< 7 December	9 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 redirect to Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man story arcs[edit]

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

Page is intended to list all individual storylines in a comic book, despite the fact that the first story hasn't been published entirely yet, and won't be for about a month, if the solicitations are correct. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we shouldn't assume that there will ever be enough stories to warrant a separate article. Plus, all of the info on this page is already featured in the "Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man" article, making this one redundant. Friginator (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However if we keep this page it means we can clean up the Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man page. I have created this because that page is too messy and will get too big eventually. JFBeard (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is basically WP:RISING. There isn't a single complete story arc yet, let alone enough to fill a page. And again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Encyclopedias should not predict or reflect the future. Friginator (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article already exist! List of Ultimate Spider-Man story arcs Redirect to there. Dream Focus 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a separate series, and the page shouldn't include info on other comics. Friginator (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure plot retelling, which Wikipedia is Not. Also, unsourced. Abductive (reasoning) 09:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man, story arc articles tend to be a bad solution to a problem that is better fixed other ways and the need for one is often a sign the article is violating WP:PLOT and WP:WAF, splitting out all that material just leads to an article that still has those problems. However, UC: S-M hasn't even got to that point yet, so starting the article now seems a bad idea. I'd suggest if you get the plot trimmed right back there should be no need for such an article (if you think there is then start a split discussion and alert WT:CMC and we'll look over the issue and see if it is the best solution). (Emperor (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man for now per WP:CRYSTAL, there is not enough content to warrant a separate page at this time. Cerebellum (talk) 20:37, 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 all. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yung VL[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages, apparently unreleased albums by this individual:

This article about a 17-year-old rapper (and two affiliated album articles which I'll add to this in a minute) has been speedied already and contains a number of dubious circumstances. The albums themselves apparently have not yet been released; investigation of pages for the record label asserted reveals nothing about this person; "references" lead to mentions of a different artist. The article itself seems to be partly about another person. If this is for real and can demonstrate notability, I'd like to see that happen; if not, let's certify this as a hoax and get it deleted. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for those very valid reasons, which were the same reasons I nominated those articles for speedy deletion. I could find no authentic information about this person or these albums. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything of substance on Google, and the fact this page turned up in the top ghits is strong evidence of this performer's lack of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched the usual ways under his various aliases, and came up with nothing to verify this guy's existence, except on YouTube, but this may be for Funky Lil Brotha, a different rapper. When he tours or his CDs get released, we'll talk again. Sorry, kid. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. I think that this is a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete all. Normally it would be difficult to call an autobiographical article a hoax, but a Google search doesn't even come up with this guy's name in passing; in fact, "yung vl" and "brendon" (Brendon Martin supposedly being his real namr) only comes back with Wikipedia as a hit. It's the same kind of result when I search for any of the album titles. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete all. It looks like this guy was signed to UTP Records after all, but I still can't find any sources to verify anything in the articles about him, the albums mentioned in the article, or the separate album articles. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the process of restoring the AfD templates which were removed by the articles' creator, I happened across this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Brotha, which seems to bear some slight relationship to the current AfD in that one of the names of the apparently-bogus albums is the same. This might point to a sockpuppet-type pattern of vandalism. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:41, 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. Secret ^account 16:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intensive Spanish course[edit]

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

Duplicates information in existing Language education, reads like an advertisement for language schools in central Spain without contributing anything encyclopedic. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, but there are several potential targets. Language education is one, Language school is another. As it stands, the article makes no mention of intensive Spanish courses in Texas or California. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional and not encyclopedic. Someidiot (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, nothing to establish notability or uniqueness of the concept. --MelanieN (talk) 06:29, 15 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 Withdrawn per sources found. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No berlusconi day[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable Internet event. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Google news search confirms this event actually took place. But it is yet too early to decide that it has encyclopedic importance -- it will take months or years before we have sufficient hindsight to judge that. Most probably, however, this will end up warranting at most a paragraph in the Silvio Berlusconi article. It also counts, as a matter of style and form, that the article in its current form sounds more like enthusiastic journalism than detached encyclopedic prose. If we must have an article about this event, it would have to be rewritten from the ground up; we might as well start afresh, with a properly capitalized article name. –Henning Makholm (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] establish notability. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:54, 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 17:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero impact living[edit]

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

Original research, and no indication that the term is notable separate of sustainable living. The phrase "zero impact living" does not appear in any of the references, and seems to be a neologism coined by Colin Beavan. The article appears to have been created as a school project. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to No Impact Man. That's what the article is mainly about. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I posted on the WikiProject Environment talk page: "There's a new article that was titled "Zero Impact" and that I've moved to Zero impact living. It's quite detailed, but it looks more like an essay than an article, and I wonder how separate this concept is from Sustainable living and Simple living. Thoughts? ... Turns out it is for a class project: "We have completed our page and would like to publish it for general viewing. We ask that it is not edited for at least 3 days, as a professor will be grading it for us."" So the current title is my doing. I see no real value in the article, it is just an essay that mixes together a whole bunch of topics in the manner of an essay, as that's what it is. Delete and redirect to No Impact Man is fine by me. Fences&Windows 01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree. I think this article might refresh some topics, but on the whole worthy of staying in the Wikipedia. As people might be looking for similar topics, they might search for it with different terminology. That is not to say that some articles shouldn't redirect, but this seems like enough of a different concept to merit its own entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedenchase (talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because this is fresh idea or seems to merit it's own entry doesn't mean it should have it's own entry. Essays no matter how well written should pass policy first. Maybe in the future when this subject becomes more popular and better documented on other reliable sources.Cablespy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. A phrase used in blogs and the media. Nothing in Google scholar and books. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No doubt you can find some mainstream article that uses the term, but that doesn't mean it's notable so that it needs an encyclopedia article about it. I don't see anything indicating that's actually the case. Could possibly redirect to Sustainable living or something like that. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Low impact living is the more common term ([16] versus [17]). Low impact living takes into consideration more than sustainable living. For example a wind farm is sustainable in terms of energy but not necessarily low impact in terms of its visual and noise pollution. Both terms are different from simple living. For example driving a high tech and noiseless battery powered sports car (like the Tesla Roadster) may be sustainable and low impact, but not simple. If it is not deemed worthy of a separate article, low impact living requires a redirect and mentioning in the main article. nirvana2013 (talk) 09:06, 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 redirect to synoptic problem. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Source hypothesis[edit]

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

The three-source hypothesis is a notable topic in relation to the synoptic problem, which has been discussed by scholars for over a hundred years, but this article, despite the title, is not about the three-sources hypothesis. It is a commentary on a paper written by a retired IT worker and amateur biblical scholar published a couple of weeks ago in what doesn't appear to be a reliable peer-reviewed journal, and as such is original research. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator's analysis. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to synoptic problem. This article is clearly giving undue weight to a single author, regardless of his qualifications or the standing of the journal. EALacey (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to synoptic problem - it has some useful content, but has too much OR to stay by itself. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which content would you include? It looks to me like the whole thing is a summary of Ron Price's article which, if we're going to cite it, shouldn't be our only source. EALacey (talk) 19:34, 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) 02:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Biega[edit]

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

Disputed prod of non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Despite the prod removers beliefs that being drafted is good enough, this has through many afds prooven to not be true. Only when they are drafted in the first round have they survived afd and are generally considered notable. Player fails to meet the notability standards for ice hockey players. Can be recreated when and if he actually plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails of notability both under WP:ATHLETE and under the standards of the ice hockey WikiProject. Ravenswing 20:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE. ccwaters (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now; There is no indication that he has even won any substantial National/International awards or stands out in some notability fashion. I dont see any notability aside from him being drafted in the fifth round in the nhl 4 years ago. As far as I know he is playing at harvard again this season. Is there any indication also that hes signed a professional contract even? At the very least he does not pass WP: Athlete and doesnt appear to satisfy this any time soon, anything else would be crystal balling. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't won a significant amateur award, hasn't played professionally. Patken4 (talk) 22:09, 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 Withdrawn Due to new evidence he played a game this year which I somehow did not manage to turn up in my search. -DJSasso (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Burdasov[edit]

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

Disputed prod for a non-notable amateur player who is playing in a low level league as a junior amateur player. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE due to not playing professionally (despite the article trying to claim the contrary) and he has not played at the top level for amateurs (ie the World Championships or Olympics) Junior hockey players at this level are routinely deleted for non-notability. DJSasso (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there any way of finding out whether he's on a current KHL roster? Ravenswing 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And change that to an unambiguous Keep - according to the KHL's website [18], Burdasov's played at least one game this season, making this a pass under WP:ATHLETE. Ravenswing 01:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE and not on anybody's radar [19] [20]. ccwaters (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Can't seem to find anything notable he's accomplished. If he ever plays professionally, plays in the Olympics, or wins a notable award, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per Ravenswing. Patken4 (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 03:41, 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) 02:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esção[edit]

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

An article about a new computer arcitecture, which has close to no content and no evidence of notability or discussion on third-party sources. - Altenmann >t 20:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources, all I find is their sourceforge page and mirrorings of our article. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a secondary source, and there is no reliable independent tertiary coverage. May become notable in the future, but is not now. Haakon (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have been unable to find any reliable, third-party sources for the subject, which leads me to believe that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As such, I do not feel that it merits inclusion. All I am finding is Wikipedia-related hits, surname hits, SourceForge, etc. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:16, 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 redirect to Manheim Central High School. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Stage[edit]

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

Contested PROD. High school theater group cited in local publications only. I can't see that they have won any awards or have done anything to satisfy WP:GNG. PDCook (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable group. - Altenmann >t 20:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manheim Central High School. If WP:NLI went through, I would have voted weak keep. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically a high school club. The information should be on the high school's page, not in a separate article. --MelanieN (talk) 06:36, 15 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. Secret ^account 16:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age: Th4w[edit]

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

This article is based solely on rumors. Production for this supposedly film has not even started and no names have been officially given. Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 20:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. Well-sourced rumors discussed in mainstream may warrant a wikipedia article, which may be merged into the final article. But I see no references. - Altenmann >t 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What mainstrem websites? aintitcool.com, teaser-trailer, or [21] (fan blog). I don't see any reliable mainstream website reporting this. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - started to say speedy, but creator was neither Bambifan101 nor the sequel vandal A4d49f4a (though he is the main contributor) as I initially suspected. Completely fails WP:NF and WP:V. Random rumors are not verification. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rumors no matter how many are not reliable sources.Cablespy (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 23:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, article is based on rumors not sources per WP:V. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ice Age (film series). Sorry to disagree, but while the "proposed" title is nothing but conjecture, a possible 4th in the series of Ice Age films has been discussed in many reliable sources, and as such speculaton is verifiable, meets the requirements for inclusion in some form as set forth in WP:Crystal and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we redirect Ice Age: Th4w to the Ice Age film series or even merge that name? Ice Age 4 has not even been announced. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 03:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Ice Age 4, but not with this ridiculous title, or any variations of it. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt the sourced information would be okay in a section at Ice Age (film series) called Ice Age 4, proposed film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can Wikipedia propose a film that has not been announced? Maybe you can find that source? I mean even if was rumored it would be on IMDb (like every other anticipated sequel), but it's not even listed there! --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 06:15, 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) 02:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BL Challenge[edit]

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

This article was previously Prod tagged. While Adam Ransom and Dominic Makemson's charity work is admirable, they are not unique and not notable. The only source is their own web site. Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no particular indication of notability. News sources seem to be limited to classifieds? --Shirik (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this fund raiser. Joe Chill (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Peter and Gordon, The Everly Brothers, they aint. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but not notable. Daicaregos (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with Rallying under a new heading "Rallying for charity". Biscuittin (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind making a justification along with your !vote? It's hard to have a discussion over delete vs. keep if you don't describe your argument for keep. --Shirik (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as far as I can see. --HighKing (talk) 12:45, 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 keep. Primary concern seems to have been addressed by editors. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spin polarized electron energy loss spectroscopy[edit]

What part are you calling the original research? So far it's a pretty standard description of SPEELS. Can you specific the OR? I'm not seeing it. If it's only the last section, which I haven't edited thus far, could you refrain from the hyperboly and state that some of it is OR rather than claiming it's all OR? Maybe someone has edited the OR since you nominated? If that was the only problem and OR is gone, then it's time to stop wasting time on this. There is no point in discussing an AfD on this topic. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is as yet unpublished research. ((prod)) removed by anon IP editor with no other edits to their credit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like the creator, who shares the name with one of the researchers, Khalil Zakeri Lori, mentioned on [22] (a page dedicated to the tests performed in this article from The Max Planck institute) is trying publish a paper straight to WP instead of going through academic channels. Fails WP:OR. Angryapathy (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC),[reply]
Changed to keep Kudos to the editors that removed the OR/copyvio portions of this article and shaping it into much, much better shape. Angryapathy (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note remove OR from article, don't delete encyclopedic topic due to OR in the article! --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE This is a copy of another Wikipedian article. Might be the same person, I don't know. -WarthogDemon 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same account. Redirected. - Altenmann >t 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same person and the same article. Angryapathy (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except one has SPEELS in the title. This one appears to be vaguely sourced as well so it obviously should be added to this. As for my vote, I say delete both as original (and unpublished) research. -WarthogDemon 19:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this original and unpublished research? Please elaborate on this as requested above. If editors are going to vote to delete articles without any knowledge of the topic area as a method of getting them cleaned up, forget it. Where is the OR? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve one version of the text, maybe at a subpage of the talk page at spin wave, and delete the resulting redirect. This text is original research and not really an encyclopedia article, but it might possibly be useful for ~~building my invincible death ray and conquering the world~~ expanding some other article, though I'll defer to experts about where this might belong. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, heavy cleanup This text is not original research: it is based on published papers, and published by researches from a no-bullshit highly respected institution. The only problem is its "single-sourcedness". The proper approach would be to contact the author and requiest third-party references, in other words Don't bite a newcomer. - Altenmann >t 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Also, opinions of experts are to be requested. A quick google search reveals that various permutations of the title are quite known. So the issue is to relate this uncategorized paper within proper context. - Altenmann >t 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.P.S. I added the corresponding tags to the article.- Altenmann >t 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the paper references other papers, the source from which the material is copied ([23]) indicates that the work is still in progress. A search of Google scholar shows no publication of the findings in this research by these researchers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to this ([24]) edit summary, it appears to be original research. Dog poster 23:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Keep, Heavy Cleanup- I guess it seems good enough if it is clened up very heavily. Dogposter 19:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this is NOT original research The article simply includes OR. If it includes OR delete the OR, but don't waste everyone's time and delete an article on an encyclopedic topic. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research / promotional editing, per Dogposter. Not biting newbies is not a reason to delete articles; we should be friendly to them but not at the expense of our policies and guidelines. Them From Space 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this is NOT original research The article simply includes OR. If it includes OR delete the OR, but don't waste everyone's time and delete an article on an encyclopedic topic. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, heavy cleanup - this appears to be a lot of synthesis, but I think it can be fixed. It is beyond me. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of them It is a materials characterization technique and there is no doubt an article on the topic belongs in wikipedia. [25] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has not been proposed for deletion because the topic of SPEELS is not worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia, but because this particular article appears to be a copy of material posted here which is a new line of research into new applications of SPEELS. The new applications described in this research have not yet been published in any journal, as verified by a Google scholar search. The article has been modified sufficiently to avoid a copyvio tag, but only just.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited everything left in the article except for the few sentences in the last part. If you are accusing me of plagiarizing something, then remove anything I've plagiarized. I used reputable sources for the part I rewrote. I you are accusing me of OR, then remove the original research I've added. It's time to cut the crap out. Instead of just deleting the OR, you read the article's edit history once, have not revisited it sense, and have no idea about it's content. Remove my OR and my copyvios and report me to the authorities and be done with the accusations. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated based on its content at the time of its nomination. At that time, IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs) had not yet touched the article, so no accusations are made against this user. My comment above was an explanation of why I nominated the article in the first place, and not a comment on any contributions that have been made since the article was nominated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still voting to delete the article as it now stands. That makes your comment about the current state of the article. How it was does not matter. The discussion is about how it is. Since you're not withdrawing your accusations that it contains OR, and I've mostly rewritten the article, you are accusing me of OR and plagiarism in the rewrite. To hell with the article and wikipedia and this talk for talk's sake rather than writing a good encyclepedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting for anything at the moment. My nomination was made; the article was edited. If the community agrees that the edits improve the article, so be it. My further silence on the matter cannot construed as a an accusation against any editor who modified the article since I nominated it; it can only be construed as allowing the community to make its judgment. Having nominated the article, I leave it to the rest of the community to decide its fate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just want to waste other editors' time. There's no reason whatsoever for deleting this article. Do a google search for once, put the term in quotes, and see how many hits you get. It's a well-known materials characterization technique. For some reason, you've nominated a legitimate topic for deletion, and you're forcing the AfD to its end, in spite of the fact that your reason for deletion no longer exists and was a criterion for fixing in the first place. You want to hold the audience captive rather than just closing this ridiculous AfD. This is why experts leave: too much bs to deal with. Can I write articles? No, I'm forced to attend to ridiculous crap like this. Fine, delete the article. I'm not editing this encyclopedia anymore and playing games where editors with no knowledge in an area force editors with knowledge in an area to defend perfectly legitimate subjects against deletion simply because the deletionist wants a big audience.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this before and I'll reiterate it: I nominated this article for deletion not because the topic is not noteworthy but because the original article claimed new findings regarding the technique that had not yet been previously published. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion, not a single one of which is the article contains original research. If the article IS OR in its entirety, then go ahead, but this article is NOT, and you continue to support its deletion with all OR removed. Therefore, you're either accusing me of OR or playing a game with the time of wikipedia editors. Your choice, and it's not ad hominem if it's true.

