a Sherlock Holmes Society and contributor to the Baker Street Irregular's Baker Street Journal and member of the BSI's Sub-Librarians Scion of the Baker Street Irregulars ("established in 1967 and is the oldest themed or profession oriented Scion/Society related to Sherlock Holmes"), donor of some kind of special collection [27] to the The Rare Book & Manuscript Library of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, executive secretary of the Thorne Smith Society and Philip Jose Farmer Society, Chief Information Officer for Ebertfest: Roger Ebert's Film Festival, recipient of thanks in film scholar Robert Carringer's The Making of Citizen Kane, thanks in Bernstein and Pluard's Hollywood on Lake Michigan: 100 Years of Chicago & the Movies and contributor to that of promotional pennants for Essanay, etc. Can we acknowledge that while he may not reach WP's notability standards for an article on him, he is at least a reliable source and not some egotistical schmoe trying to becoming a millionaire off -onym words? For my own part, I'd rather be pathological about obscure information than pathological about stomping and trashing it. Шизомби (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cast no aspersions upon the college graduate George H. Scheetz. The numerous wonderful qualities and accomplishments of Scheetz that User:Schizombie of the non-Roman character set pointed out are simply irrelevant. If "Names' Names" is motivated in part by a desire to coin new English words, it is a noble purpose for Scheetz. It is just not the purpose of Wikipedia. While manure is very valuable in making one's garden productive, it does not belong on the dining room table. Everything should be in its proper place to have its proper value. The -onym article in Wikipedia where it does not belong is trash.--Fartherred (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements "It is unclear just what sort of published work Scheetz's book is. It is certainly not a popular work and it is not published by a university." and "Perhaps George Scheetz gets great joy from coining new words, but Wikipedia is not in the business of puffing up peoples egos. The possibility of Scheetz having other than scholarly interest in publishing "Names' Names" leaves some doubt to its suitability as a reliable source." are blatant aspersions.

The rest of your disdain for language isn't worth commenting on.

The character set of schizombie's sig is irrelevant to this discussion (schizombie, see WP:SIG#Non-Latin for what fartherred is so subtly attempting to communicate). -- Quiddity (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on the sig, I don't recall noticing that before. I've always responded regardless of how people write it in their replies, and it's also mentioned on my userpage. I'll consider altering it, although it doesn't appear I'm obligated to do so, and it hasn't seemed to cause anyone else a problem before. Somehow it doesn't seem as problematic to me as a username referring to an act of gaseous, bloody coprophilic misogyny? A biblioclast obsessed with manure, "alleys," and "dumpsters".... and editing an encyclopedia. Proper places indeed. I suppose I probably shouldn't be writing at 4AM and when wikipedians have me particularly aggrieved, partly in relation to wildly inappropriate usernames, as it happens.[28] Anyway, Scheetz' onymicon while evidently scarce seems to have some international recognition within the (I suppose) small field of onomastics; it's included as a reference in Personal names and naming: an annotated bibliography, Naming among the Xhosa of South Africa, Eigennamen in der Arbeitswelt, Namenkundliche Informationen, Nouvelle revue d'onomastique and "Bewohnername, etorki-izen, folkenavn, gentilé, nome etnico, ... Problématique interlinguistique de la terminologie de la dénomination géographique collective." Oh, and this is rather amusingly on point: "Are names missing from lexicons because an onymicon is most appropriately to be conceived of as part of an encyclopedia?"[29] (emphasis mine). I rather want to find a copy for my own library now, a bad habit Wikipedia encourages. Oh, and while foreign wikis' practices may not be relevant to what is done here, there is this template on the French one: [30]. Anyhow, I continue to contemplate the matter of navigability, the paramount question for whether a list like this should be kept, I think. The Encyclopædia Britannica, or, A Dictionary :-} of Arts and Sciences, compiled upon a New Plan had an index, and they also tried the Micropædia, the Macropædia and the Propædia. It's a shame, perhaps, that there's not an Index: namespace on Wikipedia that lists could go into so as not to continually offend those who imagine encyclopedias are composed solely of articles, while still being accessible to help everyone else. Maybe I'll end up proposing such a thing. Good night, all. Шизомби (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quiddity seems intent on understanding my comments on the suitability of a reference as a personal attack on the author. In case anyone else so misunderstands my comments, let me make them perfectly clear. We contribute to this AfD to discuss articles, and comments on their references suitability are relevant. It is a fact that some words from the -onym list are so rare as to lead one to suspect that they were fabricated. Indeed, as I pointed out Paul Dickson cited this work as the original source of a word. While I personally dislike the practice of making up unnecessary new words, the point is that such a practice is not in conformity with the quality of reliable sources for a language article. If there is some factual reason for disagreement with my limited assessment of this source, Quiddity should refer to it or concede the point. One cannot responsibly argue for deletion of an article by writing only sweet and nice things about it. I take issue with Quiddity's referring to User:Schizombie of the non-Roman character set as merely "schizombie." There is no obvious connection that the casual reader would notice between "schizombie" and the user's signature. In spite of Quiddity's false statement that the character set of the signature is irrelevant, contributors to an AfD should clearly identify the user to whose comments they refer for the benefit of any casual reader. User:Schizombie of the non-Roman character set at least pointed out that people have referred to "Names' Names," which addresses the question of its suitability as a reference, but does not disagree with the seeming fabricated words as content. If the proponents of keeping the -onym article cannot address the reasons for deleting it, they should simply concede the point instead of trying to recast the discussion as personal attacks. This submitted by Fartherred from a terminal of unknown security, not logged in.--156.99.55.125 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I understand correctly that you want the article deleted because one of its sources might contain some invented words? What about checking the list against the OED and Webster's and just delete the words not mentioned there? If half a dozen, or even a dozen, of these words do turn out not to be sourceable, how does this affect the notability of the suffix (which certainly wasn't invented by Scheetz)? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fartherred made his views quite clear over here. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, as I said some time ago above that Wikipedia:Lists states that ""lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information", so as long as the examples are relevant to the article and interrelate to one another rather than are totally separate entities, surely we should find a list of them useful encyclopaedically. We do need to do a bit of work on the list to render it relevant to the blue-link articles which already exist. The articles by themselves don't necessarily show this, but a list bringing possible connections between them, would. Dieter Simon (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I amplify my position. Among the references there is only one book in three revisions that has -onym words as a subject. It has neologisms in it. The three external links all have the neologisms hypernym and hyperonym. This article is about promoting obscure words and neologisms. The motive is likely related to crossword puzzle games as advertized on this [[31]]word play site given as an external link. These words are not useful in general communication because they are mostly unknown. Promoting these words is a disservice to the English language and using Wikipedia to promote them is a disservice to Wikipedia. The other sources cited in the article use -onym or are not about -onym any more than any other suffix. Therefore -onym is not notable and not any more worthy of an article than -able, -ed or -ing. It would be possible to blather on about words ending in -ing for thousands of words, but that would not make it a notable article suitable for Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary it should not have these articles. Words such as anepronym, hypernym and hyperonym are not in fact English words because they have not been adopted by a significant portion of the English speaking population. Their only use is altering the inclusion rules in word puzzles. Otherwise in text they are just obstacles to communication. I hope this helps Anypodetos of the Greek character set to understand my position--Fartherred (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but did you actually read my comment about deleting just the dubious words (and possibly external links as well)? Does it make the privative a non-notable if I write a book with invented words beginning in a-? And where is the problem with a source that is not exclusively about the subject in question? By the way, we have articles on -ing (Gerund) and -ed (Past tense). They do not need lists because they are productive, and anyone who knows English can form an arbitrary number of words ending in -ing or -ed. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2009 (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. Secret ^account 17:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senomix Timesheets[edit]

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

Non-notable software article with no independent and non-trivial sources. Created by SPA. Miami33139 (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; a commercial time tracking system for small and mid-sized offices, yet another bit player in the office software market. Google News finds a single press release. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to this deletion request, I have added a more detailed history to the article to provide relevance and appropriate references. The software is a commercial product focused on the small office market, but that in itself should not affect its notability. Zkeifkaf (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources that you added that might be considered reliable sources all lack the string "Senomix" and are general articles about timekeeping. The ones that actually mention this product are either self-published submissions or download listings, or routine business profile and directory listings. You certainly have earned your pay here, but I don't think that's good enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 'self-published' submissions you've noted were not created by the company but by the sites linked. They may be old and 'puff' pieces, but they're part of the software's history. There was no pay earned here, thanks. I've just enjoyed using the software for a few years now and thought it worthy of an article. It appears that's not sufficient.Zkeifkaf (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreeing with Smerdis here. I just looked at each reference added to the article, and they are not about this software. They are about timekeeping or software as a service as general concepts. Miami33139 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to hear that. References of that nature make up the bulk of those displayed for most time tracking systems listed on Wikipedia. The references listed in the linked article are relevant to the content and apparently drove development of the software as noted. If 'puff' journalism isn't permitted for software notability, you folks have a lot of articles to delete! Thanks for the feedback. I'll try posting about this system again after using it for another five years.Zkeifkaf (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Comment: Article has been PRODed before... but I could not find any discussion. I looked for independent articles on the software or company and came up empty. I then nominated for speedy deletion. See User talk:Zkeifkaf. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Secret ^account 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand – Norway relations[edit]

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

neither country has a resident embassy, almost all coverage is mulitlateral or of sporting contests [32]. hard to justify given the small populations of both countries on opposite sides of the world. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the concept theoretically qualifies for an article, in practice this article lacks references (read: content entirely) and is an OR target (as it appears they don't have any official foreign relations). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that they've had official relations for over a century since 1905.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources discussing the topic, per WP:GNG. We've been redirecting these to "Foreign relations of ..." either of the parties, so that's a fall-back option. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Comment i believe the issue of nationx/nationy relations has been discussed on WP, with a guideline to NOT create articles unless there are substantial relations. otherwise, we end up with thousands of useless stub articles, placeholders for future information. having said that, it appears that people have provided some indication of notability here, esp. their mutual interest in whaling issues, which i should have thought of. it probably does justify an article now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there is more than can be put in the articles called "Foreign relations of Norway" or "Foreign relations of New Zealand", a separate article is not merited. The article's author would not have been aware of the Groubani articles controversy that existed in the first few months of 2009, but the consensus was that "Nation X and Nation Y" relations are not automatically entitled to their own page. Mandsford (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mandsford. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These two countries do share some common interests, being, for example amongst the first handful of countries to make territorial claims in Antarctica,[33] and both having had major whaling industries, but I can only find discussions of any ensuing relationships in a multilateral context. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NZ's government admits that official relations are modest, but they exist. [34] There is also independent 3rd party coverage of the visits of heads of state, and the dispute over whaling. They also have recent bilateral agreements on air services and a working holiday scheme.[35]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been several official visits, the whaling issue is a prominent dispute. Plenty of third party sources if people actually spend time the time to look for them. (see the talk page for a few I found in about five minutes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdogsimmons (talk • contribs)
Comment I've considered the additions and the articles on the talk page, I don't believe together they indicate significant relations: one off state visits (these 2 countries rarely have state visits), the fact that NZ acted with 11 other countries, tangential link of an Asian Pacific religious conference that was based on a conversation with the Norwegian PM. this article has nothing to do with NZ. it is about the Norwegian Church in Sydney, Australia. this link is for the Norwegian embassy in Australia whilst it has responsiblity for NZ the site is primarily about Aust-Norway relations. this article is not really about actual relations between Norway and NZ. this article relates to the famous Tampa affair in Australia which was a huge diplomatic incident between the governments of Norway and Australia. NZ offered to take asylum seekers on behalf of Australia but there was no actual dialogue between Norway and NZ, it is pure WP:SYNTH to suggest this incident somehow adds to Norway-NZ relations.LibStar (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NZ's foreign ministry website provides that "New Zealand supported Norway in its election to the UN Security Council in November 2000. Both New Zealand and Norway are parties to the Antarctic Treaty and cooperate in scientific research on that continent. The two countries concluded an Antarctic Cooperation Statement in December 1997. Human rights, international security, disarmament, Antarctic issues, oceans issues, and climate change are all areas where engagement with Norway has proved particularly useful."

Some recent state visits: New Zealand Official Visits to Norway

Hon Anne Tolley, Minister of Education, June 2009
Hon Margaret Wilson, Speaker of the House of Representatives, leading a Parliamentary Delegation, October 2007
Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Trade, Defence, Disarmament and Arms Control, January 2007
Rt Hon Helen Clark Prime Minister June 2004
Dame Silvia Cartwright Governor General-designate March 2001
Hon Trevor Mallard Minister of Sport November 2000
Hon Max Bradford Minister of Energy 1997
Rt Hon Don McKinnon Minister of Foreign Affairs & Trade March 1996
Hon Rob Storey Minister of Transport November 1992

Norwegian Official Visits to New Zealand

Kjell Magne Bondevik Prime Minister March 2005
Kristin Clemet Minister of Education and Research October 2004
Select Committee on Finance of the Norwegian Parliament March 1995
Minister of Transport and Communications January 1995 and March 1993

[36]