For some reason, you've nominated a legitimate topic for deletion, and you're forcing the AfD to its end, in spite of the fact that your reason for deletion no longer exists and was a criterion for fixing that part of the artice rather than deletion in the first place.

Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
Redundant or otherwise useless templates
Categories representing overcategorization
Images that are unused, obsolete, or violate fair-use policy
Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

So, forget wikipedia and editing articles, when editors' time is wasted by game players who are only interested in using other editors' and the community's time rather than creating a decent encyclopedia. And stay off my user page, I'm done with you and wikipedia. That's enough bs.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs) has claimed that I am wasting the community's time with the continuance of this AfD. The fact is that the original article did contain original research. This user claims that his edits have turned the article into something legitimate, and that my refusal to acquiesce is tantamount to an accusation against him. This is untrue. My nomination was based on the original article, which even to my unlearned eye was OR. Whether the current version is an improvement or not is beyond my power to tell as I am not expert in this field. That is why I have allowed the AfD to continue; to allow those members of the community who are knowledgeable in this area to have their say in the matter. This it the whole point of an AfD discussion anyway, is it not? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have removed a large amount of information from the article that violated Wikipedia's copyright policy. I'd appreciate if someone could clean up what's left. The leftorium 15:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just deleted the rest of that section. The lead section is not a copyvio, I wrote most of it. I haven't checked the second part. If the copy vio problem is in the section you edited, just removing it is safer. The part about the initial experiment has to be developed properly. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, everything seems good now. The leftorium 18:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for checking the rest. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gasp, this looks like an actual encyclopedic topic on Wikipedia, I cannot believe my eyes. JBsupreme (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be a valid encyclopdic topic. Don't see any valid reason to delete, at least as the article stands now. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 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. Secret ^account 16:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giapo[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

A disputed speedy about a New Zealand gelato shop; two previous versions were speedied as WP:SPAM. This seems to me to be on the border between notability and advertising; most of the references seem to me to be questionable in that they don't exercise sufficient editorial control. An exception is one about the organization's charitable activities, which seems to have nothing to do with the restaurant per se. A number of assertions have been made which purport to be about notability but may be based on an insufficient understanding of that term's meaning in the Wikipedian context. Rather than continue this cycle of speedy deletion, I thought it best to bring the article to the community for discussion and determination. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's going to be speedied. I think some salt might be useful. I don't see any evidence or indication of notability for gelato shop established in 2009. ChildofMidnig

ht (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giapo is notable for making the biggest cone on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.143.76 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that because of the relative infancy of the store that it may be considered un-notable, however this is simply not the case. As is mentioned in the article, the store has several significant achievements and notable aspects, like it's recognition as a top auckland restaurant. The sources include reputable magazines, and an independent news source (Scoop New Zealand). These both show the significance of the topic. In terms of other sources, I am trying to obtain other print sources to add to the article. Hence I feel that this article should be edited, helped, and improved, rather than 'speedied'. Lukejtharries (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a reference from scoop in the article. We would need to see any coverage on scoop, as they undertake relatively little independent journalism, with a large part of their output being reproduction of press releases. (But they are a good archive for non-controversial information which doesn't need independent sourcing). dramatic (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share the view of Luke Harries. If the question is about being notable, how about the 1900 fans on facebook? If it is about the substance of what giapo is doing, the supergiapo ( biggest cone baked only available at giapo), the charity with starship foundation, the social media relevance, the all organic ingredients and the weird flavours might help u answer your doubt. if it is about the content of the article here in the wiki: Giapo in New Zealand means something for all the people in the social media, the youtubers, the facebookers and twitterers. Giapo is a hub that everybody who lives in Auckland central knows. it is a 24/7 live tweet up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpgrazioli (talk • contribs) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be presumed that User Gpgrazoli has a conflict of interest given that their username matches the store founder's name. dramatic (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Regarding "Scoop" coverage the sole article I find (here) is a company press release. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no coverage outside of Auckland, and precious little there, at least as references. For this company to meet WP:CORP it should at least have broad notability in New Zealand at large, with coverage in other media in other NZ cities. Coverage in social media is interesting, but so far I see nothing beyond up-to-date marketing practice, of which an article on Wikipedia would be a part. Acroterion _(talk) 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But NZ is a country with 4 million people. Auckland is its main city with 1.4 million people residents and 2 million tourists a year, covering Auckland is almost covering NZ. I do not think it is about Marketing. The practice of wanting Giapo on Wikipedia is more for justice for all the people that know giapo or want to know more about giapo. I call it pure and simple information because everything Luke Harries says in his article is verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpgrazioli (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam for a business which comes nowhere near meeting the notability requirements for businesses. Their marketing is obviously good, but the claims to notability are trivial and unverifiable. (If there's a relaible independent source for the size of every waffle cone produced in the world then I'll eat my waffle-iron). dramatic (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is undergoing a rewrite, (while unofficially with the help from The Guild of Copy Editors). The impact this shop has on New Zealand is quite extensive with the fact Giapo has the largest commercially available ice cream cone and all it's outside work including the 'Eat Safe' campaign and charitable activities (Starship Children's Hospital initiative) are significant as Giapo's mission statement is 'to make a child smile'. All these points are enough to warrant this down to a notability tag; at least. PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me

22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A new Article just arrived today from the main business paper in New Zealand. The National Business Review in this article is mentioning Giapo with its fake break in to spread the word about the charity. http://www.nbr.co.nz/search/apachesolr_search/giapo ≈≈≈≈

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's an ad. I've lived in Auckland all my life and never heard of it so it can hardly be iconic. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity press doesn't count as a reference. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per everybody else above. I've been to this place, medium size ice-cream shop similar to other places (like Cold Stone Creamery who have 1400 locations) and with 3-4 people behind the counter in a central Auckland location. About as big as a dozen other places like McDs, Starbucks, BurgerFuel, BurgerKing, Wendy's etc within 2 minutes walk. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be simply taken down to a notability tag, because the article as contains an assertion of notability which should merit it more time to establish whether it should be in Wikipedia. Also this should be categorised, which should hopefully bring it to the attention of Wikipedians interested in that area. PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me 13:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This IS the process by which we allow the article more time to establish whether it should be in Wikipedia, and it seems to be getting the full seven days to which it's entitled. Although I didn't see a specific assertion of notability at the time I brought it to AfD, I felt that there was a generalized sense of notability being asserted sufficient to make an AfD the most useful way to move forward. Otherwise I would have simply used the speedy deletion process, much like the last two times an article on this topic was deleted. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Giapo is a notable shop in Central Auckland, Giapo is known all throughout New Zealand due to their large social media presence and also their press coverage, including National Business Review a newspaper and online website that many notable business people read on a daily basis and also 3 News, One of New Zealand's largest news and current affair shows, that reaches almost 100% of New Zealand! Another great success Giapo has is the largest cone on earth the 'SuperGiapo' I greatly believe that this is notable and is just one of the fantastic achievements of this amazing store called Giapo! Keep up the great work Lukejtharries on improving this very notable article! --Jakingsbeer (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole will get you nowhere. TV3 news rates about 30% of people who are actually watching Television at 6pm. dramatic (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added in the National Business Review and Scoop references, as well as toned down some of the self-promotional language to maintain a neutral point of view. Full disclosure: I do consulting work for Giapo, as well as being a Wikipedian committed to making Wikipedia better. I can disclose that as well as the sources linked to in the article, Giapo will also be covered on TV3 news sometime during summer. A reporter from TV3 was there yesterday, specifically focusing on how Giapo uses social media to build a solid community in less than a year. That same community shows fanatical loyalty; as SimonLyall noted on Twitter, the menumania page for Giapo has 120-odd positive comments. Simon Young | Auckland, New Zealand (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I said 120 percent positive comments, not 120 comments. The actual number of reviews is around 12 and they looked so over-the-top positive and marketing speak that I suspected that many were written by staff members ( it now appears to not be the case ) - SimonLyall (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The company seems to use the internet rather heavily as a marketing tool. This will make the shop appear to be notable when using online sources. If we add this shop it would be only fair to include the thousands of other small businesses in NZ as WP articles. There really needs to be a cutoff point for inclusion of topics i.e. all of the businesses that have a WP article that are least notable should all be notable to the same degree. (does that make sense??) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only National Review article is a story about purported fraud on the part of Giapo and the only Scoop article is a company press release. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Comment: - Yes I agree that Giapo uses the internet heavily as a marketing tool, but that does not mean that they 'just appear notable'. Giapo has what is known as the largest cone on earth! Surely this is a greatly notable achievement! No?? --Jakingsbeer (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. IMO, the "largest cone" claim amounts to trivia. In fact it is trivial to make one larger than theirs - but its simply not worth the effort. dramatic (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reasons have been stated by those above who voted for the delete. Refer to Talk:Giapo#Reasons_to_Delete_Giapo_Page where I list a few errors in the Giapo page and reasons behind my vote. Linnah (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you should put some of that material in this discussion.dramatic (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly there are less notable articles that this floating around WP but IMHO most of those should be removed. Ideally notability should be established by some solid secondary sources. A short mention in one magazine does not qualify. And from what's been offered there is no good reason to think that will change. Whether it has the largest cone or the largest ball of yarn is not really relevant. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Giapo has been mentioned in some of New Zealand's largest publications and is shortly going to be mentioned on one of Nz's largest news bulletins, 3 News. This is a fact as they recored the segment a few days ago. In fact, with a few quick search's I had found multiple secondary sources, also the Giapo article meets wikipedia notability guidelines as there HAS been coverage in reliable secondary sources and there is MORE to come. The creator of this article is Independent of the subject. I strongly believe that this article should be kept in Wikipedia. --Jakingsbeer (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews do not count as significant coverage, because every restaurant should be reviewed in time. Besides, the "review" uses several phrases identical to Giapo publicity material, making its neutrality doubtful. (They must have talked to the management rather than going in anonymously, and may well have been invited to do the article in the first place). The fact that TV3 is doing an article on a business's use of social media just highlights their newsroom's ignorance of where things are at. Social media marketing is now a commodity and is at least a year past the point of being a novelty. (I even have a business which brokers it!). This leaves us with zero significant coverage in reliable sources. dramatic (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth if there is significant coverage by secondary sources then this needs to be shown in the article through references. Currently there are 3 references in the article but one is a company-published Youtube video and another is just a listing with user ratings provided. So really there is just a single reference that implies any notability (and it really doesn't imply enough to merit an article). I did a quick Google search (admittedly not a thorough one) and, other than the company's marketing stuff and various self-published stuff, I really don't see the business showing up on the radar. Even if a major news station is planning a story on the place that doesn't by itself mean much (I was on the news once and I'm not notable enough to have an WP article ;-) ). Is the news story saying anything about the place that makes it notable (note: unique or good is not the same thing as notable)? --Mcorazao (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the sources in the refs, However one can not be opened without payment as this is due to it being soley for business owners that subscribe to the newspaper and online version, however I do have many to add. --Jakingsbeer (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NBR reference has previously been removed, since the section it supported (charitable work) was eliminated when someone tried to balance the article. A large proportion of New Zealand businesses support one or more charities, which devalues charity work on the notability stakes.dramatic (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the newspaper for "business owners", I would be careful. I am presuming that you are talking about some sort of trade magazine which would not be considered objective. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources (magazine blurb and local rating website) do not show notability. Evil saltine (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is more than those, just not listed as refs, I will add them :) --Jakingsbeer (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- what chutzpah to be so publicity hungry and then cite the ensuing minor internet publicity as evidence of serious notability. Also, offering New Zealand's largest ice cream cone is a gimmick; ditto the ball of twine comment above. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:04, 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 G3 by Enigmaman. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triggity[edit]

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

Neologism Raziman T V (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologic dicdef. But would have been better/simpler to wait a day or so for the creator to lose interest and then prod it ... –Henning Makholm (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEO. Angryapathy (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as neologism. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:45, 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) 02:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Devji[edit]

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

This doesn't really assert notability IMO, but comes close enough to render a speedy too difficult. The subject is a writer who has written one book (which doesn't have an article, so it appears not too notable) and a journalist with some websites, but no major roles it seems to me. It also lacks any third-party sourcing. It reads like a curriculum vitae. Golbez (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see a 19 year old hockey fan who writes for his local hockey magazine as notable enough for Wikipedia. He's probably virtually unknown outside of British Columbia. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote the article himself. Are we to expect that there is anyone else who would be able to contribute substantially to this article? His book also appears to have been published through Cacoethes Publishing House, which looks like either a vanity press or an on-demand ebook printing site. Gary (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of fluff to look notable, but let's break it down: First of all, he is a journalism student at college. Secondly, he is an editor-in-chief of a fan site for a hockey team. Third, Orato is basically a news site where anyone can post a story. Fourth, writing for a student newspaper, The Charlatan, is again non-notable. Fifth, his book is published by a publishing house established 2 years ago (2007), and shows no sign of notability. All in all, he seems to be on his way to a real sports journalism career, but as of yet has not done anything that meets WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others above. conflict of interest entry created by Canuck Hockey, a single purpose account. Short on WP:RS and relies too heavily on WP:SPS Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 20:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "proponent of beastiality" What? I live in BC and even I've never heard of this guy. Planetary (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't occur that maybe that was vandalism? :P --Golbez (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reason appear to have been covered already. prak (talk) 22:40, 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) 02:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varanapally[edit]