Coverage by third party sources exists for these visits. If you don't think that the Tampa affair effected the relations between Norway and New Zealand, you're just wrong. And most of those articles I linked to have to do with direct relations between the governments. The others have to do with the relations between the "peoples" of those countries, a form or relations. Your continued arguments, Libstar, that the concept of "relations" between countries is not supported by the definition of the word "relations". Your repeated attempts to remove sourced information from these articles, then nominate them for deletion [37], [38], [39], are disruptive, look bad, and must stop.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you should keep to the merits of this article not not other articles. state visits are leaders or heads of state only. my point stands, there still only appears to be 2 known state visits between these 2 countries in the last 20 years. ministerial meetings happen around the world every day of the year. "Select Committee on Finance" is not even a Minister. do you concede that some of the "articles" you found such as the Norwegian church in sydney have nothing to do with relations? secondly, you can find evidence of the NZ and norwegian government talking to each other during the Tampa affair? I will continue to nominate articles as I see fit. you have not discouraged me at all. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed nothing from this article, so mentioning it in this AfD adds no further argument to you wanting to keep this article. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you've given a the NZ govt foreign affairs website as the reference for these official visits. yes you can find third party sources for the visits by the Prime Ministers, but for the ministers? seems little third party coverage for that. and I doubt the visit of a "Select Committee on Finance" didn't really get noticed by the media. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - while contemporary relations are at a relative low level (though still notable), early 20th century relations and the government level cooperation in the whaling industry in the 19th and early 20th century are of high significance. We should avoid the pitfall to only look at the last ten years, but sadly that is how many articles are structured here on Wikipedia. Pantherskin (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The two countries have official visits.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That official visits has been exchanged says nothing either way about the existence of a "New Zealand – Norway relations" topic. You need to find sources with that or a similar subject, not simply declare the visits as evidence of notable relations. We go by what reliable secondary sources, and not Wikipedians, tell us is a topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there have been at least 50 bilateral articles that have been deleted even though they have had "official visits". simply having official visits is not a guarantee of notability. since Norway was formed in 1905 there have only ever been 2 state visits between Norway and NZ. 2 state visits in 104 years hardly says anything about these relations. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No information was deleted, smaller articles were merged into larger articles in the 50 you are talking about. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no magic number when reached that make it go from not-notable to notable. We also are not required to "say" anything. We can present facts without commentary. If Wikipedia required us to present commentary for every fact, we would have to eliminate every chart and list in Wikipedia. No one is expected to explain why the country with the highest Gross Domestic Product is on the top of the list, we just present the facts and provide a reference. That is the almanac part of Wikipedia. It is a pillar of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure there is no magic number but 2 state visits in 104 years since the existence of Norway does not say much about actual relations between these countries. many people bring up multiple bilateral agreements...it appears that there are hardly any agreements between these countries. perhaps the existence of embassies, oh they don't have that either. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the article has been improved and referenced better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article does additional resources might improving. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even without Libstar's additions. This article is more about the foreign relations of New Zealand and Norway themselves, and the foreign relations of any soveriegn nation is notable. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, at least 100 of these bilateral articles have been deleted so they are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant relationship between the two. Most of the official visits were part of extended overseas tours. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So when Obama picks up his Nobel prize and then goes to the climate talks, we have to delete references to one of them, right, they can't both be notable unless he goes back to Washington and starts from there. Very silly notion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For examples of previosu coverage of this ground see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

visits by President Obama anywhere in the world generate massive third party coverage which makes it highly notable, and most citizens of the country know that the US President in the country. I am yet to find a newspaper article of some Norwegian Minister visiting NZ, and I doubt more than 100 NZers would even know about such a visit. Remember WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - dull, but relevant for various reasons, not least Antarctica. Could do with more on the whaling issues - NZ has a strong green lobby.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2009 (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 keep. It's snowing Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo Jack[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet either WP:GNG or the specific WP:NF guideline. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 02:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rotten Tomatoes counts 110 reviews, many from nationally and internationally known critics. This passes criterion 1 of WP:NF easily. How can an international film that pulls $88 million at the box office not be notable? --Mkativerata (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep When it premiered, it was the #1 box office draw in the US [40]. Plenty of other sources are available. Just click on the "News" link above your deletion rationale. Zagalejo^^^ 05:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. The film was #1 at the box office on its opening weekend, grossing $16 million. That and the fact that the first sentence lists a major studio, famous producer, and notable actors, which one might think would be a hint that maybe the film is notable, leads me to wonder whether the nominator even read the article.--Michael White^T·C 05:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie was absolutely awful, but was widely advertised and had millions of viewers. Endorse Michael White's comment directly above mine. The Wordsmith^Communicate 08:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of actors in this movie is probably the one nominating this page for deletion. Film easier passes WP:NF with flying colors-- Coasttocoast (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Easily meets all film guidelines and even spawned a DVD cartoon sequel. I think the troutslap is well deserved here; a major studio, a #1 film, and a film with name actors in it is always notable, no matter how bad it is (or even if it doesn't even make enough to cover the film canister shipping, like Transylmania did this weekend). Nate • (chatter) 10:40, 7 December 2009 (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. and then redirect to iTunes JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Shuffle[edit]

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

A radio feature on a college radio show. No outside indications of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notabl show on a small-time radio station. On a side not, if this show was even slightly popular then they would have already been forced to change their name by now by Apple for trademark infringement (since Apple owns the name "iTunes"). Maybe Delete and then redirect to iTunes since it's a plausible search term. TJ Spyke 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to iTunes. Glittering Pillars (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2009 (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. Secret ^account 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SSHGuard[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN, no sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources about this software. Nothing to assert notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is more relevant than other pages. I find it covered on Linux.com and in the OpenSuse documentation, a package for it is present on nearly all Linux and BSD distributions, it appears in many blog or forum entries, and according to Freshmeat, it has about twice the subscribers than notable software like nginx in the same time period. Alderr (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)— Alderr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Everything has a package in a linux distribution. Wikipedia is not a directory of things which have packages in linux distributions. Miami33139 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Critters. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lionheart (furry character)[edit]

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

I had redirected this article to Critters, which is the publication the character appears in. I was reverted by an IP. The character demonstrates no independent notability, and the article is just plot summary, plus two sentences about the author. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Critters This character is not notable enough to warrant its own article, and should be merged/redirected to the Critters comic book article. Angryapathy (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Critters - no demonstration of notability. (Emperor (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Merge it with Critters, I agree with everything above. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (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. Kevin (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Thomas (author)[edit]

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

Delete - non-notable (or at least none is asserted). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability in the article and I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:21, 7 December 2009 (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. Kevin (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Narayan[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage to verify notability. Seems to be a name in the vegan/vegetarian world, but that's not enough for notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2009 (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. Kevin (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindermuzik[edit]

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

Barely-released demo tape that has no documented notability within the history of its band, let alone the music industry. Warrah (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per WP:NALBUMS for non-notable demo tapes. Singularity42 (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, except that the recording itself has no value to Hanzel und Gretyl's progress. It is only cited in publicity material for the band - the actual demo is non-notable. Warrah (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not because it's a demo, but because I found zero coverage for this demo from reliable sources. Appears to be non-notable, thus failing WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 05:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS, as there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Maybe a passing mention or something in the article itself would be warranted. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:12, 14 December 2009 (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. Kevin (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 17th Printing South China / Sino-Label 2010[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The 17th Printing South China / Sino-Label 2010

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

Delete - non-notable future event. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alan Liefting. WP:CRYSTAL. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Small[edit]

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

Lacking WP:RS since July 2008. Notability by WP:N not established, not obvious. ~YellowFives 18:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lack of independent sources indicates lack of notability for this Thomas Small, but the Gbooks hits seem to indicate there are notable people with this name. Shouldn't this article be changed to be about one of them? Edward321 (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources and notability is questionable. The name is too common to make research a casual affair. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Correa[edit]