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

Originally PROD'd due to lack of references or Google hits, and therefore the article could not be verified. I can only quote the de-PRODing editor: "This article is in terrible shape. I de-WP:prodded it in the hope that it will be improved. If it's not improved in the coming weeks please put it out of its mercy at WP:AFD. As the person who de-prodded it, I wish I could've de-prodded it without prejudice to re-prodding. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't work that way." Well, a few weeks have gone by, and the article has not changed. Singularity42 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation if the location is notable enough for inclusion and a suitable article can be created, or send to the WP:Incubator for improvement if the topic meets inclusion guidelines. See also: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 43#Varanapally. I am the de-prodder. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable ancestral home. Salih (talk)

Strong Delete (if possible, speedy): No proof of notability, nor even any claim of notability. I think it qualifies for speedy. --Ragib (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under what category? A7 does not cover geographic locations (for good reason...) Singularity42 (talk) 15:36, 11 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ulvik Lutheran Church[edit]

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

I couldn't find any sources to help this building pass WP:GNG. The article's creator contested the prod by adding three external links, but one isn't in English and the other two appear to be about different subjects. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominating an article about an 800-plus year old Norwegian church that has solid Norwegian (bokmål)‬ and Norwegian (nynorsk)‬ Wikipedia articles about it within 14 hours of its creation and practically no time for article improvement is disruptive to the editing and improving of Wikipedia. There are extensive secondary works about this topic [26] and there appears to be a entire books about this topic. [27][28]. Another example of why WP:BEFORE needs to be an absolute rule. --Oakshade (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be disruptive if I nominated it in bad faith, which I didn't, even if it has only been up a small amount of time. Do you have any reliable English-language sources to add? (By the way, I'm familiar with WP:BEFORE.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not have English-language sources on this topic, which has nothing to do with notability. As you are familiar with WP:BEFORE, I strongly advise adhering to it before nominating an article for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But back off Oakshade. There's no bad faith here, and badgering people who are trying to help out the encyclopedia about WP:BEFORE is not helpful. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rushing to an AfD without doing even simple research which is much quicker and easier than creating an AfD is not helpful to an encyclopedia, which was my original point.--Oakshade (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable. The information has reliable sources. There's no criteria that the information has to be available in English. In this case though at least two of the provided links contain relevant information on the subject in English. For the bulk of the information from Norwegian sources you will just have to trust in the competence of other wikipedians if you don't have it yourself. Article should be improved though. Inge (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. English sources are preferred but not required. The sources given in this AFD establish notability. Rettetast (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notability well established, non-English sources are not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Site of historical significance, mentioned in Store norske leksikon et. al. As per above, lack of English sources is not a criterion for deletion, but in this case, English sources seem to be present as well. decltype (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have moved the article too Ulvik Church. Rettetast (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the page move; there is no reason to specify the denomination for normal parish churches in Norway. For subjects such as this (historic churches or other buildings), high-quality scholarly sources are usually in the national language (Norwegian in this case), with the odd summary or tourist-oriented web page in English or German or other languages. --Hegvald (talk) 14:44, 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) 02:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dj prime[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about a DJ that doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. PROD contested by article creator. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. On a side note, I had to fix the article due to the absolutely horrid state it was in, and reduced it to a stub. The article had random capitalizations and was very, very far from being wikified. If you would like to see the old version, here you go: [29]. Angryapathy (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has no sources to prove notability for a wiki entry. Cablespy (talk) 16:58, 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) 02:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ophélie Bretnacher[edit]

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

Single event only. Subject is not notable apart from her death, article is a more of a crime report than a biography. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, BLP1E, NOTNEWS etc ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject is known for only one event, namely her disappearance. Although the death of a young person is sad, there is no viable reason to have a stand-alone wikipedia article on this individual. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject fails wikipedia notability guidelines. Thousands of people vanish, and turn up dead a year, and nothing seems to mark this one as special. Also WP:NOT#NEWS Martin451 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E?? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing else to use and being dead doesn't mean an automatic article. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there's nothing else to use (and I'm not agreeing with the specific claim), then you don't have an argument for deletion, because "living" is an essential element of the policy you're citing. I think you should review the range of potentially applicable policies and guidelines more carefully. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is WP:BIO1E which I linked to in my delete comment above - it covers all biographies. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 02:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if there wasn't anything that covered it, which I just found out that there is, it wouldn't matter. That's a dumb response because it's such a minor detail. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although a person can be here for one event ( Jon Benet Ramsey, imho no where even close on this article. } this seems to be more of a memorial page then anything else. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the deletion.Ophelia Bretnacher It's not a memorial page . The case Ophélie Bretnacher Google: 307 000 Articles Ophelia Bretnacher Photos: 67 700 ... etc.

Actually, I just removed it. The section headers were screwing things up on the log page. Besides, as you just said, it's visible in the page history.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a warning about the "ownership" issues seen above. I also tried explaining that the article neded to be cleaned up. It was all over the place and wasn't not NPOV. Kinda confusing how the model was connected other then she went missing too....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am not the owner of this text and I sincerely hope it will be improved. But in this particular case, Hell In A Bucket has mostly withdrawn more than half. why? Improving an article, is not delete it ? ....Why not tell me why you do not mention the important things? Ophélie Bretnacher disappeared at the same time as Eva Rhodes in the same place. Facts are proved and documented, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/animal-welfare-woman-feared-murdered

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1162648/David-Miliband-slammed-failing-assist-hunt-animal-loving-60s-model-feared-murdered-Hungary.html

Why did you cut that ? I just wanted to mention " Ophélie bretnacher desappeared in Budapest near at the same time as Eva Rhodes, the model muse of John Lennon and Yoko Ono". I think this facts are important because Political personnalities in France and in United Kingdom ( helped by Yoko Ono) want to have a response of Hungary. Theses two desappearances at the same time and the same place are a real Européan problem. They will have diplomatic consequences. (I have made a synopsis to day because my argumentation was too long ) Raymondnivet (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the rest of the statement by this user. It is extremely long, and not properly formatted. --King Öomie 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Delete, NOTMEMORIAL. It also isn't the PR arm of the French government. It doesn't matter how noble your cause is. You don't get a free pass from WP:N. --King Öomie 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I'd also like to point out that accusations of censorship tend to ring exceptionally hollow with editors here, and in no way help your case. This article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. These criteria MAKE us an encyclopedia- if it's not notable, it's not covered. --King Öomie 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a state affair Raymondnivet (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ponyo and Martin. @Kate (parlez) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTMEMORIAL and NOTNEWS. Grsz¹¹ 06:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

307 000 articles on google... Photos: 67 700 ... etc. The case Bretnacher Ophelia pointing the problem of justice and police non cooperation between France and Hungary, violating the Treaty of Lisbon. This is an issue of human rights and democracy in Europe.

Comment- That's an argument for the creation of Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher, not the survival of THIS article. The proceedings would not be significantly different had the man killed some other french woman (though perhaps the coverage would be less pervasive if he'd killed someone less pretty). --King Öomie 13:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:GOOGLETEST. I'm less than surprised to see so many hits relating to the murder of a pretty french girl. --King Öomie 13:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained because Ophelie believed the construction of Europe. She was a person of great charisma, she had friends everywhere. As the campaign for the return came from across Europe and elsewhere: Germany, Russia, France, Hungary, Italy etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondnivet (talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I want to explain something to you as gently as possible. I can't guarantee you won't be offended.

I'm sure she was a good person, and it's terrible that she was killed. But her personality is simply not relevant in this debate. There is no exception in WP:N for people who were 'charismatic'. Her death, in and of itself, is non-notable (which isn't to say that it isn't terrible). The governmental response to the ensuing investigation may be notable- but this DOES NOT allow for the creation of an article about the girl herself, especially if you intend to include a description of her personality, or her political opinions. This article, and indeed the subject itself, is unfit for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. And you seem to be the only person here who disagrees. --King Öomie 15:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For now I agree with King. Let things play out it may end up being owrthy of inclusion after the politics play out. That time is not yet though.....Wiki will still be here when it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I take it well... It was not an argument, it was only to explain so much reactions in Europe:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondnivet (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly, there are lots of white females who die under mysterious circumstances every year, and WP can not have an article on every one of them. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case Bretnacher Ophelie is a state affair. This is an issue of human rights and democracy in Europe Raymondnivet (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article isn't about that. It's about her murder. It only mentions the political issue in passing. It spends more time discussing the efforts to find her. --King Öomie 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And her murder is non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: It's a non-notable death. According to the article sources it's being treated as a drowning, but murder has not been ruled out. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a good idea : That's an argument for the creation of Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher, not the survival of THIS article. And you are reposting Kings comment why? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Because everybody didn't say ONLY DELATE. Raymondnivet (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a GOOD argument. I only meant to point out that arguing the relevance and importance of the political backlash of her murder didn't help your case in defending an article about her. --King Öomie 14:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes I understand ... but I just wanted to say it was an important point of view of socio-political science. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia? Political science does not interest it? I would not say it was my opinion. it is just a scientific interest ... and encyclopedic ... --Raymondnivet (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move - to Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher (currently a redirect to this article), per Hell and King. The aftermath of the crime is notable, but the victim herself is not. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how proper it would be to have an article titled Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher when the article has two sources stating " Forensic experts reported that there was no sign of aggression or criminal acts on her body, and concluded that death was probably the result of a suicide or accident" --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, the nature of the crime is itself a source of controversy in this issue, so at this time, 'Murder' isn't an appropriate title. I was making a point when I mentioned it, not a genuine suggestion. They say that no signs of aggression were found, but the article history mentions a large bruise. I have to wonder which one is incorrect. --King Öomie 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And tittle : Disappearance of Ophélie Bretnacher ? it would be good ? Raymondnivet (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC) And for the murder: there is a big hematoma .It is actually an homicide. Raymondnivet (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're killing me here. I am unconvinced that the article as it stands is acceptable under ANY title (and the original version isn't better). As to your assertion, she could easily have suffered an impact while falling into the river/jumping/any number of other theories. It's not as conclusive as you make it sound. Your keen interest leads me to believe that you're interested less in the political aspect and more on justice being served. --King Öomie 17:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this viewpoint as stated above. One day this may meet the standards of inclusion at this point that time is not here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the beginning regardless of all the arguments that I gave, you absolutely refuse any inclusion whatsoever for the notability, the encyclopedic value, or the socio-political value. I am certain of is that you refuse all arguments, all even better justified. Regarding the argument of justice, no, it is not mine, so that justice is done, it must go to court. I'm not here for justice ... I'm here for the encyclopedic value ... And I return to my first question: censorship ? I have noticed this as the 4 times I mentioned Eva Rhodes H.I.B. withdrew my sentence in less than a minute! You have instructions on Eva Rhodes who was a John Lennon's friend ? You're afraid that this parasite does John Lennon? Worry, I just want to contribute to the desappearance of Ophelie Bretnacher and its consequences on European democracy, and neither Eva Rhodes, John Lennon does not interest me and I am ready to forget them. Chloemassart (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smelling like a lockerroom. Be it meat or sock can't tell yet. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't Know what you mean, but I understand maybe it's an insult for my wife : Chloé. my wife think that it's censorship. I, Raymond desagree with her. But now, maybe she's right. Insults are autorised on wikipedia ? you are an administrator Hell in a Bucket ? you are autorised to insult users' wifes ? I am waiting for your excuses a soon as possible --Raymondnivet (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here on wikipedia what you are doing right now is called either Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry. See WP:SOCK Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:MEAT Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HiaB, keep in mind that metaphors are typically lost in translation (not to insult, Chloe and Raymond, your english is actually quite good)- I assume you meant "Smells like a locker room" to imply sockpuppetry, rather than to actually insult the user as a person. Though perhaps stick to "Looks like someone opened the sock drawer" in the future :P. Raymond, your anger is reasonable given the circumstances here; I truly believe this is a misunderstanding. --King Öomie 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Since 3 days, I made the effort to explain in your language, how it seemed to me that the case of non-compliance of cooperation between 2 member states of Europe, from a student traveler, who will probably drag on for years before coming to your television or your newspaper, when she made headlines a year now of our newspapers in Europe and on the Internet. I thought there was not such a gap between 2 continents, at the internet age. I was sadly disappointed. Your ways and also your comments are not the same as ours. We also, we the people of the old continent's capacity for empathy, I have not always felt (with some exceptions) when you talk of disappearances which seem natural to you. But here I digress from the Encyclopedia ... My wife asked me to stop writing to you and I'll listen. I can add nothing more. I hope you have not tried to insult her. I do not understand your business "meat" and "socks", and I confess that I've had enough. The day you want, you will make yourself this product with your own research. This effort on my part was too time consuming and I have other more important responsibilities. I also hope you do not try to censor us. I'm not sure. I also think you have black listed Eva Rhodes (John Lennon's friend). The connection between Ophélie and Eva was made by the journalists of the Guardian, not me. My wife and me think that it had it's place on wikipedia It's a case of democracy. I salute you. Raymondnivet (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely lost in translarion. I never meant to call your wife any names only refer to a policy we have here. Sorry for the confusion. Wiki isn't a democracy though./...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HiaB was referring specifically to [30]. On FR, that's an essay- but on EN, it's a policy. --King Öomie 21:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain us why do you have in Wikipedia a so long article on Alicia Ross and on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and why you don't accept Ophélie Bretnacher ? --Raymondnivet (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick review of the article, they had much more media coverage and seem to have more impact on their collective communities. One day your article might get there, that time is not now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that the discussion ins't closed, and it can maybe change, if other people want to KEEP this article as The Ophélie Bretnacher case ,

Now you have seen it's not a biography, not news, ans it's very important for people of France and Hungary ? We also think that Ophélie Bretnacher should be on the List of people who disappeared mysteriously in 2008. Raymondnivet (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your arguments as to why you think the article should be kept and others have argued otherwise. You are not improving your case by repeating your comments ad nauseam - the admin who reviews the dicussion will read all the comments and make a decision when the 7 day discussion period has passed. – ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand that an admin will read all the comments and will make a decision. That's why I was repeatind. Excuse me. I's the first time. Best regards Raymondnivet (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HIAB removed the phrase that has crucial importance, because it's non-compliance with Européan directives and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is the subject of the actual legal action. This will be the next chapter "Good police and judicial cooperation between countries, members of Europe is specified in the Treaty of Lisbon, applicable on 1 December 2009 and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union". So I surrender, because it is not, to return at an early removal requests, or news, or a tribute to a beautiful white female unfortunately drowned.