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

Unremarkable porn actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is not unremarkable at all. He was one of the most famous porn actors of the late 1980s and early 1990s and appeared with other notable porn stars such as Jeff Stryker, Joey Stefano, and Lou Cass in numerous films as outlined in the article. Keraunos (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He was also one of the first gay porn stars to also appear in bisexual films. Keraunos (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, two hours after the article was created? Is that a record? -- Banjeboi 02:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - suggest early close for the reasons discussed on the article talk page; raising a hasty PROD within the first hour of creation and then immediately raising this equally hasty AfD without discussion on the active article talk page about the available reliable sources and the likely prospect of addressing notability (using WP:PORNBIO) is overly confrontational and a clear failure to meet the guidance of WP:BEFORE.—Ash (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure it needs a list of everything he has been in, but also don't think it should be up for deletion. Article needs improving, but should be on talk page not here DRosin (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a SNOW case yet?—Ash (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No claim to meeting WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject satisfies the GNG. The "references" go entirely to unreliable sources, sources which simply recite castlists or otherwise provide no significant information on the subject, or sources which mention the subject in passing without providing any encyclopedic information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have overlooked Dyer's book and Gibson's book. "entirely unreliable" seems an exaggeration even if you argue the case against the on-line databases. I note that the films themselves count as reliable published sources for cast lists, awards won, etc; not to mention the Panorama documentary which is produced by the BBC.—Ash (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be misreading my comment; I comment on three types of sources: entirely unreliable ones (like Wikiporno and iafd, which is self-published and therefore not acceptable as a BLP source); sources which recite castlists and summarize scenes without any other content regardng the actual performers, and sources which mention the subjects in passing, like the books you mention. None of these sources establish notability, by strong consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, the syntax was unclear to me, I did misread your statement. To take your other issue, I think WP:PORNBIO is addressed by his appearing in a documentary and being the first notable porn star to be cast in gay, straight and bisexual films. Consequently point 4 is met (and possibly point 5 might be argued as Panorama was a very mainstream documentary and he appeared in 3 episodes). He also appeared in a large number of magazines and front covers, and I assume that these would make for good sources if someone digs them out. Consequently I find it reasonable to expect that more and probably better sources are likely to be found and added to the article.—Ash (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Appearing in a single documentary isn't alone enough to satisfy WP:PORNBIO, which requires multiple mainstream appearances. The other claim, aside from the "notable because he's notable" element), doesn't even match up to the article, where a weaker claim is completely unsourced. If you had sufficient reliable sourcing for the point that a) that sort of crossover was unusual at the time, and that b) the subject's appearances in such crossovers were themselves significant (very preferably contemporaneous references, which are more likely to be reliable), the situation would be different. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, as the article has only created yesterday, I'm not sure why there would be any rush to create and close this AfD before any reasonable search for such sources has taken place. Such detailed questions of reliable sourcing should have been raised on the talk page when it was evident the page was under construction.—Ash (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, nom unfortunately ignored WP:Before completely and this is about the 6th or 7th time doing so all in this subject area. Additional systematic bias both culturally and on wikipedia makes for an uphill battle for this content. There is also the various names that each have to be researched under. There is no doubt this information is true just a need to ensure more sources are added. I see no reason to not allow more time for that to happen in this case. -- Banjeboi 14:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Statement that content is true just needs sources is a tacit admission of a BLP violation. Find the sources, then write the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Please re-read BLP and look to see what if anything would be considered a BLP violation. Most BLP articles have multitudes of unsourced items but they remain not a violation but simply still unsourced. What we look for on BLP's is unsourced negative information. Seemingly the "negative" information here is solely that he has performed in gay pornography which sources already confirm. Is there something else you are claiming as a BLP violation? If not it would probably be better to focus on articles which are truly damaging to the article subjects and Wikipedia. -- Banjeboi 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was in a documentary, mentioned in a book, did films with notable people in this industry(and yes, you are notable if you are paid to have sex with several notable people, and people then pay money to see that), has a long career including many reviewed films, which would surely mention him as well(not going to look too closely, because I don't like reading about gay porno, with the exception of hot lesbian cartoon girls). Dream Focus 02:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails pornbio, and the coverage found seems trivial to me. Epbr123 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With regard to WP:PORNBIO, which wants porn stars to have been given awards, most of the porn industry awards began to be awarded after the mid-1990s. For notable porn stars before the mid-1990s, there need to be other criteria. Keraunos (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - invalidate As this AfD was hastily raised only hours after creation, it has been radically revised since, see diff. Consequently opinions expressed several days ago were on a different article compared to the one current. I propose a swift close of this AfD as non-conclusive due to a failure to follow WP:BEFORE.—Ash (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and Hullaballoo. Warrah (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wp:Before, article has been expanded since nomination and sources are available to establish notability. --Jmundo (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -as several editors noticed, this is an invalid AfD failed to properly address WP:BEFORE.The article as it is now makes a pretty good case for notability, too. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:56, 7 December 2009 (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. No reason as to why it is notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpetitklein[edit]

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

Lacking third-party WP:RS since December 2008. Nothing indicating notability by WP:N. ~YellowFives 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as notable dance company, but article needs improvement.Talullah77 (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2009 (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. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar González (architect)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass notability. Note that there's another Edgar Gonzalez architect out there - this article focuses an older one born in Cuba, not this one from Mexico. JaGa^talk 18:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The question here is whether this person meets WP:ATHLETE or not. The arguments that he does pass have been well refuted, and are backed by a clear guideline. While I note that there has been little participation, I do not believe that waiting any further will give a clearer consensus. Kevin (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Fury[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, as he hasn't competed in the top level of his sport. All the sources in the article are primary, except for Online World of Wrestling (which doesn't indicate notability as any wrestler can pay to have their profile added there). No third party sources available to help indicate notability. Nikki♥311 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Tekken series#Bryan Fury. Likely misspelling. Tevildo (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a quick news search indicates that the subject is notable, albeit just barely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I see in those results are match results or previews...all trivial mentions at best. Nikki♥311 03:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Match coverage is exactly what I'd expect a wrestler's notability to be based on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the benefit of Thaddeus, coverage must not be a press release. A lot of the news links read like press releases and are therefore not allowed. More than match coverage is required in this case for a pass of WP:N. !! Justa Punk !! 04:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An IP has just added quite a bit of sourcing to the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And while I appreciate the effort, none of that helps establish notability. Several of the references are primary, a wrestler can pay to add his profile to Online World of Wrestling, and the match results read like press releases. In addition, Solie and Wrestling Titles have championship lists for hundreds of promotions from large to small, which doesn't establish notability for the titles listed there. The only source that might establish some notability is The Eagle-Tribune, but the article is primarily about John Cena, and Fury is only mentioned trivially. Nikki♥311 03:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't argue that the sources couldn't use some improvement but Fury's notability as a wrestler is clearly established. He's held titles in three notable promotions, namely New England's "Big Three" (CW, NECW and MWF), and has participated in at least one notable event, the ECWA Super 8 Tournament. He's also had some wins over notable wrestlers like Alex Arion, Slyk Wagner Brown, Jay Lethal and John Walters. I originally used the Eagle-Tribune to source his real name but I would also argue that the article references Fury as being part of another notable event, one held by a known wrestling promoter (who is the co-owner of both CW and the MWF), and attended by several then current WWE superstars.

I'm not sure why you feel the sources I've added don't establish notability. At least three of the ones included are used on literalty hundreds of wrestling articles on Wikipedia including featured articles like Bobby Eaton and C.M. Punk. And since the promotions and titles exist on Wikipedia to begin with, aren't they already considered "notable"? 72.74.200.71 (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holding titles in promotions that have articles here is not enough. WP:ATHLETE has been mentioned. How does he pass that? !! Justa Punk !! 08:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And which policy are you quoting exactly? I couldn't find that, or in fact anything relating to professional wrestling, in WP:ATHLETE. Using common sense however, if a wrestler were to hold a primary championship title in a notable promotion, or in this case multiple promotions, then wouldn't that qualify as having competed at the "highest level" or "fully professional level of a sport"? Wouldn't his appearance at the ECWA Super 8 Tournament count as competing in "a competition of equivalent standing" ? In any case, additional references have been added and include two interviews. The second interview references his being the subject of an article by the Syracuse Post Standard. 72.74.208.92 (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not correct. In professional wrestling, "highest level"/"fully professional level" is only WWE, TNA and maybe ROH (and that's questionable). Oh - and maybe the NWA Title might qualify. No other promotions in the United States qualifies as highest level etc. Just because a promotion is notable doesn't mean it's elite level. !! Justa Punk !! 06:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 7 December 2009 (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) 11:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CampusTours[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was created by a single purpose account, is advertising and spammy. As noted in the previous AfD 3 years ago (which closed with "VERY SLIGHT AND WEAK KEEP") it needs a rewrite but it hasn't been rewritten in the past 3+ years. It also doesn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); the entirety of the New York Times coverage is "and at campustours.com, we saw a selection of colleges' promotional videos" (that's in a +1000 word article) and the coverage in the Cincinnati Enquirer is literally just a link to the website but no discussion of the company. Both are very trivial coverage and, as noted in the previous AfD so are the other two references (one gives a 404 and I can't read the Washington Post article but note that by elimination and from the comments of the previous AfD nominator one of those two articles probably doesn't mention the company at all). Note that, apart from the creating editor, the only other major contributor to the article is the editor from the 76.179.xxx.xxx IP range, which was warned for spamming links to CampusTours into other articles and is almost certainly both the article creator and linked to the company. Brumski (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Brumski (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:N as well as WP:ORG and WP:SPAM. Them From Space 22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the AfD nomination was complete and it was listed but someone had accidentally removed it [41], possibly as a result of an edit conflict. Your slightly incorrect robot phrasing is forgiven though. Brumski (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage, and the promotional issue is also a problem. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2009 (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 Fred Figglehorn. Those arguing for keeping/merging don't really give a concrete reason why the content should be retained. Yup, we're going to IAR as ThemFromSpace said. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fred episodes[edit]

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

Merge to Fred Figglehorn. Zhang He (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is. It would take up too much space if it is merged with Fred Figglehorn. NintendoNerd777 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fred Figglehorn. The list fails WP:NOTDIR as none of these individual episodes have recieved significant commentary in third-party sources. Instead of any bluelinks to notable episodes we have an egregious violation of our external links guidelines. I note that AfD discussions should be used only when the nominator seeks to delete an article, although I don't object to letting this discussion go ahead per IAR as its closure would create more bureaucracy than ignoring the rule. Them From Space 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We should not be in the habit of listing these. We're not a directory of YouTube cruft. No thanks. JBsupreme (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying to delete it, just because you don't like the show, or because its from YouTube? That isn't a valid reason to delete. If it was on television, would you feel differently about it? Dream Focus 18:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is for everyone. It doesn't matter if we don't like something - even if it originates on YouTube - we should still give it proper attention. If people believe that it should be up then let it be so. What, will we run out of space? Also, it would make it the entry for Fred Figglehorn too cluttered. - Nedenchase (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can tell, only one of these videos has any individual notability (nominated for a People's Choice Award). That's 2% of the article. Someone could try to make the case for the notability of the entire body of work, but I just don't see it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Should be merged with Fяed, not enough notableness. --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 18:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me why this content should be merged into another article instead of being deleted outright. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable shows on televisions get episode list, so why would it be any different for this? And the show does get news coverage. Its perfectly acceptable for a Wikipedia list. Dream Focus 18:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wong forum If I had seen this afd when it was first posted I would have speedily closed it. AFD stands for "Articles for Deletion" not "articles for merger" The proper way to propose a merge is to post ((mergeto)) on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information - I don't believe that an entire separate article is warranted here. The relevant information should be merged into the proper article. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Robert Heft[edit]

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

Notability not established. Eeekster (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Taggers were absolutely correct that notability was not asserted in the first version by the original author. However, per WP:BEFORE a quick search for that exact name turns up multiple non-trivial reliable sources that have covered, discussed, or interviewed the subject. I know only what I've read in the last 20 min, but he appears to satisfy WP:BIO easily. I've started to cleanup a bit but need to signoff for a while - but here are just a few of the sources from page one of a google search on his name: [42], [43], [44], [45]. 7 04:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - We'll, it's been a week and I'm unable to find much more on him. Plus, now someone whose username matches the subject of the article has started editing and adding in links to his site. Wouldn't mind a re-listing for a wider look than just my weak keep. 7 12:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he seems to meet the minimal notability guideline, barely. There are multiple reliable sources that discuss him. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs work, as the version I just read does not assert notability. However, a gSearch yielded an ABC news story here [46], and a gNews search shows coverage in the Toronto Star, CBC, and the BBC, to name a few [47]. Vulture19 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking at all the links provided above, only [48] and [49] might constitute significant coverage per WP:N (the rest are just short quotations). The first one is a lengthy interview with Heft, but the subject is a news event, and the information covered about Heft himself is tangential and not significant. The second link appears to be a detailed personal profile that would normally satisfy the notability requirements, but it is also a reaction to the same news event. This single instance of significant coverage about the subject in a reliable source is really a human interest story that does not, in my opinion, establish general notability.--Michael White^T·C 05:48, 7 December 2009 (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. Kevin (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gopilal Acharya[edit]

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

Notability of this BLP appears to be related to one recent event, which was a mass resignation from a newspaper in Bhutan. Apart from this one recent incident, very little coverage of this person can be found. SnottyWong talk 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary. IShadowed ✰ 05:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits (Japan)[edit]