I stress a lot for the existence of this article in Wikipedia, or what you propose in fine (despite the hundreds of newspaper articles, television, etc.), because in fact only Wikipedia is encyclopedic and does not undergo the influence of the press, or any group whatsoever except clippings HIAB:). So that only items in multiples of press articles sometimes contradictory (eg an article concludes suicide, another homicide) can approach the nearest neutral ... Insofar as we have a Wikipedia entry, we would have the same English, Italian and also German and Hungarian. Because that Ophelia was French, his family lived in Austria, his friends were German, French, Italians, Hungarians, etc. .. and she died in Hungary . Raymondnivet (talk) 21:33, 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 nomination withdrawn and page moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado/List of articles about Colorado. I am listing the resulting cross-namespace redirect at RfD, as it's ineligible for CSD R2. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles about Colorado[edit]

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

This is horrible to read through. It would work far better as a category. This is just a collection of links masquerading as an article right now. It can't even claim to be a disambiguation page. Oh, and apologies if I brought this to the wrong place. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Index of Colorado-related articles if there in anything worth merging. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unnecessary as Index of Colorado-related articles already exists. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado/List of articles about Colorado — I created this article to test the automated multilevel dumping of categories on a given subject. This list was created for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge as a possible automated successor for the Index of country/province/state-related articles. This list is prohibitively long, but it does list virtually every article about the subject in alphabetical order. I think this list would serve better as a WikiProject resource than a general article. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved: Nomination withdrawn. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:19, 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) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Road 13[edit]

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

Proded and dprodded (by other editors). It's a county road with no indication of notability. Classic fail of WP:STREETS. Not sure the justification on the deprod. Shadowjams (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no maps, books, news or landmarks mentioned to suggest notability. Appears to be... a road. SGGH ^ping! 18:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Triadian (talk) 19:49, 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) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of email marketing service providers[edit]

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

Unsourced comparison, tagged but issues not addressed. A comparison of just three service providers is hardly encyclopaedic and should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete leave it to Which?. A comparison is a subjective assessment based on the facts. Wikipedia can provide the facts but it would be illogical for it to provide the comparison. SGGH ^ping! 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too many low quality guides as is. Wikipedia isn't meant to be Consumer Reports. Boston2austin (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced; these "Comparison of product type X" articles also tend to be spam magnets, and need frequent clearing out of "referenced" redlinks, serving as handy parking lots for non-notable products. MuffledThud (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic article & unref. Not even a long enough list to provide any broad comparisons. Probably fails wp:NPOV; WP isn't the place for this kind of thing, if a company/product/provider is seen as better/worst than a competitor company/product/provider. Mattg82 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are numerous email marketing providers in the market to validate the need to include a current comparison of the offering. However, would agree with AfD request that more players in the industry should be displayed and references to increase merit of the article. --68.106.235.149 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC) — 68.106.235.149 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But Wikipedia is not a consumer guide. There are plenty of sites out there which will provide subjective comparisons. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there may be many such providers, and many of them may be notable, an encyclopedia should not be a marketing guide. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 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) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binfer[edit]

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

Unambiguous promotion for non-notable software product, article by single-issue user. I was not able to find any significant third-party coverage, and not one Google News hit. This fails WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete - no independent sources cited to show notability, and none found. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

depend on what keyword you searched for: Try searching: "private P2P software for direct file sharing". Binfer shows up as 5th result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globos2009 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. Three results: Binfer home page; scribd.com, which is editable/addable-to and therefore not a valid reference; finally, a very quickly updated copy of this discussion on a userpage here at Wikipedia. In time, there will be references that count. Binfer is too young yet to be notable enough to get an article here. We celebrate success (and record some failures), but we do not promote. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Non-notable software, original author seeks primarily to promote. (I originally tagged this with a PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice (subject to references...) I tagged it for spam. No references given - and there don't seem to be many around. There is a slight problem looking for this, as there is a very similarly named thing (an "expert system shell containing an inference engine based on Bayesian statistics" whatever that might be...). I'm puzzled by this software. There's no mention of cost - and no mention of 'free' either. Has to be one or the other. It seems very recent, which could explain the lack of outside references. Could take off, or vanish without a trace. Time will tell. (Don't you hate people who use cliches?) Peridon (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.masternewmedia.org/send-large-files-of-any-size-guide-to-the-best-tools-and-services Globos2009 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A start. Add it to the article and see what else you can find. Usually 7 days for an AfD, unless nothing is happening and the result is very obvious. Peridon (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious spam, original research, and not even resembling an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source provided (masternewmedia.com) is a single paragraph in an article about a dozen other file transfer tools. This is not significant coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 23:58, 11 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) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Stone (Colorado)[edit]

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

Recreation of previously deleted article Hayden Stone (activist). Little attempt to establish notability, weak references. Most likely self-publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biker Biker (talk • contribs)

NOTE the above redlink Hayden Stone (activist) never existed. The article was previously created (and subsequently deleted) by overwriting Hayden Stone which is a redirect to a completely different article. Apologies for the confusion. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete It seems to me that as the force behind a major conservation movement with legislative impact, this young man is notable. ColonelHamilton (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Edit Found another ref.[reply]
- Do you have a conflict of interest in these matters? You were involved in writing the article about his partner in their political consultancy. Please see WP:COI. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Hayden Stone is a major political influence for High Schoolers in the Metro-Denver area. My son went to school with him, and says that he is very well known. Stone is a major player in the Colorado High School mock trial program, and as one can see, politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.254.2 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a particular reason why you inserted this comment in the middle of everybody else's instead of at the bottom? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/198.178.254.2. This IP editor vandalized the article twice now. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I initially put a PROD tag on this page). There are three references on the page, one is broken and the other two are primary links to lists of state legislation, nothing proving this 19-year-old's notability. I was only able to find one news article about him, when he was 16, just mentioning his involvement with one piece of legislation. The article about his partner at constellation Political, their political consultancy (and one has to wonder about anyone who hires a 19-year-old to run their political campaign), has already been deleted as non-notable. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable Vartanza (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have searched for coverage of Hayden Stone and have come up empty. There are other people covered who share the same name but don't seem to be him, and of course there is Hayden, Stone & Co. which is a notable company unrelated to him. Just a note, the above information about this being a recreation of a deleted article doesn't seem to be true; the Hayden Stone (activist) article has never been created. -- Atama頭 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and investigate Non-notable; alma mater section is untrue (Stone still attends Harvard University). Would be interested to see if User:ColonelHamilton is a sockpuppet or secondary account of User:Qwerty5547. See this edit where ColonelHamilton adds Hayden Stone as an alumnus, and how Qwerty5547 created the page for Hayden Stone on the same day. Not causing a disruption, but would be interesting to see a checkuser or a sockpuppet investigation - does anyone else smell something fishy here? Mononomic (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:ColonelHamilton also created the Benjamin Engen article, which is about Hayden Stone's partner in their political consultancy. Also note that both ColonelHamilton and the Ip address above added their comments in the middle of the discussion, instead of at the end. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I am Hayden Stone. Though I don't care about the content of this article, I see a history of vandalism. I don't know who created it or the page for my partner, but I want this controversy dropped. All info in the article is accurate. Please come to a speedy decision. ColonelHamilton (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in the article indicates notability per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:28, 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 Deleted under WP:CSD#G10#CSD G10 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multinational empire[edit]

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

HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as attack page. AfD is not the proper venue for pages like this. DarkAudit (talk) 18:22, 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) 02:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xwinwm[edit]

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

No sources, probably no notability, and the description is flawed. Cygwin/X does not need any specific software add-ons or hacks to pass a control over an X window to MS Windows’ window manager. This software, probably, should provide something different functionality of a window manager. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little independent coverage --skew-t (talk) 12:35, 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 Withdrawn per SNOW.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish American mobsters[edit]

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

This is a BLP violating mainly unreferenced list accusing people of being mobsters. Given that we already have Category:Irish-American mobsters, can we remove this list as a liability without an upside? See also the nomination below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British mobsters Scott Mac (Doc) 16:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would a list be a liability and a category not be a liability? I don't understand the difference as it concerns liability. Most of the people are dead, so BLP only is a concern of the living. Why not just add the references to the list from the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and source. Having a category does not preclude having a list. Also, if a list should be deleted due to BLP concers then the category would also have the same concerns. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above. The category is a far bigger BLP problem as it is not as easily monitored, and doesn't allow us to provide sources. Needs cleanup, not deletion. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and redlinks, remove anything bluelinked that does not unambiguously qualify for inclusion on the list from article content. Artw (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the British mobsters list, this includes a good deal of discriminating information. It does need to be sourced. As far as WP:BLP, most of these people are no longer "L". Limit it to deceased people if necessary. Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 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. None but the nominator favors deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hi-NRG artists and songs[edit]

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

This article is a list of random songs with 1 external link with All Music Guide, but in the article are over 9000 songs that claims are "Hi-NRG". Obviously falls WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Synthesis for a genre ~~that lacks an article.~~ Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list of artists, improve with sources, and lose the songs. This is most certainly a real genre (see Hi-NRG - it doesn't lack an article at all), and a lot of the artists can be sourced as such. The songs seem to be very WP:OR and somewhat random. --Michig (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepOnce again the subject DOES have an article, and a quick look at google shows that the subject is notable and that many of the songs can be linked to the genre. Could be better refined but unsuitable for deletion. Weakopedia (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listing all the notable songs in this genre is a perfectly acceptable list article. Dream Focus 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list of artists and move to List of Hi-NRG artists. The list of songs would be more appropriate as a category. (Category:Hi-NRG songs) Am86 (talk) 03:56, 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 keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Euro disco artists[edit]

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

This article is a list of random songs with no sources. What if these songs are not "euro-disco"? Falls WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and WP:Notability RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Synthesis for a genre ~~that lacks an article.~~ Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but limit to information that can be sourced. Euro disco is a real genre ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], etc., etc.) although that article needs work. A list of artists in the genre is perfectly reasonable for inclusion.--Michig (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "although that article needs work" - this list of songs is in the Wikipedia since 2007. Nobody does anything. A typical AfD. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly - there are are always people prepared to put effort into deleting articles but they often don't seem to be prepared to put any effort into improving them.--Michig (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What a careless people! RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject DOES have it's own article. A quick look suggests that sourcing the article is possible. The subject is clear and notable and it is possible to link the groups to it with sources. Weakopedia (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article is kept, then song titles need quotes and not in italics as per WP:MOS/WP:MUSTARD. Also tables need consistent columns sizes/positions imo. Mattg82 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reorganise: Like its Italian counterpart, Euro disco was highly notable in the 1980s, as what Michig stated. The central critism if this list as with that one I brought up, although no better, is that it needs some serious cleanup and also backed up by a reliable third party sources, which was why I originally proposed to merge the two together as it is difficult tell the two apart unless you are an expert in the genre. Other advise is to drop the song column as far too many of these have more than three or five songs they are most associated with. Donnie Park (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a real genre, and listing notable artists in it is a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia list. Dream Focus 17:40, 11 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) 02:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mydiddle[edit]

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

Gossip blog with no indication of notability, and does not meet the WP:WEB standards. I didn't find any reliable secondary sources on the subject. Note too that the article contributors appear to have a conflict of interest. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per nom. Does not assert notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:59, 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 both. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APPA (programming language)[edit]

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

Two articles started by the same new editor on nascent or non-existent pieces of software. The editor admits to being the author of the software, as far as it goes, at his user page (old version). The descriptions at the web pages are currently very slim. No external coverage whatsoever, as far as I can tell. One contested prod (removal summary: "I have deleted the notice because i belive that i will be done creating a compiler soon."); I have removed the second prod to bundle the discussions here. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm usually generous with programming language articles, but these are still in development in an unreleased state and there's a serious COI problem. Delete as vanity pages. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI promotion of unreleased programming languages --skew-t (talk) 12:30, 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 keep. None but the nominator favors deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yōko Asada[edit]

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

Delete. Has been relying on primary sources since Oct 2008, no evidence that non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties for this WP:BLP article are forthcoming. JBsupreme (talk)

Keep She's played major roles in a number of anime. Clearly meets notability requirements. AfD is not Cleanup. Doceirias (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, this is not cleanup. However this person has received nothing in the way of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. AfD is a place where we delete WP:BLP articles that lack that. That's why we are here. JBsupreme (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the large numbers of significant anime VA roles, have you check through the Japanese VA magazines to ensure that there are no reliable third-party sources? —Farix (t | c) 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:ENTERTAINER given the number of lead roles in notable productions. If there are specific concerns about the veracity of a specific role, we can go to the credits for that production (which is one of those cases where primary sourcing is appropriate), but that in turn is an editorial concern, not a notability one. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Entertainer, there is bound to be credits to her on the works she has done in credits somewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER due to multiple significant roles in notable works. While non-trivial coverage from third-party sources would probably help improve the article, it isn't required to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, WP:BLP is not a concern as the article doesn't contain any contentious material, and the roles listed could be sourced from the credits of works they are from anyway. Calathan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Calathan. She has multiple significant roles in a notable works. Dream Focus 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is wonderful that everyone agrees with everyone else here, but unfortunately we need reliable third party sources which show that a) her role was significant and that b) the work was notable. We are an encyclopedia, not IMDb. JBsupreme (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you even look at any of those articles that are linked from her page? Some of them have plenty of sources (Serial Experiments Lain is even a featured article). While a few of the listed roles even for blue-linked articles are for works of questionable notability (e.g. D4 Princess), most of the blue linked articles are clearly notable works. As for whether the roles in those works are major roles, for some she played the title character, and I'm sure the sources available for others would back up that her role was major. You seem to be asking for something that is clearly readily available. Calathan (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wish reliable sources for actual biographical content were available. If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. JBsupreme (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think everyone else considers it common sense. Do you doubt this person has worked on any of these series? The main article usually list the voice actors for the characters, which those who have the DVD can verify. Parade Parade list her as being the voice of the main character. And would you doubt the information the voice actor company she works for has about her on their official webpage? [39] Google Translation Dream Focus 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not placing primary sources in doubt. Rather, I am making a very specific note that non-trivial third party coverage of this living person is explicitly lacking. I understand that I am in the minority, apparently, but IMHO this person is not notable unless there is some foreign language coverage I'm not seeing (and has yet to come forward). JBsupreme (talk) 19:47, 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) 02:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramina Mavadin[edit]

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

Unable to find coverage in reliable sources Polarpanda (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any significant coverage in sources; there may be a problem with the translation, but I have a feeling that it is more of a notability issue than anything else. If reliable third-party coverage were presented, I would suggest referencing content, but at present this BLP is composed completely of unsourced material. Mrathel (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any RS, only results I come up with are Facebook pages in various languages, there is not an artcile on either Russian or Azeri Wikipedias. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 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. Kevin (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce OnDemand[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, recent launch in October 2009. Has a few links but they not WP:RS's and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Hu12 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references - the product was launched by Google at their Google Test Automation Conference a couple weeks ago. Google should be a good reference, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staceyeschneider (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. Additionaly, does not appear that particular claim is properly sourced. The whole article appears to be nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article, whith blogs as 'citations'. see (WP:RS).--Hu12 (talk) 05:21, 19 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) 01:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a hosted on-demand software testing framework used to remotely execute browser-based tests during web application development - in other words, non-consumer and IT-related, of interest chiefly to web developers. This sort of thing falls within the excessive attention side of Wikipedia's inherent bias. IT-related stuff rates an article only if it is of enduring historic or technical importance, and nothing like that is shown here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 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) 01:33, 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) 10:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Smerdis on this. Eusebeus (talk) 14:31, 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 no consensus. Even split after two relists, and I can't say that the delete side has a sufficient policy advantage to discount the keep !votes. Default to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases[edit]

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

Completely unnotable list of video releases. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog nor directory of Disney releases. Just a list of titles, mostly non-linked, and release dates with no sources beyond the usual fansite that seems to have been spammed across all the Disney article. Does not meet Wikipedia's stand alone list criteria either.

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney Platinum Editions -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. It's neither too broad nor too narrow in scope, and the content is encyclopedic (as it records home-video releases of notable feature films and direct-to-video movies). Powers ^T 14:49, 25 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) 01:30, 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) 10:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Content is not encyclopedic and only promotes a single entertainment brand. Warrah (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wouldn't say this for almost all distributors, but just as for some authors we include a list of all the books, we can do it as an exception for this exceptional distributor/producer. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 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) 02:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Samaniego[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. almost no third party coverage [40]. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but... the Miss Hispanidad event does appear to be notable and she should be mentioned there, once someone creates an article on it.Ma^t_chups 12:31, 26 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) 01:17, 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) 10:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough third party reliable sources to meet WP:BIO or WP:N. If any of the contest are notable and article created she could be mentioned there. 16x9 (talk) 22:15, 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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike_Lee_(racing_driver)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mike Lee (racing driver)

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

not notable Someidiot (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per lengthy comment I posted on the talk page (anonymously), the subject is not notable per WP:N. The AIS was a minor semi-pro series, and the only other drivers or champions to have their own articles are notable for other reasons. Another, uncited, claim to notability, being the producer of a reality show is also insufficient as there is no indication of the show actually having been made in 2 years. Someidiot (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should be AIS. The fact that there is no redirect for the uncapitalized version would seem to bolster the argument that the series itself is of marginal importance, and that being a champion is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Someidiot (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not competed in the top level of the sport, only competed as an amateur. Angryapathy (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AIS was not a professional series. Also, I am a founding member of WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing where this article would belong and I'm confident in saying I'm an expert in the subject matter. -Drdisque (talk) 00:19, 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 withdrawn apparently this is a K-12 institution. JBsupreme (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harker School[edit]

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

Delete. This is just a middle school. If the consensus is to keep all secondary schools so be it, but this article has been lacking in sources since... J U N E 2 0 0 7. Enough. JBsupreme (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it is "just a middle school" why does the article say "Grades K-12"? Google provides a few sources for general "it exists" verification: [41], [42], as well as backs up that this school offers the full 13 grades. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even a cursory web search (or a glance at the school's own website) would have revealed that the school is K-12. Esrever ^(klaT) 12:42, 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 Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjay:the 7th Birthday[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. The links in the references are dead or, in one case, points to the release dates for Hannah Montana: The Movie. Google searches also fail to support the information in this article. PROD contested by author. Favonian (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, probable hoax. :( JBsupreme (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3 Delete this and all other related articles. These are pages for people's home movies that someone is mascarading as wide releases. See [43] and the awful youtube videos, [44]. Angryapathy (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. hoax article. --Bluemask (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a (well-written) hoax. A Google search just turns up wikis that link to each other. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the article's creator has a history of creating hoaxes; see his/her talk page. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:43, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halina Larsson[edit]

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

To me this is a borderline speedy deletion as non notable. But, since it is borderline I am nominating it for a consensus view. I am on the side of "not yet notable" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well.. she currently tours with a major label band, has a studio CD and an EP, and has an article published in a magazine with a circulation of around 1.5 million-plus. So I guess i'm voting "notable" User:Rapidfirebanjo 4:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
- Comment "Tours with" is not the same as "is notable for her own reasons." Many folk are on the same bill as a major act but are not at all notable themselves.Providing citations in reliable sources will assert notability and verify this artist. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that she has an article in a magazine with 1.5M may not be accurate. The article appears to be a blog entry at that magazine's website - it does not appear to have actually appeared in the printed version. Vulture19 (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) Per the article, she was hired as a backup singer with Coheed & Cambria - she is not a member of the band. 2) Article states itself that the EP was self recorded and self produced. 3) Article itself states subject is unsigned by any label. Also, I have no idea what listing your favorite bands, er, influences has to do with anything. There is no assertion of notability. Vulture19 (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims in article seem exagerated, not notable yet --- BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 12:02, 11 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.

Uwe Kils[edit]

The result was Speedy Close. Too soon (4 days) after prior close. Please use WP:DRV to request a reopen of the old AFD if you believe shenanigans were afoot, AND if you believe the prior closing admin was unaware of such shenanigans. Please also contact the prior closing admin and discuss the matter; he may have been well aware of the sock/meat issues and still judged consensus among remaining comments to be worthy of keep. See also this ANI thread, where this issue is discussed in greater detail. Jayron32 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Prior AfD was marred by sockpuppets of the subject, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils. Searches in news, books, as well as multiple other database research archives unfortunately showed only brief mentions in passing, not enough significant discussion of biographical info on individual himself in independent secondary sources. Article also functions as WP:VANISPAM. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At present, it appears that fully 100% of the sources currently used in this article are either primary sources and/or sources affiliated with the subject. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because Canvassing by Kils (talk · contribs), [45], [46], [47], [48], please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

Keep – Kils is perhaps more notable as the inventor of the EcoSCOPE and his innovative approach to marine life photography than as an academic. Nonetheless, Google Scholar cites a number of his papers, including one with 115 citations. He is well represented in Google Books. For some reason, he has behaved in a deranged manner with his sock puppets and vanities. We do not know the circumstances of that. Anyway, he should be judged on the merits of his work, and this is not the place to punish him with an inappropriate deletion. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not seeing significant discussion of biographical info on this individual in any those sources. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He's clearly taken some remarkable photographs, but I'm not convinced that this meets the notability threshold. It seemed he had a publication in Science but this turns out to be a para in "netwatch" pointing people to a website of his photos. Can't see anything in the way of secondary sources. No notable book. On the other hand 16k ghits... NBeale (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the work the subject has done in developing (or co-developing) new photographic techniques meet WP:CREATIVE #2? or the large number of photos appearing in texts count as citations, thereby meeting WP:ACADEMIC #1? Vulture19 (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photographs don't count as citations. The term is pretty well-defined. NBeale (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on procedural grounds. We just had an AfD on Kils that was closed as keep a few days ago. Nothing has happened since then to make the subject less noteworthy, and there's no reason to believe that the closing admin of the previous AfD didn't recognize the sockpuppets or meatpuppets as what they were (they were pretty obvious). It's far too soon to try again. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils was filed 2 days after the close of the prior AFD. And as there are at least two individuals here with the position of delete, there are not grounds for speedy either way. Cirt (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse A lot has happened, per the sock puppetry report. ~~The subject has also stated that he wants this page deleted. [49]~~ Jehochman ^Talk 16:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the above diff but I don't really see a statement there that he wants the page deleted. The closest I see there is "good bye English Wikipedia" but that does not sound to me like a deletion request. Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He doesn't say anything about wanting this page deleted in the diff you provided --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The SPA's were noted in the just closed AfD. This one should be quickly closed as keep on procedural grounds per David Eppstein.John Z (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils was filed and subsequently completed exposing the confirmed socking, after the prior AfD was closed. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the time of a more formal investigation matter? Why should we not assume the earlier admin read the AfD, noted the presence of the spa's discussed there and discounted them?John Z (talk)

Keep, on procedural grounds, per the previous AfD results. Non-withstanding clumsy meat- and sockpuppetry by Kils and Co. during and after the AfD, it is pretty clear from looking at that AfD that there was a consensus among the non-SPA users for a keep. In this case sockpuppetry is a reason for blocks and editing restrictions, not for deleting the article. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Comment: I don't blame the nominator for putting this back up, given the last version was unintelligible and misrepresented the situation. Exceptional circumstances sometimes need IAR-style actions. Not that I agree with it necessarily or that I disagree with the last close, but few AfDs have that much going on at once. It's at least possible to think that some editors could not post on the last given direct involvement in current discussions elsewhere regarding the editor in question and politely avoided any possible COI matter. That said, I still suggest any close on this take the "real" opinions of the #2 nomination discussion into consideration, at least. If it sticks around, the "procedural keeps" are moot. I can't deny the at least somewhat vindictive appearance of it being put back up (it being nominatred-- not the act by the nominator. I do understand why it was don). The procedural keep opinions are certainly well-spoken if that idea is being entertained and are a good focus. Content of given opinions need particular note and most good all-around. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose close. We can revisit this in a few months time when the sockpuppetry is forgotten and we can judge this biography dispassionately. I think his notability as an academic or photographer is marginal, but I think the closing admin could see past the SPAs to discern consensus on the very recent AfD. Fences&Windows 01:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fair compromise, and support. Since the article is going to be poked at byte-for-byte at any further changes, let's assume it won't get "worse". In a few months all shall be cleansed from our souls, and who knows, the article might even be better. I have faith in the SPI recommendations working out, and a few months will make sure that has played out properly as a bonus measure of accuracy to claim "stability". Perhaps then, ponder another look. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, would rather this discussion run the full standard time. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please see discussion page Uwe Kils 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to canvassing template above: I've posted to the author of the restrictions placed upon this user. Apparently plenty of others already did as well, but I figured it was worth posting here anyway, or at least this will be a time keeping marker is canvassing comes in once more. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already !voted for keeping in the last AFD, so you already know my opinion. I'll note again that he was awarded the Heinz Maier Leibnitz Prize, and that he got a EB-1 visa to travel to the US, and that he seems to have won other two awards, even if we don't have right now the source for them, and that this seems to meet WP:PROF. I'll also note that he appears quite a few times at google scholar [50]. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show secondary sources that give biographical detail on the individual? Cirt (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in the original AfD, but I do not see the points made by Enric Naval above as particularly clear-cut. We do not, for the moment, have any info about what the Heinz Maier Leibnitz Prize is, who awarded it and to what extent it is significant. I do see from the subject's CV[51] that this prize is dated 1979, the same year the subject appears to have obtained his PhD. Now, to the EB-1 visa matter. Here I am something of an expert, having gone through an academia job-based immigration process myself. Despite its illustrious-sounding name (outstanding professor/researcher or alien of extraordinary ability), the EB-1 visa in practice does not really mean these things. It is a particular administrative category of immigration visas that allows to make the green card approval process a bit faster. The decision to approve an EB-1 petition is made not by the peers of an academic in question, but by immigration officials who have no qualifications in the academic subject of the applicant. They rely on a set of formal criteria which in practice are fairly easy to satisfy for any practicing academic. For "outstanding professor and researcher" one needs to satisfy at least 2 out of 6 criteria[52]. Two of them (4 and 6) can be satisfied by publishing several articles and refereeing several papers. All but the most beginning academics can satisfy these requirements. Most people I know who were approved under EB-1 category, were approved while Assistant Professors and quite a few even as postdocs; none of them would have been considered notable by Wikipedia standards at the time their EB-1 applications were approved. Finally, an approval of an EB-1 application is by definition a private matter (unlike public acts such as academic prizes and awards) and is not published in any public forum (the only person who gets notified is the petitioner) and as such they do not satisfy WP:V requirements. Nsk92 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Volkswagen Foundation gave Uwe Kils a grant for EcoSCOPE, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft's Heisenberg Programme gave him a fellowship. This is as yet not properly sourced, but they're grants not prizes. But he did win the Heinz Maier-Leibnitz-Preis in 1979 and this is sourced.[53] If biographical details are lacking in sources, then we should stub this biography down to what we can source from independent primary and secondary sources, i.e. that he was an oceanographer, he was given some grants and a prize, he worked at Rutgers, and his photos have been used in some books and highlighted on the (now defunct) FishBase. Fences&Windows 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why this barrage of deletion requests? I think we need to get some perspective here - if things like Rap Cat are tolerated, Uwe Kils should be kept without question. --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user was canvassed by Kils (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Fences&Windows 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as in the previous AfD. Magnus, there is no "barrage of deletion requests; there was only a barrage of sock/meat puppets. I don't see the objection to this renomination, and I don't mind stating again that I believe the subject to be notable--as well as, in ThuranX's words from the previous AfD, "obnoxiously self-aggrandizing." Perhaps I should add all my academic titles in my signature as well? Given the canvassing signaled above, I wonder whether Kils gets the point, but that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassed by User:Kils. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make matters clear: Cirt, I am sure you do not intend the above remark to suggest something about me, right? Drmies (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject's notability seems adequate for the project. --Sn0wflake (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassed by User:Kils. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was canvassed to vote, but despite that I am going to. I am also nobody's sock, meat or glove puppet, and there ain't no strings on me neither. Neither am I even a student of a student of Kils, and to the best of my knowledge I don't even know one. I came in by accident on the second AfD. I still feel there is notability. Perhaps in directions other than the academic, but so what? Borodin always thought of himself as a chemist, but what do most people remember him for? (Yes, the musical Kismet, his posthumous collaboration with Wright and Forrest...) Out of curiosity, what is the record for AfDs for an article? I've not seen more than three yet. Must watch in case... Peridon (talk) 17:52, 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 merge to List of cognitive biases. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinarity bias[edit]

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

Apparently not a notable topic. No sources given: no hits for the phrase on Google Scholar or Google Books, not mentioned in common books on cognitive biases. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is already mentioned on the List of cognitive biases. It belongs there and should not be separated into its own article until it has a reliable source or two.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of cognitive biases as per above. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above. Interestingly Bruce M. Hood, a cognitive science researcher, does work on a very similar cognitive bias. His differs from this in that it is not only a positive response to extraordinarity, but also a negative one. In one example asking people to wear a cardigan he is holding. They say okay, then he says "it was Charles Manson's sweater." Then, they say no.TheThomas (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The AfD notice seems never to have been placed on the article itself, so I relisted it to complete the nomination. Despite the long time since the original nomination and the seeming consensus above, please let this run a full seven days from the time of relisting to allow people who have the article watchlisted to notice and comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for now, but if someone wants to do a more comprehensive and sourced article, there's always room to spin it back out. Mandsford (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I didn't do the original AfD properly, and thanks to David Eppstein for doing a proper job. Merge into the list if that's what people want, though I doubt there are even the sources to justify it on that page. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:51, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Maline[edit]

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

His managerial career may or may not be notable enough. Alex (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If only a portion of a single season, definitely not notable enough. The deep minors make even less notable than that. DarkAudit (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BASE/N and WP:N – only source provided is an unreliable wiki. BRMo (talk) 22:32, 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 // 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kahn[edit]