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

This article is essentially a list of lists, and appears to be completely unnecessary. It appears that there are already several list articles organized by year, for instance List of number-one singles of 2009 (Japan) and List of number-one singles of 2008 (Japan). There doesn't need to be a list article that simply lists these articles. Perhaps a template that appears on each year page would be more appropriate. SnottyWong talk 01:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Meta-lists (and probably a good number of lists themselves) are better served with categories. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It will be a lot shorter than a category. Polarpanda (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What will be? (addendum: oh, a template! Yes, I agree with that; however, see my comment below.)--Jubilee♫clipman 01:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - confusing title: I thought it refered to Japan (band). There are only two blue links anyway: can't these articles be merged into a relevent article on the pop music of Japan for now? Then delete the redundant list of lists, obviously! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Klein zach 04:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like an unnecessary list of lists. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:03, 14 December 2009 (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. Kevin (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Joy Tanaka Palmquist[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP about a possibly non-notable person... Does not seem to pass WP:BIO or WP:V... Adolphus79 (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonnotable. No significant achievements even claimed, and no sources given. The only outside reference provided says nothing about her. In a Google search, the only hits about her are this article and the article of her father, Stephen Palmquist (who DOES appear to be notable, but that doesn't make her notable). --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Solutions[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Limited GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY ttonyb (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For people who are aviation fanatics and track the airlines that have existed in Florida and the United States this information is of importance for guidance and to establish a precedence of what has been done and what could be done. In this article not only did they establish a route that did not exist in Florida, that specific route was so important for the large Haiten Community in Central Florida and South Florida, they also were the company who kept Chalks Ocean Airways in business after their fatal crash that ended up causing Chalk's demise. It is also important to note it's founder's young age, it's is believe to be the youngest person to own/operate and Air Carrier Certificate in the U.S. Information necessary to verify all information was also provided in article This article should not be deleted and there are other less notable air taxi/airlines included in wikipedia that have not suffered this process and have a page with information, more information will be provided by other people that had part or dealt with this notable Air Carrier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Md80stud (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Appreciating Md80stud's point about the article being of interest to aviation fanatics, I wonder if there is a more appropriate wiki that specifically caters to such an audience that we might transwiki this content to? Skomorokh, barbarian 20:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Good point! There is so much valuable information that gets lost in the world of aviation because of people like this claiming that this company is a non-notable company. Under what system do you grade this page as such. Review of WP:COMPANY does not seem to indicate such. All information in page is verifiable and further more notates how one small entity of individuals connected a segment of the Haiten community with their relatives in a remote area of Haiti. Along with contributing with keeping the existence of the world's oldest known airline while they worked their legal issues after a fatal crash. There is so much more than can be contributed and is valuable information to business people and aviation enthusiasts around the world. --Aviationfreak 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md80stud (talk • contribs)
- Please note that your "keep" recommendation has already been counted above. If you have more to say in favor of this article, please feel free to do so, but label it with Comment in boldface to avoid making it look like you are casting a duplicate "vote". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's try to keep this a civil discussion, referring to someone as "people like this" can be seen as a derogatory comment. The criteria to establish notability from WP:COMPANY, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." ttonyb (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like a civil discussion and no derogatory comments have been made or referred to. The moderator makes reference once again to secondary sources, I am surprised that he considers the U.S. Department of Transportation not a valid source. I recommend this moderator reviews the process of obtaining an air carrier certificate and further reviews the importance of obtaining a Route and how that mention and distinction by the US DOT is an acceptable secondary source. He should familiarize himself with all aspects of the article before making assumptions. Again we need other review by other parties that have knowledge in the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.0.87 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — 68.157.0.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Lists of airlines or AC Airworthy Cert lists are not considered as significant coverage. Significant coverage is defined by Wikipedia as, "more than a trivial mention." Notability is not established by the complexity of FAA certification, but by coverage as defined in WP:NOTE and WP:COMPANY. If mere certification established notability, then acquisition of an aircraft type rating or an ATP might be used to argue notability for an individual. Please do not assume I have no idea of the process to obtain Part 380 certification or Part 121; however, the complex nature of certification is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the article meets the criteria for inclusion as defined in the sections listed above. ttonyb (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) provides that an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. So far, I have been unable to find any significant coverage of this airline in reliable, independent secondary sources. The fact that this airline shows up in private and/or government databases as owning an airplane, or that the FAA licensed it to operate certain charter flights, basically proves that the airline existed, but not that it was notable. Furthermore, I can find no sources that mention any relationship between Air Solutions and Chalk's, nor any sources commenting on the young age of Air Solutions' founder. I may reconsider if proper secondary sources are added to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment - What are acceptable secondary sources and how do we submit them for review with you? Same thing about the main founder and his team? There is relevance to this company and would like to help maintain it in wiki. Thank you!--Aviationfreak 14:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Md80stud (talk • contribs)

Comment – Source information can be found in Reliable sources, Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, and secondary sources sections. Once you have reviewed the sections, you can add the references into the article or you can ask one of us on our talk page to take a look at the information you are considering. Probably one of the easiest to find would be news reports about the organization. Most major and a good number of smaller papers have archives that can be accessed. Don't worry about the format of the reference, we can fix that later. ttonyb (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you for helping keep that page open for further discussion, this company is notable on its own and is not self promoting itself in anyway. It has provided plenty of sources to prove its operations, show its aircrafts, indicate and verify the directors, and shown that the never before flown route of Orlando to Cap Hiaten, Haiti was started by them and approved by the D.O.T., which is a notable event itself to keep, granted it might not have a huge relevance it complies with the minimum required to keep even under a weak keep avoid it's deletion by someone who really has not much knowledge of the difficulty and the experience necessary to start and operate and airline. Aviation fanatics love to read and have the knowledge of articles like this one. I personally know some of these individuals and can attest to what they accomplished. I am working to have others come post and support the article. Unfortunately Chalk's Ocean Airways is out of business so it is hard to obtain the verification the moderator requested only the employees are able and willing to attest to the so many flights conducted by Air Solutions to help them stay in business. What else can be done to avoid this page from being permanently deleted. Thanks for your input, I will tell the page creator that the discussion is still open and page is not deleted yet so obtain more support. --68.157.0.87 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — 68.157.0.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Again, "real-world" notability is not the same as Wikipedia notability. A company is not notable on its own, but rather as a result of whether or not the article meets the criteria for inclusion as defined in the notability and supported by verifiable, independent, third-party sources. Your continued assertion that approval by DOT is a notable event may be true in the "real-world", but it does not meet the requirements of notability. If you believe it does, please provide how it does supported by the sections of Wikipedia guidelines that apply. As indicated above, the sources you provided to show it operated, had aircraft, had directors, and operated a never before flown route of Orlando to Cap Hiaten, Haiti, are inadequate to support Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't see any sources that say that this was the first airline to fly between Orlando and Cap-Haitien International Airport. The company may have been licensed to fly between those points but nothing in the sources provided says anything about it being the first to do so. Nor do we need employees of Chalk's International Airlines to provide evidence of the relationship between Chalk's and Air Solutions. Rather, I would expect some newspaper or aviation publication to be cited for a statement that Chalk's was contracting with Air Solutions to operate its flights (or whatever their relationship actually was). Similarly, if Air Solutions was based in Orlando, I would expect there to be citations to the local Orlando media stating that Air Solutions was starting operations at Orlando International Airport or stopping such operations. User:Ttonyb1 already explained the need for additional sources over a week ago; I don't understand why some of the supporters of this article seem content to rest on their laurels and not provide any media sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to know if there is any connection between User:68.157.0.87 and User:Md80stud, both of whom have recommended "keep" in this discussion. I am raising this issue in light of this edit and this edit. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors have a limited number of edits and as such I assume he/she/they are unaware of WP:SOCK. I would give them a day or two to fix the issue by noting the relationship or lack of and if necessary removing the duplicate "vote". If you are not satisfied in a day or two you might consider initiating a sockpuppetry complaint. If either Metropolitan90, 68.157.0.87, or Md80stud wish to discuss this further, I suggest we move this to my talk page. My best to all... ttonyb (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That user and myself are both different users, while we do know each other and worked together in the past that has nothing to do with expressing the way we feel about the article in question. I have been trying to find information as he suggested and you all recommended to make this a more notable article. Please review is any information from this 3rd party is useful and how it could be applied to the article. http://www.madcowprod.com/06252007a.html , they make reference to the number of flights that Air Solutions operated to Haiti. I will continue to research for other 3rd party references and verification.--Aviationfreak 20:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Md80stud (talk • contribs)

- I could be wrong, but that site looks like a questionable source which I would be reluctant to cite in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. There is no indication that Air Solutions passes Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a distinct absence of coverage in independent reliable sources means the company fails WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:16, 7 December 2009 (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) 11:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabizbloggers[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:WEBSITE Tim1357 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site is covered and cited by many publications including NPR, The LA Times NBC Affiliates, Entertainment Weekly and Large Regional Publications:

http://topics.npr.org/article/00bOa1b52S80E http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/08/12/ask-ausiello-spoilers-on-house-true-blood-more/ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/08/glenn-beck-ignores-ad-boycott.html http://topics.dallasnews.com/article/0aSh3CQ2kMa3c http://sec.floridatoday.com/article/0aSh3CQ2kMa3c http://sec.wbir.com/article/0aSh3CQ2kMa3c http://www.daylife.com/article/0dBC7IL8qZee1 http://topics.ocregister.com/article/05wGfGB2Tpe96 http://www.msg.com/breakingnews/?article=0bho8pnfW778a