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

He was notable when he was on the Seattle Mariners 40-man roster. He has since retired, never reaching the major leagues. I do not believe he did anything very notable as a minor leaguer, so I think this article should be deleted. Alex Alex (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never made a major league appearance. Never made it above AA ball. No awards or all-anything teams. That does not meet the standards for baseball players. DarkAudit (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. Nominator's statement says he was notable as one time, so the article meets the requirements for inclusion. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, notability does not expire, and if he was notable for being on the 40-man roster, then he remains so even after he was off it. Second, he was unusually notable as an amateur, winning the West Coast Conference's Pitcher of the Year award in 2004, and winning a gold medal as a member of the rotation on the USA Baseball National Team that same year.[54] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Baseball Reference does not list him as ever making it above the AA level, much less the majors. Just being on the 40-man roster is not really sufficient. Using another editor's opinion that the subject was notable as rationale for keeping is not enough. There has to be more concrete proof than "that guy said he was notable". The "National Team" you mention is not the true national team, but a team of college players tapped to play a series against Japanese college players. That is not a high enough amateur representation per WP:ATHLETE. The Pitcher of the Year award is for the conference, not a national award. I'm dubious that it is a high enough award. DarkAudit (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see notability. He was 10-10 as a college pitcher and had a 1-3 record at the highest level he played (which was only AA). No major league appearances and one victory at AA level--not notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hit bull, win steak and Jim Miller. Notability does not simply expire. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:WPBB/N states: "To establish that [an MiLB player's article] is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," and that it does. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing says he's retired. It was added by an IP who put other players as retired and most of the edits were reverted. From what I can find he's still active. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The opinion of another Wikipedia editor does not meet the standards of notability. Just because one editor thought he was doesn't make it so. Notability may not expire, but I do not believe there was any notability there to begin with. So what has he done as a minor leaguer that's notable beyond merely playing? For a player who never rose above AA level, you're going to need something quite substantial to prove your assertion. The articles provided are roster moves and wrap-ups. If Kahn is mentioned at all, it's in passing. You're left with two articles at best where Kahn is the subject. Not the subtantial coverage required. DarkAudit (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles still mention Kahn, making it coverage and per WP:WPBB/N that establishes notability. Also, WP:ATHLETE states: "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport," Minor league baseball is fully professional (see professional baseball). I'm also not sure what you mean by "opinion." They are notability guidelines, not "opinions." --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few editors are basing their endorsement on the phrase "He was notable when he was on the Seattle Mariners 40-man roster.". That is nothing but the opinion of a single editor. There is no record that he ever suited up with the major league parent club. WP:N says that an article needs to be about the subject. A mention in passing as part of a wider article about a different topic, say the movement of a block of players from Rookie League to A ball, is not sufficient. Although WP:ATHLETE says ""people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", the more specific baseball guideline says that minor league baseball players do not meet that more general guideline without significant coverage. A simple roster move is not significant coverage. A catch-all "notebook" column with multiple topics about the club is not significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say "players do not meet that more general guideline without significant coverage" it says "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability." It says nothing of "notebooks" because they can be coverage from a reliable source. You can't just make stuff up. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that a "notebook" column in the local paper, the catch-all column for the bits and pieces that doesn't warrant an article of it's own is not significant coverage. These are the types of columns that the most pressing news might be "So-and-so used a black glove instead of his usual brown against Pawtucket today." It doesn't matter how reliable the source is if there's no there there. DarkAudit (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule saying a news article can't have more than one subject. If it's from a reliable source than it is reliable coverage. The article's subject is not the references, the subject is what the references back-up in the WP article. I'm not going to continue in discussion with you if you keep making up guidelines about coverage. If the news article is reliable and has information about the subject the WP article, there's no reason it can't be used. One of the notebooks you talk about has a section about Kahn and Michael Garciaparra being named AFL rising stars [55], not "So-and-so used a black glove instead of his usual brown against Pawtucket today." You just keep making things up and I'm not going to continue discussing this with someone who can't admit what is right before them and has to resort to making guidelines out of thin air. I hope I made my point to everyone else. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making things up. There is nothing but trivial coverage here. Trivial coverage is most certainly part of the guidelines "Farm Report: Lefties on the rise" for example. The article is about three other pitchers who are definitely not Stephen Kahn. He doesn't get mentioned at all until the article lists other prospects at the bottom of the article. He's 9th on the list. That is trivial coverage. same for "Farm Report: Pitching in the pipeline". He's not part of the main story at all, but 5th on a list of nuggets about prospects. The reliability isn't in question. You're barking up the wrong tree there. DarkAudit (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Trivial material is "Kahn pitched one inning today" and articles like that are not cited in Kahn's article. The main topic about this ref isn't about Kahn's promotion but the subject is related to his promotion, this article is about prospects in full, while Kahn is mentioned in his own section. This article is about cuts in camp, Kahn being one of them. The refs aren't trivial. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They most certainly are trivial. "His own section"? One paragraph in a list of 10 players. Just mentioning his name in a list of dozen or so roster moves. Those are about as passing a mention as it gets. DarkAudit (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree, you just want to argue and I'm not going to take the bait. I still think it's funny you call being added to a 40-man roster or being released trivial but whatever. Regardless of what you call trivial Kahn has still competed at a fully professional league (see professional and Minor league baseball) and even more closely the article cites other refs that are about Kahn so he passes WP:ATHLETE and WP:WPBB/N. Good day. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bona-fide major leaguer. Also playing for the US National team would also make him pass WP:ATHLETE -Drdisque (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would you kindly elaborate on why you say he is a "bona-fide major leaguer"? He never pitched a game in the major leagues. Alex (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing for the US National team and appearance on 40 man roster makes him notable. The article also has enough sourcing to satisfy notability requirements. Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the source in the article, the U.S. team he was selected to was a collegiate team for a series against the Japanese collegiate all-stars. When I checked USABaseball.com, it's unclear whether he was a member of the team that played in the World University baseball championships that year. I'm not sure, but I don't think that satisfies WP:ATHLETE since it's not the highest level of amateur baseball. USA Baseball only shows him with 1 start and the referenced article says it was an exhibition game against Canada where he pitched 3 innings. Sorry, but I don't see how 1 victory in AA ball and no major league appearances makes a pitcher notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. The article seems to meet our inclusion criteria. Sam Barsoom 19:42, 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. No evidence of notability for this record label, the one argument for keep is based on special pleading, not policy. Fences&Windows 00:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adorno Records[edit]

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

A Google search turns up exactly 10 hits, none of which gives any significant coverage of this label whatsoever. The article author has attempted to add sources, but they are only mentions such as "Rock Ness Monsters on Adorno Recors", for example. Therefore I am of the opinion that this article fails WP:GNG and WP:RS, as well as WP:V ArcAngel (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can find no significant coverage for this label in reliable sources; does not satisfy WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 07:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wrote this article and would like to justify why I don't think it deserves deletion:

the articles I cited about releases on the label (through archival at thefreelibrary.com) were originally published in the Daily Record (which does not maintain its own online archive after a set amount of time). The Daily Record is the largest national newspaper in Scotland with a readership in excess of 2 million (a third of the population of Scotland). I don't understand why this isn't considered a good and primary source considering the permalink available at thefreelibrary.com. Further, the articles cited specifically were about releases on the label (and the first included quotes from the label);
the CDs and records themselves - that they actually exist and sold well (every release has been 1,000+ which in Scottish indie terms is large);
lots of national radio coverage (in addition to airplay of songs) including interviews with the label on BBC Radio One, XFM, Radio Scotland etc. of which MP3s exist;
section about the label in the report for Government by Scottish Enterprise: Mapping the Music Industry in Scotland, Williamson, J., Cloonan, M. and Frith, S.;
section about the label in the most recent version of the book: The Great Scots Musicography - the complete guide to Scotland's music makers, M. C. Strong;
lots of newspaper / magazine / media articles in written press (albeit unfortunately not internet archived);
listings in online retailers such as Amazon and HMV;
there are several other directly comparable Scottish record labels with Wikipedia pages that haven't been as successful as Adorno Records (smaller catalogue / less sales / less impact), also with less / without cited sources, and with less content than I provided in this page;
the label is highly regarded in both the underground scene and industry in Scotland and I think it is therefore notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia;
as the label is on hiatus since the end of 2005, there hasn't been a lot written about it since then and this goes against it in Google searches, but doesn't make it any less valid from an encyclopedic historical POV surely.

In all I don't really understand why this page's validity is being challenged in a real sense. I didn't understand Wikipedia to discriminate against things which exist mainly in an offline world but it appears to be the case by implication (the record label has only ever released physical releases). If you tell me what needs amending and with what I will do that, surely a better alternative? Pr78 (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC) — Pr78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The problem is that there is no significant coverage of the label itself. Most of the sources I found only had passing mentions of the label - that is not enough to pass the notability standards of Wikipedia. If you say 1,000 units is large in the indie sense, in the general sense it is really insignificant. Listings on online retail sites isn't an indication of notabilty - it's just an indication of sales. If there are other Scottish labels that are less notable than Adorno that have pages, those articles could be looked at and challenged if need be. The issue with this article is getting primary sources that cover the label and not the artists on the label - if those could be found and added, it would help. ArcAngel (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in context though, the top ten of the official Scottish charts is normally less or around that mark. I can't find an archive anywhere though of previous Scottish charts. As I understand it also, it doesn't have to be international impact for inclusion on Wikipedia but national (ie Scotland) will do, yes? Pr78 (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Eusebeus (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In addition to my previous post. A Google search on "Adorno Records" (with quotation marks) selecting UK only returns 50 hits including media (Daily Record, Evening Telegraph, BBC etc) and industry organisations (Scottish Music Centre, NEMIS). Same search with quotations on Google but not selecting UK only has 589 hits - looking down page one, the majority of which are referencing the label (as opposed to the philosopher of which some nearer the top are about) Pr78 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC) — Pr78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Delay until sources are added - WP:CORP says Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. It appears that this company has very little international coverage, true, but if the claims by PR78 above are correct, then there is strong national (Scottish) coverage. However, the article does not cite any Scottish newspapers; indeed it does not cite any secondary sources and only includes a small list of official websites for various acts (not even a website for the label). At this stage, the lack of sources is the problem, not the notability or otherwise. I suggest delaying this AfD until published reliable secondary sources are cited. If WP:N fails after that, relist. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:02, 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) 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Terrorism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An obscure Ukranian Neonazi black metal band with a single album by a weird label. - Altenmann >t 03:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete/Merge Entered ("Aryan Terrorism" metal) into google, looked at 15 pages of links. Merge to Nokturnal Mortum Vulture19 (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independently notable and little to no mergable content. Horselover Frost (talk) 04:51, 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) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VYRE[edit]

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

Fails GNG. I'm unable to find significant (as in outside the trade rags) third-party coverage of this company. Haakon (talk) 12:25, 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) 02:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why doesn't this meet CSD A7, unremarkable company? Miami33139 (talk) 06:45, 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cohler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nom, declined WP:G4. Was deleted by a previous AfD in 08, thought it's been long enough to deserve another look at from the community. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I was originally going to say "delete". Sources cited in the article are not sufficient to make him notable: one instance where he served on a discussion panel for techcrunch.com, one bio page from a company he works for, and one link to his blog about puppies. (I'm not kidding, those are the only "sources" in the article!) However, a Google searched turned up an item specifically about him in Business Week. That's beginning to sound more like it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep Cohler has received significant coverage from reliable sources such as The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and TIME Magazine. He definitely meets WP:GNG in that he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 19:33, 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) 02:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - but the sources in the article need to be replaced with the independent ones. Racepacket (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the TIME and LA Times references in last week. Is it the TechCrunch references that you object to? There seems to be plenty of independent sources available on Cohler via Google news and I can swap the TechCrunch ones out if they're considered unreliable. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 16:12, 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. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mehruddin Marri[edit]

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

Non notable journalist. The 2 sentences in the article merely say he is a journalist, and that he was arrested at some point. Notability is not established by reliable sources. Ragib (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a perfectly fine ref that meets all demands there to establish notability. One could argue for WP:BLP1E, but having The arrest of Mehruddin Marri instead of this article seems a bit silly to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Notable with several good sources - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:53, 8 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) 02:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a journalist who was kidnapped. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 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. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miniaim[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) 22:02, 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) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an unreferenceable article about an instant messaging client. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 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. Kevin (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eon Netminder[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) 21:59, 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) 02:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced article about a non notable browser addon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 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. Kevin (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McDevitt[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notable. The article only says that he held a fairly important job for the last two years and a couple other jobs before that. Nothing is said to show that he is important or influential. Family information is added from a church website. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I started the article it hasn't developed since then. He is now involved in events at the Washington Times so if the Post or the NYT does a profile on him this article could be restarted. As it is now, and as the nominator said, there is not much information out there about him besides being hired and then fired or resigning from a couple of jobs. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:32, 2 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) 02:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep President -- which in this case seems to mean publisher--of a major newspaper is notable. Not as much as the editor in chief, but still notable. The article from the Washington Post is sufficient for verifiability & in my opinion for notability also. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good rationale as provided by DGG (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears pretty notable to me. Artw (talk) 17:20, 11 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) 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean A. Pittman[edit]

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

This biography was created by an SPA who also worked on the Don West, Jr. article covering his law partner. It lacks independent third party sources that provide non-trivial coverage of this individual. This article reads like an avertisement for the indivdual and law firm in question. Although the article does have sources, a couple are local media, and one is a website reposting of the law frim's press release. See COIN for details. Racepacket (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, notability not established ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 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) 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This articles needs serious rewriting. It is full with Wiki links trying to make it look good, but it doesn't. Some of the sources wouldn't be considered reliable enough to establish any notability. Closing admin, good luck! Deganveranx (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seemed notable but sources don't meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extensive sourcing still doesn't show notability. -- Atama頭 02:15, 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. Kevin (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford's court challenge to Prostitution Law[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bedford's court challenge to Prostitution Law

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

Unreferenced essay, also falls afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Possible merge to Prostitution in Canada, but not worth a standalone article. GlassCobra 17:16, 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) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is still an essay, it still runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. I see no reason to merge this anywhere. JBsupreme (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable litigation, unlikely to be currently before a court that issues opinions published as public precedents given that it's a new court challenge launched ... on October 6, 2009. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. PK T(alk) 16:51, 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. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Grammaticopoulos[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Only ghits are related to social and networking sites, or to people selling his art on eBay. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 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) 02:20, 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. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Fagundes[edit]

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

Article about a young musician apparently created by the article's subject for self-promotion. Does not show notability, and my searches turn up little beyond a bunch of Myspace-y sites. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he removed {prod} and {notability} tags multiple times, never even attempted to make his article neutral, never responded on the talk page, doesn't provide independent sources (I strongly doubt that lucasfagundes.com would count as such), and created a blatantly obvious sock puppet. (It's the name of his own guitar, for god's sake.) And, of course, the article is an autobiography. Jules112 (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 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. Kevin (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Llysa[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. A pretty but minor model; sourcing can only verify that she's worked professionally. No real notability. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:36, 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) 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:48, 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. Kevin (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Centric Sensing[edit]

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

Original Research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fractionally better than OR but no evidence offered so delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:08, 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) 02:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Miami33139 (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research: ...leverages devices carried by humans to collect useful information. The use of "leverage" in this sense is a red flag. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 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. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violent Acres[edit]