The site has also interviewed Jimmy Wales himself in the past

http://www.jackmyers.com/commentary/guest-mediabizbloggers/78216392.html

Morgankelps (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that according to google, most of the (130) references to the site are from Jack Myers (the creator of the blog). see here

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim1357 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that is a highly inaccurate count you need to exclude jackmyers.com in the query string to get an accurate count which appears to be closer to 329. see here also according to Matt Cutts of Google:

"“The short answer is that historically, we only had room for a very small percentage of backlinks because web search was the main part and we didn't have a ton of servers for link colon queries and so, we have doubled or increased the amount of backlinks that we show over time for link colon, but it is still a sub-sample. It's a relatively small percentage. And I think that that's a pretty good balance, because if you just automatically show a ton of backlinks for any website then spammers or competitors can use that to try to reverse engineer someone's rankings." http://www.seomoz.org/blog/google-link-command-busting-the-myths

Thus the reported count in Google accounts for only a small fraction of the actual links in their index and not a fair measure. Also the quality of the link is of higher importance than the count. Morgankelps (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This blog fails WP:N because it is not the subject of any independent sources. No significant thrid party coverage means delete. Angryapathy (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times and many of the content sources listed above are all independent sources and significant 3rd party sources. Morgankelps (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some digging, seeing as most of the links Morgan has provided link to Jack Myers, and left me wondering, "Why doesn't he have a WP page, since this refers to him more than the company?" Well, I found it had been deleted before: [50]. This seems like an end run around avoiding the same title, and thus avoid deletion. And again, none of the links above actually discuss Mediabizbloggers, but redirect to stories from the site. Angryapathy (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aljoša Buha[edit]

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

simply lacks notability Alan - talk 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a member of two notable bands. I added some references. – Eastmain (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per references added above --Fbifriday (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki I need to see coverage in English language sources before I'm inclined to believe that an article on en.wiki is justified. Yilloslime ^T_C 07:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Yilloslime above. From WP:NONENG: sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are confusing WP:Notability with WP:Verifiability. While I agree 100% that non-English sources can be used in for verifiability purposes, whether they can be used to establish notability is another matter. WP:Notability is silent on the matter, but I believe that if that no English-language media have bothered to cover a topic, then we shouldn't be writing about here at en.wiki. That's my opinion, others surely disagree, wiki-policy is undefined here...Yilloslime ^T_C 06:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I still disagree that English sources should be required, I'll concede that our guidelines are silent on the issue in establishing notability. Thanks for the quick response :) Jujutacular ^T · C 06:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - member of a notable band, thus passes WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The strong consensus here is that BLP concerns over sourcing and inclusion criteria present such a problem that deletion is the only reasonable outcome. Kevin (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of actresses in the MILF porn genre[edit]

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

Almost this entire article is sourced from the imdb, which is NOT a reliable source. This article thus breaches BLP in numerous ways. I could remove 94% of it, but I'm wondering whether there are any valid sources for such a list as oppose to perhaps an article on the subject. Is there such a genre? And would the "actresses" listed self-describe as being in it? Whatever happens there must not be any entries here sourced from the imdb. (This is almost a G10 speedy). Scott Mac (Doc) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - this may also be felt to be WP:OR.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The list appears to have quite a well-defined inclusion criiteria compared to other porn-genre lists that have been deleted in the past. Determining whether a movie is in the "MILF porn genre" does involve some original research, although by using common sense, any adult movie with words such as "MILF" or "Hot Mom" in the title will be within the genre. IMDB is generally considered reliable for filmography info, so using it as a source for whether someone has performed in certain movies seems acceptable to me, although it shouldn't be used to source the birth years. Epbr123 (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly for BLP concerns. ~~We have a category for this.~~ I thought we had a category for this and would be less opposed to a category than a list, as a category by definition only includes articles that exist. I see little benefit of this list over a category, and a major disbenefit in that it will act as a magnet both for porn spammers and for cyber bullies attacking people by calling them MILFs (at this moment in time it already has a string of redlinked names). Ϣere SpielChequers 10:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Category:MILF pornography isn't currently used for individuals, but if it was, it would probably cause more BLP concerns than the list. A category would be unsourced, unwatched and harder to maintain. The red links in the list should probably be removed though. Epbr123 (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite right. A category is created only by the adding of tags to an article. No article should be tagged unless the referenced text supports the categorisation. The problem with lists is that unless the referencing is on the list itself (and most people say "oh the referencing is on the linked article") then if the references are deleted from the liked article, the list is not updated, and no one knows.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categories would suffer from the same problem, so in this case at least we should have a list and insist on references in the article. Keep with that caveat. Polarpanda (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - the category doesn't name individual actresses. ~~However the article is still littered with redlinked names~~ - how do we tell if a redlinked poorly referenced name on this list is an attack or merely spam? Ϣere SpielChequers 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the redlinked names should probably be removed. Although I can't see any current BLP problems with the redlinked names, as they're all sourced. IMDB is reliable enough to confirm the existence of a porn actress. If people have a problem with IMDB being used as a source, it can easily be replaced by links to movie reviews on trade journal websites. Epbr123 (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the tidy up. Still see the maintenance of this list as an ongoing battle against BLP violations. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Imdb is an anyone can edit directory more or less. This is not an encyclopedia article. This exists to drive traffic to for-pay porn sites. Also original research, huge blp concerns, etc. etc.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP concerns, as improperly sourced, and as fanwank. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if source is unreliable, deletion is a no-brainer - Pointillist (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb sources = strong BLP concerns. Aditya Ex Machina 15:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actresses? LOL. Seriously, per BLP issues. Warrah (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jack Merridew. A classic example of what Wikipedia does not need. Enigma^msg 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the existence of a well-enough-defined "genre" is established, or that letting the video titles serve as definitive criteria is good enough for encyclopedic purposes. I remember, while checking out sources in a porn actress article, coming across a hilarious page listing actresses who were simultaneously appearing in films as "teenagers" and "MILFs," showing (at least to me) that this list is dependent on the marketing decisions of producers rather than reliable secondary-source classifications. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable and article no longer uses imdb as a source. Klassikkomies (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but still the odd Japanese blog? Futher, there's still no evidence of any objective classification of these "actresses" as being in this genre.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the article you would have seen that the contributors have provided numerous reliable sources for the level actresses involvement in the genre and only actresses known as MILFs are mentioned here. Klassikkomies (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Known by whom?--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By reliable sources. Klassikkomies (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and the obvious BLP concerns present in this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe, as a whole, the encyclopedia is better off without articles like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Some weak advertising citations that link on to porn sites, a magnet for BLP infringements. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete, wikipedia is not a guidebook. Someidiot (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, since what constitutes "MILF porn" is itself poorly defined, the list is essentially original research - actresses will be included and removed based on editor's opinions rather than verifiable facts. Someidiot (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because this list is now properly sourced if this nomination leads to deleting this article and listing actors or actresses is not seen as encyclopedic material we should also delete the following lists:

God, I hope so, and i'd bet so do many people included in these "encyclopedia entries."Bali ultimate (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed by Klassikkomies (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I recently tried to kill "List of male performers in gay porn films," but I wasn't successful. Thank you for pointing out some other lists that need to be re-evaluated for inclusion in this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. I agree with deleting the first seven, but am not concerned about the rest. Saying someone is an actor or of a particular nationality is rarely an insult on a par with incorrectly classifying someone as a pornstar; Therefore the BLP risks of the other lists are orders of magnitude less. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and please watch for:

List of pornographic actors who played the President of the United States
List of actresses in the MILF porn genre who played a wannabe Vice President of the United States (such as Lisa Ann)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many of these, particularly the first 7, would seem to fail per WP:Overcategorization. Someidiot (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I largely agree with the rest of the deletion reasons given above. I think the "List of X" pages have gotten a bit out of hand. Maybe this is a good time to initiate a "crackdown", so to speak, on unreferenced (or poorly referenced) and/or non-encyclopedic lists. Killiondude (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Mostly unreferenced, no indications of notability in the article, yet another BLP and maintenance nightmare - Alison ^❤ 04:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The various Fooian Fooer lists or categories I don't see as problematic per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. That there is a MILF genre I accept as established and notable. That the actresses listed (WP decided to rename pornstars actresses 6.6) have appeared in MILF porn is also established by the sources, and this list is better than many in that regard. What is more difficult to determine is whether this is a significant part of their career or not. Without the title of the article being qualified like some of the other examples that use "who appeared in" or "who have played," the implication is that this is their primary or sole porn genre. If they've done 500 porn movies and only 2 are MILF ones, is that notable? Infrequent or one-time-only performances might be notable. Bond girl does a fairly good job of addressing significance of one-time roles (though it could be better); there are articles and books on the topic of Bond girls, and [Template:James Bond actors] makes sense as well. If the list were strictly of actresses who have mainly or only appeared in the genre, or if the title were broadened to be List of actresses who have appeared in the MILF porn genre or something like, I'd still have a question as to the significance; I wonder about the "actors who played Santa Claus" above too. There is then also the question of how notable they are within the genre. That is, supposing someone makes nothing but these films, they might do that yet have failed to obtain notably positive or negative reviews, notable sales, awards, or a sizable fanbase. At the same time, Wikipedia is not paper, but in this case I don't mean so much that it can be infinitely large, but rather that being web-based means it has affordances print encyclopedias do not necessarily have the capability of having. Navigation of a paper encyclopedia is primarily simply alphabetical (is it possible to page through Wikipedia articles alphabetically?), and when other topics for which there are entries are mentioned in an entry, they're typically bold or something (been a while since I looked at one). Both the number of articles and the affordances to my mind justify the existence of navigational tools like lists, categories, templates and so on. As long as the organizing topic is not one that is potentially libelous, or completely trivial, or too small, or so large as to be unwieldy, if people are motivated to create them, I'm not sure that's a problem. Anyhow, it's something I've been pondering and may end up essaying eventually. While I think it makes sense this particular list came to AfD, rather than immediately "initiating a 'crackdown'" on the other ones linked above, I think it would make sense to keep WP:BEFORE AfD in mind and consider tagging the lists, or initiating talk page discussions on them, or contacting the creators and active editors and wikiprojects, or prodding them to get an explanation of their significance added to the lede if there isn't one. Or proposing or actually merging them into their relevant articles if there are any, or articlifying them. I also think there should be more discussion somewhere regarding Wikipedia's classification guidelines/category structure. I am not sure where the best place to do so would be. Portal:Contents? Шизомби (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As the list stands right now, it appears to be a good list to keep on Wikipedia. In the introduction to the list, it states the inclusion criteria for what a MILF is (meaning that within that context, it's not original research), and then gives a nicely researched and sourced list of actresses that fall in that range. Since the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth, the sourcing provided clearly establishes that. And as for the notability, it's a list of actresses - if it comes down to it, we cull out the ones that aren't notable and keep the ones that are on the list. By and large it seems like a useful and well researched source of information for the encyclopedia. Lithorien (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wp:before, a criteria for inclusion has been added, red links removed and new sources are available since nomination. I puzzled by some of the discussion here about issues with other list, seems to be a clever way of using the WP:OSE argument and not a strong reason for deletion. Also the argument about the encyclopedic nature of this kind of articles is immaterial to this discussion when multiples sources are available to establish notability, after all Wikipedia is not censored. We have several methods of dealing with BLP issues, including the basic edit bottom at the top of the page. --Jmundo (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It should be a category rather than an article. Also the "IL" in MILF seems somewhat POV. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it should be a list rather than a category to allow for "level of involvement". Polarpanda (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A listing of performers in a clearly defined genre of adult entertainment. Well-sourced, notable, and of encyclopedic value. The article as originally nominated may have been inadequately sourced, but it was sourceable and therefore a candidate for improvement, not deletion. The Delete !votes-- ignoring the many "I don't like it" ones-- put forth various spurious arguments. Chief among these is that this list is a potential BLP violation. Bullshit. If the listings are sourced, and the subject has an article, this can in no way be considered a BLP violation. If someone puts an entry on the list which is unsourced or doesn't belong there, we remove it. This is the very foundation of Wikipedia editing. If the very existence of terms like "MILF" or "mobster" are "potential" BLP violations, then we need to put into place software which will block terms like this from being added to any article. This would, of course, be insane because there actually are MILF performers, as there are mobsters. Use of these labels, when verifiable and appropriately sourced, is completely encyclopedic. We see sister AfDs-- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British mobsters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish American mobsters getting thrown out. Since the MILF genre is as clearly defined as a mobster, and this list is even better-sourced than those, I suspect the difference we see here is the continuing bias among some people that violence is more "respectable" than sex. Which is, I believe, unfortunate. (The allusion to "Japanese blogs" is confusing. The only thing I see which might be construed as such is a weekly column by a published authority on Japanese erotic entertainment. The site which hosts it has a name similar to the U.S. "About.com" which, I think, has been thrown out as a source. But the Japanese site has no connection with the U.S. one.) Dekkappai (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2009 (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 UB40. No arguments to keep, and there is a useful redirect target Kevin (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Virtue[edit]

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

lacks notability and context Alan - talk 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UB40.--Michig (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Dvornik (album)[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS notability, lack of context, article is just a track listing Alan - talk 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not just a tracklisting, it also includes instrumental credits, as well as a brief (2-sentence) introduction which mentions the album's genres. The subject is also inherently notable as the successful debut album of a notable artist. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist. If it were just a track listing (which it is not) it would be a candidate for merge (per WP:NALBUMS), not delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (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. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Hara (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

notability? would probably be better merged into band article Alan - talk 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Dino Dvornik: Vidi ove Pisme[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS nothing but a track listing which can be merged to main article if notable enough Alan - talk 00:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist. If it were just a track listing (which it is not) it would be a candidate for merge (per WP:NALBUMS), not delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rlendog. And its practice not to merge track listings into main articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2009 (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. Kevin (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sirpa Masalin[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources A333 (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some modest exhibitions, but not reliable review articles -> not wiki-important. Peltimikko (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this scupltor. Joe Chill (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2009 (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.