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

Non-notable blog. Recent contested prod. Blargh29 (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't look like it was ever prodded; speedys were attempted though. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted via prod & then restored per a request on my talk page. When undeleting, I didn't restore the revision where the prod was added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... well, it certainly needs a rewrite and sourcing to show notability. Seems that it got a minor write up by Fox News about one of the funnier postings. Following Fox's link, I read the posting. Hilarious. Surprised this has not gotten more press. Then it's part of an article from Seattle Times that was reprinted in the Memphis Commercial Appeal. Haven't done much looking past that. Too Busy chuckling. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This does indeed appear to be a popular blog (top 100K websites in US overall), but popularity doesn't equate with notability. GNews finds only 2 mentions, neither significant. A Lexis Nexis search reveals about half a dozen more sources, but unfortunately they all appear to either just repeat a joke or say "check out this funny blog." The Seattle Times article is perhaps the most significant source of the bunch, and it is extremely minimal. I would probably give this one a pass if one significant source could be found, but as it stands now there is nothing with which to write an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:32, 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) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant sources. Miami33139 (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Achissden (talk) 01:24, 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 redirect to Radio Philippines Network. Cirt (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar TV[edit]

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

Redundant. Radio Philippines Network should be moved here instead. ViperSnake151 Talk 12:42, 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) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as moot It's already been redirected. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 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. Wizardman 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jostein Saether[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, obscure writer. Has been nominated for deletion before, but back then, he may have been confused with another person named Jostein Sæther, who is a professor of education, born 1950. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unreferenced and no assertion of notability, since the article does not explain why Saether is notable. Having written an autobiography in no way makes a person inherently notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:27, 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) 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per our standard for Authors. Eusebeus (talk) 15:08, 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 programs broadcast by Disney XD. Kevin (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD Original Movies[edit]

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

I've done some searching and, unless I'm mistaken, there appears to be only one original Disney XD original film to date. Since that film (Skyrunners has a page, and since that film is mentioned on the Disney XD page, I don't think a list article is necessary. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —— Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One movie does not a list make. Already mentioned at Disney XD (United States). If Disney XD broadcasts more original movies, then they can be listed at List of programs broadcast by Disney XD. — Sarilox (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This information is also included in List of programs broadcast by Disney XD, which is a much stronger list article. I think a redirect to that page would be an acceptable outcome of this AFD, if not delete. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:38, 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) 02:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. LOL that there is a "list" for one item. JBsupreme (talk) 07:11, 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. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Window valance[edit]

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

Dicdef, no hope of expansion, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of articles begin as dicdefs, and I don't see why this article is any less capable of expansion than, say, Venetian blinds. I doubt that characterizing this as a dicdef is accurate, it's just a short article about a physical device. And a FBI director nearly lost his job after a scandal involving window valances. Really. [56] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom lists deficiencies of the article which are debatable but ultimately irrelevant - ie, a bad article does not mean we should delete it. Possible expansion of the styles section seems obvious. pictures, history, more styles, etc. Seems obvious that we should have this article. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:21, 2 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) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has a lot of potential, particularly with respect to the history of interior design. Racepacket (talk) 03:33, 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 no consensus. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SymTorrent[edit]

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

A Prod. There are, however, some sources on this so a wider discussion seems appropriate. There may be an appropriate article in which to merge the material. Listing is neutral. SilkTork *^YES! 19:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN, multiple, independent, significant sources need to be in the article and it is the burden of the authors to place it. If sources are placed in the article while this AfD is still open any editor can request me to review this opinion. Miami33139 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant torrent client due to the fact that it's the only major one for Symbian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Towel401 (talk • contribs)
- That tells us that it is unique, but not notable. The homepage says it has 1,000 downloads which doesn't seem very high. A torrent client on a N60 seems like novelty, not notability. Miami33139 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The software is hosted on many sites, not all go to the project homepage. Its actually quite useful on a phone that has wifi, don't know the N60 does but it runs on all E and N series except the N900 86.43.88.90 (talk) 00:02, 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) 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is basic but describes the software correctly and from an objective point of view --AGtheKiLLER (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article fails to verify that it is a notable subject worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a general directory of software. The article must show multiple citations to third party reliable sources making a claim that this software is notable. Miami33139 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As one said, it is the only Torrent client for Symbian. A simple Google search for 'SymTorrent' brings out many many results. In my opinion, thats being notable. Gagandeep (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That lots of google hits makes something notable is your opinion, but it is rejected opinion by the Wikipedia community. Miami33139 (talk) 20:05, 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, Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Wow. Wow. WOW. I am seeing lots of votes here. Okay, so it is the only client for Symbian. So what? Where is the non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications? JBsupreme (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a bunch, scattered in each of the last four years; seems notable enough to merit a keep to me. Not every article is going to spring forth from an author's head, fully written. Frank | talk 23:23, 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 merge to AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd graves[edit]

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

Fringe theorist who has not been covered by any reliable third party sources, thusly fails WP:BIO Drdisque (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gnews search confirms some coverage in secondary sources. That said, this being an intersection of WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP, two of our most controversial sets of rules, I think the article should definitely be cut down to what can be precisely cited and verified, to avoid trouble. Ray^Talk 01:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus would seem to be the place for this entry to go. There are other 'notable' conspiracy theories on that page and a short entry about Graves it would fit in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boyd_graves&action=submitseamlessly. Sabiona (talk) 17:10, 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) 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus with no redlink to Mr Graves, and possible caution the Article originator. At first glance, the article would appear to have been a stub about a possibly notable person who espouses an unpopular theory, article started by a WP:SPA.
I made a few little minor edits... and then looking into it further, it might be that this is an Wikipedia:Attack page - the section title "Cashing In" would appear not to be the wording a proponent may use. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:27, 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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of female stock characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research and synthesis, totally arbitrary examples. How do we know that any of these is actually a common stock character or just someone's opinion thereof? There is also no corresponding "List of male stock characters." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though i suspect this comment is futile. unless each entry has at least 2 mentions of it being a stock female character, and unless each example also has critical mention of them being a stock character, this is original research. what are the qualities that define a stock character, as opposed to an original character? im interested to see the debate here, though im not hopeful it can be improved or even that the issues involved will be understood by most. i expect "notable, useful, keep". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed that this is guaranteed to amount to an arbitrary list with no definable criterion for inclusion. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the nominator, the list is arbitrary, and the examples are someone's personal opinion. JIP | Talk 06:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very wise nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How on Earth is a catgirl a "stock carrier"? (I'll admit, I've never even seen manga, much less read one.) How is the 'companion' stock character cited with a work on 18th century fiction that doesn't use the term, and then uses Sarah-Jane Smith as the example? (A classical companion and a companion in 'Doctor Who' are quite different concepts). How is St. Joan of Arc a fictional character? I'll call it OR for lack of a better term. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OR issues. Warrah (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: viz, OR and SYNTH. Eusebeus (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This is actually worse than the list that was nominated the last time. It seemed to have addressed the problem of explaining what the hell these different characters were supposed to be at one point [57], but this type of "you should know what I'm talking about" list of examples from television doesn't work for an encyclopedia. Some I recognize-- "Winnie Cooper" was the girl on The Wonder Years, but does anybody watch that anymore? A surprisingly awful article. Mandsford (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all the fault of User:Colonel Warden. Way back a year and eight months ago, the article was in a pretty good shape. Then this guy suddenly decided to come along and replace a nicely written encyclopedic article with just a list of arbitrarily chosen examples. Many users went on a constant edit war with him, with them restoring the article to its encyclopedic form, and him reverting it to the list of examples, without comment. Then, after a few months, everyone else just gave up.[58][59] The article should either be restored to its version in April 2008 or deleted, and User:Colonel Warden should be reprimanded. JIP | Talk 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even before it went downhill it was oddly arbitrary, It's mainly OR with no bottom given almost any character trait could be called "stock". treelo _radda 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We had nothing but Keeps for this last time and the nominator does not explain why he has changed his view from the view he expressed then, nor has he made his objections known at the article's talk page. There is much talk of OR above but little in the way of specifics or examples to demonstrate or prove that this material is original. If the article is inspected, we see that the entries are mostly blue links and, if you follow these, you will find substantial sourced articles to back them up - articles such as Bunny boiler and Bond girl. These terms and concepts did not originate here and the sources prove it. Furthermore, we have sources to back up entries in the list and it is easy to add more. For example, consider a good seasonal example - Pantomime dame. This is a stock character in the traditional theatrical entertainment held especially in Britain during the Christmas season. Most British readers will understand this immediately but foreign readers may require a citation. So, looking for a source, one soon finds an educational work in which the pantomime dame is discussed with Widow Twanky being provided as an example of this stock character, as in our list. I shall now add this source to the list and so it is improved in accordance with our editing policy. Deletion of such well-founded and sourced material would be directly contrary to that policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restore older version I agree with Jip. We should restore the [60] version, which had several notable examples for each thing, and explained what each category was. Dream Focus 16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure WP:OR and arbitrary fancruft. It is not an encyclopedic article and does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for being verifiable and notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and clean up, per above. Well founded information. Ikip (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note I have contacted some of the editors who edited this article in the past, and contacted all editors in the previous AFD. Ikip (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As with my previous comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in science fiction, I ask, "what sources could a list of stock characters be expected to have?" Does anybody disagree that a female stock character such as the Hooker with a heart of gold is notable? There are several female stock characters that are notable, so a list of them is acceptable. As for sources, see [61] or [62]. Abductive (reasoning) 17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a previous discussion closed as an overwhelming keep and anytime someone uses a WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:PERNOM style of non-argument in an AfD we must keep by default. And also keep per User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable. In any event, a plainly discriminate list of only stock characters and only female ones. It is unoriginal research as presumably only verifiable examples are included. Moreover, the list serves a valuable function as a table of contents of sorts to other articles. I finally recommend creating a similar article for males. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out my delete vote because of the recent clean-up. At the moment I'm neither voting for delete or for keep. JIP | Talk 19:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but require sourcing, although it should be adequate for the sourcing to be included in the linked articles. Having this list in Wikipedia was a key justification for deleting Category:Female stock characters, although that was WP:BOLDly emptied and deleted three times and never taken to CFD/DRV; the fullest discussion is probably here. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing seems to be being added nicely. I agree with Fayenatic that sourcing in the dependent articles is sufficient (otherwise we could never write in SUMMARY STYLE); since not everyone agrees, it is probably wise to put at least one key reference in each section. There is a difference between fancruft and film studies, and those who are supporting the deletion of this article seem to be unaware of that. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely original research. Them From Space 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The dramatically improved article cites secondary scholarly sources, i.e. the research of others, and therefore cannot justifiably be called "original" research. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as mainly now by Colonel Warden, that he may add actual references to the terms being used by other reliable sources as types of characters, and that each exemplar also needs a RS reference linking the character to the sterotype furnished. And suggest he prune any stereotypes or examples which are not readily sourceable by WP policies and guidelines. This would for once and for all eliminate any of the OR which, unfortuneately, is present in the current article. I would suggest, in fact, that he examine the standards from List of eponymous laws and apply them here, then resubmit to mainspace. Collect (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to TV Tropes? Artw (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That there are as much sourcing as there is in the article indicates that the topic of stock characters, and specifically female ones, is notable -- and that the conception of the list is not original research in a Wikipedia sense. Given the state of the list, especially compared to what it was in the first AfD, shows that work is continuing as I at least stipulated during that debate. Whether including a given entry on the list is supported by a reference (and needs to be) is an editorial decision, and not for here. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With rescue under way by A-Nobody and others, it can be made useful and accurate. Mandsford (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR by Synthesis - a list that does not, and can not have real criteria for inclusion. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Research cited from secondary sources cannot legitimately be called "or". Moreover, only stock characters that are female and that are backed in reliable sources is a pretty clear and obvious criteria for inclusion. There is therefore no valid reason to redlink this article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article has improved dramatically since nomination and the initial flurry of deletes (hence why two of the deletes have now been struck) per many reliable secondary sources found on Google Books to add definitions of the characters as well as academic analysis of the concept in general. While more work can and should be done, no reasonable editor can any longer call the article entirely "original research" and certainly not indiscriminate either. And certainly no editor can in good faith suggest that the newly cited material should not at worst be merged to Stock characters per WP:PRESERVE. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I filed this for AFD not realizing that I had voted "keep" in the first afd. The article was actually in better shape in the first AFD before it degenerated to what I nominated. Thanks a lot to the rescue attemps by A Nobody and so forth; I'll just let this go down as a keep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep due to the noms flexibility in changing his position to Keep, and the great improvements by the Colonel and A Nobody. Article is a very useful navigation aid, and the topic is clearly notable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: List_of_stock_characters -- Tim Nelson

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang Internet Traffic[edit]

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

Proposed deletion tag removed twice. Completely non-notable neologism. Coined a couple months ago on somebody's blog. No third-party reliable sources. ~YellowFives 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Definite COI issue. For the record, "Big Bang Internet Traffic" in quotes yields two gHits, the article and the AfD. Vulture19 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable made-up neologism. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DatetheUK[edit]

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

Apparent WP:COI creation. Makes vague claims to notability, so might not be eligible for speedy deletion. No third-party reliable sources actually establishing notability, though. ~YellowFives 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 06:37, 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 no consensus. Secret ^account 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late Show Fun Facts (book)[edit]

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

Non-notable pursuant to WP:NN. Getmoreatp (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Book by well known television personality, and seems to have had moderately significant sales. LotLE×talk 09:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't found any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (I'm assuming that Amazon.com and a Facebook Fan Page don't count. Closest thing I've found is this, but is that "significant"?) Getmoreatp (talk) 14:19, 23 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) 00:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep newsmax, Waterloo Record, Entertainment Weekly, Chicago Sun Times all write about this book.[63] At least the Chicago Sun Times is a full article.Ikip (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure it's a notable book, but this is not an encyclopedia article about the book. "Here are a few examples of fun facts" pretty well sums it up. This is the lone contribution by someone who spent a couple of weeks on Wikipedia and wrote about a book that he or she got a good laugh out of. I don't see any merit in keeping this unless someone wants to replace it with an entirely different article. I'll reconsider if anyone who wants it kept wants to write about the book itself. Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if the fun facts listed were deleted from the article it would be more encyclopedic. ArcAngel (talk) 07:34, 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, Black Kite 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the Late Show article. No need for this to be spun out separately. Eusebeus (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Eusebeus. The book may be notable, but this article fails miserably to establish that. And I don't think there is enough to say about the book on its own to merit its own article (much of the notability appears to be that it's tied to notable person/show) so (editorial decision) better located as a sentence or two in the show's article. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 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 17:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trine Games[edit]

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

The notability of this company is questionable. No primary sources given. Eeekster (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the page text taken directly from http://www.trinegames.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=64. Regardless of its notability, the page cannot continue to exist in the state. Reach Out to the Truth 21:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially given the first version of the article is a copy-paste from said source. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 21:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is this interview with a Trine Games CEO. I doubt it's enough to satisfy WP:N though. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. I searched a few Game News websites for news items about "Trine Games". I found lots of items about Trine (video game), but nothing useful for writing an acceptable article: GamesRadar: no hits; Gamespot: 0; Gamespy: 1 very short company profile; GameZone: no hits; IGN: 1 very short company profile.
Maybe Trine Games will be notable one day — I'd like to see that — but they're not WikiNotable yet. CWC 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from "Delete" to "Neutral" after seeing SharkD's comment below. I'm not convinced yet about Trine Games, but it seems to me we should have an article about Trine Entertainment, the parent company. CWC 05:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are additional hits when searching for "Trine Entertainment" and "Trine Animation": GameGuru.in, GameGuru.in, PC Games (DE), Hindustan Times, The Hindu Business Line, Think Digit, Animation Xpress, Animation Xpress, Animation Xpress. Lots of trivial mentions, including: The Telegraph, The Telegraph, Gaming Heaven, PC Games (DE), PC Games (DE). SharkD Talk 03:45, 27 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) 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as a section of the notable Trine Entertainment.--M4gnum0n (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per M4gnum0n as I don't think this is notable enough yet for its own article. ArcAngel (talk) 07:30, 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, Black Kite 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (perhaps as Trine Entertainment, including information about Trine Animation, too). Coverage linked to by SharkD is enough to build up a good article. Marasmusine (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find much on the individual website sources given to see if they would even be reliable sources. I don't see it being particularly notable. --Teancum (talk) 13:15, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saratlas[edit]

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

This does not look notable, and I can't find any significant mention in reliable sources. NE2 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website or software: a comprehensive free database of all the motorways (autoroutes) and expressways in France and Switzerland... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After much searching, I couldn't find a reliable source for the article. Dethlock99 (talk) 20:35, 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. keep comments aren't policy based Secret ^account 17:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivish Jews[edit]

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

I know that there was no consensus last time, but I just don't see this article here. It's a Fork of Orthodox Judaism, and anything here can be placed within OJ. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if OJ is not the right place for this article, 99% of it can be placed within Charedi Judaism. The rest of the article seems to be WP:OR, there does not seem to be enough out there for an entire article that can be properly placed within Charedi or Orthodox Judaism. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Last time" appears to have been at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeshivish (culture) Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided It is very hard for an outsider (non-Jew) to tell if this is really a recognized group or a label put on some people. Even if the second case then it still might be notable, for instance Valley girl, etc. Borock (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)(I didn't intend to equate Yeshnivish Jews with Valley girls since I can see that they are very different.)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Too dependant on local context. Are we discussing Non-Hasidic Haredi Jews? Are we differentiating between Hesder, Merkaz Harav, Itri, the Mir, and Ponovizh? What about Brisk vs. Brisker Kollel? What about YU? What about RIETS vs. regular YU program? What about people who were born Hasidic, went to a Litvishe Yeshiva, and now wear a short jacket and Brisker payos? What about a Yeke who learns in a predominantly Hasidic yeshive in Eretz Yisroel? Mention that this is a term often used to describe the non-Hasidic Haredi should be made in the Haredi Judaism and Orthodox Judaism articles, and this article should be redirected (preferably to Haredi Judaism, I think). Avi (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are way over my head. However even if this is just a label it still might be notable enough. I didn't vote keep because there are not yet sources that establish even that. Borock (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, if someone is learning in YU's Kollel, they are Brisker, perhaps but are they yeshivish? In reading the article there is barely any distinction between yeshivish and charedi. I will of course wait for Izak to come with all the "official" Wiki policies. He's good with that. :)

For what it is worth, most people outside of YU o not believe YU is yeshivish, for example. Others believe that if you did not learn in Lakewood or possibly Bais hatalmud in the greater NY area, ou really aren't American Yeshivish either. That is my point, it is too much dependant on locality. -- Avi (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it a "weasel" word for lack of a better term. If you live out of town, no matter how yeshvish you think you are, you're not yeshivish according to the Brooklyn Ruling Class. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Yeshivish article is worth keeping. But it would seem to me that the Yeshivish Jews article probably should be deleted, redirected, salvaging and transplanting any material that can find a constructive home elsewhere. Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article reads like OR from beginning to end, trying to create a subgroup of Judaism where one does not exist. The lead and many of the points are basically describing Haredi Jews who learn in yeshiva, but present it as some kind of offshoot of Judaism, right up there with Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. This is incorrect. There is also a lot of backpedaling (e.g. the lead informs us that most Yeshivish Jews have attended yeshiva — but some have not, and the dress code is black hat, white shirt, black jacket and slacks — but this doesn't apply in all cases either), and almost no references. The conclusion that elects as the "gurus" of Yeshivish Jews a grand total of two people (again, without references) is ludicrous. To Borock: The term Yeshivish is much more grounded and widely known as a style of speech among English-speaking men who learn in yeshivas. I agree with Yossiea that mention of the word "yeshivish" as a tag for religious men who attend yeshiva, and the use of "yeshivish" as a pejorative, may be in order on the Haredi Judaism page, but the rest of it has to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1700 Google hits, so it appears this is an accepted phrase. Article needs work. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous OR article. Only 1700 ghits? another proof that this is just some stereotyping slang from the street. Very little to merge into the other serious article. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is astounding to me how people who obviously know very little about the subject can make blanket statements which are clearly incorrect. True, the article lacks sources, and needs work, but remember that Wikipedia is not a final draft. Also please note that the term "Yeshivish Jews" is not the most common term, but simply a Wikipedia convention to distinguish the article from Yeshivish. Most of the time, the term is used without the word "Jews" (e.g. "he is yeshivish", not "he is a yeshivish Jew"), as attested by the article's original name Yeshivish (culture) (though "culture" is admittedly not the right word), thus the lack of ghits. There is also an extreme lack of representation by Yeshivish Jews on Wikipedia, due to the general negative feelings toward the internet. But to say this is simply an insignificant fork of OJ is clearly misguided. Keyed In (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See [64],[65], [66], [67], [68] for some mainstream media references to yeshivish. Also please note that in these instances, as in most Google hits, "yeshivish" is an adjective, describing a person, community, etc. and not the manner of speech that is the topic of the Yeshivish article. If there could be a way of renaming (and reworking) this article to something like Yeshivish (adjective) (this is just illustrative, not a name that I think will work under WP guidelines), I would support that, thus avoiding calling Yeshivish people a distinct category of "Jews." Keyed In (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the aforementioned "Yeshivish Jews" I think I know quite a bit about my demographic. Regardless, by wikipedia standards it does not deserve its own article, but should be a redirect into Haredi Judaism where non-Hasidic Haredi Judaism is discussed. Let me ask you, Keyed In, in your eyes what differentiates "Yeshivish" from "non-Hasidic Haredi" (I cannot even say Litvish, as that would disenfranchise people from Yekeshe and Sephardi backgrounds who now identify with the Haredi/Yeshivish movement)? -- Avi (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is also a "yeshivish" family, but all that means is that my husband learns in a Litvishe yeshiva and follows the rulings of Litvishe gedolim. There are a lot of inaccuracies in the article as it tries to define this "culture", including that I am not called a "yeshivish" woman. As I noted in my vote earlier, the article is riddled with OR from beginning to end. I agree with Avi's last suggestion to pipe anything worth saving into Haredi Judaism. Yoninah (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avi and Yoninah-firstly I would like to apologize if my comments offended anyone. I didn't mean to be uncivil and certainly didn't mean to attack anyone in particular. However, I do feel that there is enough here for an article. I would like to address a number of your points:

To answer Avi's question, there are a few differences (in my opinion) between non-Hasidic Hareidi and Yeshivish. First, NHH sounds (to me) like a very rigid classification of one's religious views, and no more, while Yeshivish is a much broader term-an adjective which can modify many more nouns. Secondly, many people who are Hareidi (and not Hasidic) may not qualify as yeshivish according to most, an example being a baal teshuva learning in a Hareidi yeshiva, who has adopted a Hareidi lifestyle. I know that I am sounding horribly judgmental, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point. Besides, just because something can be referred to by what it's not doesn't mean it shouldn't have its own article. Should we delete the matza article because it can be called non-leavened bread?
As to Yoninah's assertion that she would not be considered yeshivish according to the article, I would like to quote from the article, "In its common usage, yeshivish refers to the general characteristics of the yeshiva population, not to someone who necessarily studies in a yeshiva. Therefore, women, who generally don't study in yeshivas, can nevertheless be characterized as Yeshivish." Whether or not you find this label to add anything meaningful to a description of you as a person is irrelevant; since the description is widespread, it is notable. The article admittedly contains OR, and I would be happy to collaborate with someone on fixing it, but deletion is not the answer.
In response to Yoninah's first post, the backpedalling in the lead was added recently by a well-meaning editor, but I'm not sure that it was smart. It's true the article isn't written very well. But neither are thousands of WP articles. I agree that this is not meant to be an equal branch of Judaism. I would like to emphasize again that I don't think the proper name for this article is Yeshivish Jews, because that is too limiting (yeshivish can refer to much more than Jews) and also too much of a classification (making it sound like this is similar in importance to Conservative Judaism). After thinking about it and researching a bit more, I think that, since the usage of Yeshivish as an adjective is by far more predominant, we should one of the following:
- Move the Yeshivish article to Yeshivish (dialect), and the Yeshivish Jews article to Yeshivish, to describe all things Yeshivish, not a subcategory of Jews, OR
- Merge the Yeshivish article into the Manner of Speech section of the Yeshivish Jews article, and move the whole thing to Yeshivish.

But to delete the whole thing and not mention the use of Yeshivish as an adjective at all would be too drasatic. Keyed In (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keyed In: Thank you for your civil and patient explanation. I hear what you're saying, trying to give legitimacy to "Yeshivish" as an adjective, but I still don't think it deserves its own article. A section under Haredi Judaism explaining the adjective (and a "see also" under yeshiva) would be entirely appropriate. That's because the term "Yeshivish" only applies to people who are part of the Haredi, Litvishe yeshiva world, as I implied above with my personal categorization.

Regarding your new comments, why is a baal teshuva learning in a Hareidi yeshiva, who has adopted a Hareidi lifestyle, not considered "yeshivish"? That's certainly not true in Israel, and one of the problems already cited on the article page is that it's too localized. Perhaps the whole term is an American invention?

I would also like to clarify what I said above about the article's inaccuracies. According to the article, I am a "yeshivish woman". According to me and my peers, though, I'm Haredi, with a husband who learns in yeshiva. All the descriptions that the article uses regarding ideology and mode of dress are simply describing Haredim. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It is always a pleasure to deal in a civil and friendly manner. I understand that you feel that the term "yeshivish" doesn't add anything meaningful to the description of someone as Haredi. I do agree that all yeshivish people are Haredi. But not all (non-hasidic) Haredi people are yeshivish. In my example, I would consider him Haredi because he has accepted upon himself to be as scrupulous in his observance as he is taught by his Haredi rebbeim. But it would be very unlikely that he would fit into the "yeshivish" mold without many years of integration.

I agree that the term yeshivish has a varied local connotation. But so does Haredi! I would venture a guess that you and your peers, who consider themselves Haredi but not yeshivish, are living in Israel. The term Haredi is preferred in Israel for a few reasons. First, it is a Hebrew word! Obviously they prefer the term in their native tongue. Not so in the US. More significantly, it is clear to me, after growing up in the US but studying in Israel for the last few years, that there are many more "shades of gray" in the US. Here in Israel, the boundaries are very defined; either you are Hareidi, Mizrahi or Hiloni. In the US, however, you can find (for example) a "baal habos" who is scrupulous about his observance like a Haredi, but who wears a blue shirt and has a (gasp!) non-kosher cell phone. According to the Haredi article, such a person would be lacking some of the major traits of a Haredi Jew; indeed, he would probably not even call himself that. Yeshivish can include such a person. The only reason I can't go edit the Haredi Judaism article to explain this is because insufficient documentation of this well-known fact exists, thus it would be labeled OR. This is just one way the Yeshivish (as an adjective) article can help.

Also, I get 38,000 google hits for "Yeshivish." As I said earlier, most of those refer to Yeshivish as a description, not the dialect dealt with in the Yeshivish article. Someone encountering such a widespread term who is unfamiliar with its usage must have the ability to get at least a bit of info from a corresponding WP article. True, it doesn't need to be as detailed as Haredi Judaism, and can include many references to that article, but it needs to exist for itself.

I strongly feel that my first suggestion above would be very helpful in turning this article away from describing a type of Jew, but instead to describe an extremely widespread descriptive term. Best, Keyed In (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keyed In: I hear you, I hear you. Now that you've brought up the "opposite" of Yeshivish, "Balabatish", we're not going to make a page for that, are we? In light of the fact that there really isn't a lot of documentation, just a word mentioned in an article (like some of the newspaper articles you cited above), wouldn't it be better to start out by describing the two adjectives, "Yeshivish" and "Balabatish", on the Haredi Judaism page, and eventually expand them onto their own pages when more references are available? And I totally agree with changing the page name Yeshivish to Yeshivish (dialect). Yoninah (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we both understand each other's opinions, and we will just have to agree to disagree.

About the name change, do you think I should ask for consensus on the Yeshivish talk page? Or just be bold?

It has been a pleasure to discuss this with you. Have a great Shabbos. Keyed In (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! Yoninah (talk) 11:21, 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, Black Kite 00:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It all one big chunk of OR. Start to finish. To be fair, I may agree with much of the OR and feel that it is true but that in no way removes the fact of it being a big chunk of OR. Joe407 (talk) 09:30, 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 merge to Vampire: The Masquerade. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselah (World of Darkness)[edit]

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

This article is about a race of vampires which fails WP:N as it has not been the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article also fails our guidelines for writing about fiction because it is only described from an in-universe standpoint with no information regarding how it has been discussed in the real world. Them From Space 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I abstain. Rosselfossil (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vampire: The Masquerade Vulture19 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Standalone article inappropriate and not warranted. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although it's certainly not from an in-universe perspective, it is not suitable as a standalone article. Putting it into context is the best solution. (The lead clearly establishing it as part of a fictional world and the page goes on to describe its effects on a game. This is all squarely put in reality) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 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) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synod of Mainz[edit]

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

Delete Single active page for disambig, which already has Synod of Mainz (Jewish) as a redirect. Avi (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a false disambiguation page that does not disambiguate any articles, only red links, while WP:DISAMBIG states: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles" and is for at least two or more actual articles already in existence. The creator of this disambiguation page has jumped the gun and worked back to front and should have first created the articles and then gone on to create a disambiguation page and not vice versa. IZAK (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IZAK. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 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) 00:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MVP and Mark Henry[edit]

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

Delete Un-notable tag team has done nothing at all.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, the prod tag would delete the article. There was no reason to create this at all.--WillC 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The prod removal is irreversible, but the intent is still valid. They aren't notable enough and the formation section more or less confirms this. -- Θaks ter 11:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable--WillC 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —WillC 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, it's a fan-name (I don't recall WWE ever calling them that). Second, they haven't done anything notable as a team. The most they've done is have a 3 week feud with Jericho/Big Show that saw them unsuccessfully challenge for the tag titles. TJ Spyke 15:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an article saying "fan-name" in the first sentence is clearly not about a notable team. Wrestlers get thrown together all the time, doesn't make them a team. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. clearly this user isn't Legacy fan as it says after they beat them twice, they nearly hit jobber status. MC Steel (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That jobber line was added by an IP, not the original author. -- Θaks ter 10:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A part time team only. Mentions in the respective individual articles will more than cover this. !! Justa Punk !! 08:14, 11 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.