< 5 December	7 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The result was Withdrawn. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot (fiction)[edit]

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

~~Fails the GNG~~ Polarpanda (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has poor sourcing, but this is process is being used for many new shows/movies. Not the best per WP standards, but notable nonetheless. Angryapathy (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, if not Snowball Keep The article most definitely needs references, but the term is already or is becoming an industry standard. A Google search for Star Trek reboot generates approximately 600,000 hits, many of them in mainstream media.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of those discuss reboots in general? Polarpanda (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Admittedly very few, but then the search was for Star Trek reboot, not the general term. The best example I can come up with, discussing rebooting in general but in the context of Star Trek, is the reboot proposal by Bryce Zabel and J. Michael Straczynski in 2004. I'm not sure if this is where the term was originally coined, but in the context of Star Trek is gives a detailed explanation of what is meant by "rebooting" the series.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above comments from Vulcan's Forge. Even if the article's prose quality and referencing are very much wanting, deletion would be detrimental to Wikipedia given the wide use of the term in the media industry. The assertion that the topic fails to meet the general notability guideline therefore, in my view, seems a little forced; I'd argue that it is inherently notable, despite having a Wikipedia article which currently does not go very far to reflect that. The term is frequently bandied about in discussions about films/movies, most notably and recently the new Star Trek film but also 2006's Casino Royale (which still generates 22,000 Google hits even with a narrow-band search) and 2005's Batman Begins (63,000 results). Category:Television reboots was recently deleted but a similar discussion for films was closed with consensus to keep, since its articles make legitimate and sourced reference to the term. However, this page, as it stands, is in serious need of re-writing and/or re-structuring in places and much more sourcing to flesh out the "Etymology" section. A referenced critical and analytical response section is required, not just a list of examples (of which all but one are unsourced). What does or does not constitute "rebooting" a film franchise remains to be unequivocally resolved on Wikipedia, but why delete the "Reboot" article when numerous external sources are using the term, and when it would automatically produce a redlink on a great many articles? SuperMarioMan (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because "a referenced critical and analytical response section is required" but impossible to create due to lack of sources. Polarpanda (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, the article is simply put up for deletion instead. Never mind the probable negative effects of such a deletion, e.g. a reader browsing an article on a reboot film will suddenly find themselves without a link to follow if they are looking for further information on the subject, no matter how humbly written and presented. A response section is hardly "impossible to create" due to a lack of any old sources, but reliable ones. As any Google search shows, there are in fact plenty of sources available, and some of them must surely be trustworthy and relevant to reboots as a general concept as well as in the context of film. There is no deadline on Wikipedia for users who would be willing to seek out such useful sources and expand the article accordingly. Consequently, I would suggest that we allow time for this to happen, and not just erase all existence of this article. SuperMarioMan (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If some of them "must surely be trustworthy and relevant to reboots as a general concept" why don't you go find one? Polarpanda (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, needs work but is a notable practice in the entertainment industry. Someidiot (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see someone has actually found general coverage of the phenomenon, so I would like to thank SuperMarioMan and withdraw this nomination. Polarpanda (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thanks, Polarpanda. I inserted more sources with this edit; and this other article which I've just found also explains the term. SuperMarioMan (talk) 20:22, 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. JForget 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Odin stream[edit]

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

Oh dear. No! It's just trash made up in school one day and Wp is not.... Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, serious original research. Andrea105 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling good-faith contributions "trash" isn't such a great idea for a project which relies on the public's goodwill. Polarpanda (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are absolutely right. And when I see one I do not call it trash. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this really is trash, and very much advancing a specific POV — perhaps a bit of advertising as well. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:SOAP among many other things. Favonian (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to agree that this article should be thrown in the trash, where it belongs. Angryapathy (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable POV. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 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. JForget 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wensley[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Proposed deletion tag was removed by anon. Boson (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:BIO.

Delete Basically an advert for a non-notable lawyer in Australia. Angryapathy (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 with an honorary doctorate from a major university. This is a far more significant award than most of the ones that we accept as conferring notability on porn actors or web sites. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, grotesquely promotional, unencyclopedic, and having an honorary doctorate just seems like one leg of a stool in this case. Abductive (reasoning) 03:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a CV, not an article. Non-notable from what I can find on news services (he's not a QC or SC, which is his industry's status indicator, so the honorary doctorate is irrelevant here.) Orderinchaos 05:57, 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. JForget 00:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P2ware Planner[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable software, apparently relating to the supervision of computer programmers. Google News yields no significant results. Article is advertising in tone, consisting of nothing but feature lists, and non-notable mutual-backscratching awards like "The Most Innovative IT Solution 2008". Makes no case for general interest sources or historical or technical importance. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete, cannot find significant independent coverage; non-notable. Haakon (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trust the nominators opinion and review of provided sources. Without good RS we cannot have a good article. Miami33139 (talk) 00:14, 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. Per unanimous discussion below regarding notability requirements and subject request at OTRS 2009120410006297 Shell ^babelfish 02:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Coletti[edit]

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

Unreferenced promotional stub, created by an author with a possible conflict of interest. Subject is a mixed martial artist with three matches and no wins on a brand new (notable?[1]) promotion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has three losses in local promotions and has been fighting less than a year. Google search doesn't reveal anything of substance (only fight records and a few match descriptions). IMO, fails WP:Athlete and WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreyGeek (talk • contribs)

Delete per above. A new fighter, with three losses in local bouts, and no news stories, is just not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to justify notability. He's lost all 3 of his fights and none of them got out of the first round. In addition, according to Sherdog, his 3 opponents now have a grand total of only 5 victories--meaning his competition has not been top tier. Papaursa (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no consensus for deletion - merge options can discussed in the talk pages JForget 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greased Pig Chase[edit]

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

Event seems non notable. There are three external links, of which one is a blog and the other two are the same news article which does not appear enough for notability. Google search throws up nothing useful. HJMitchell You rang? 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However, the article should be reworked slightly to be more broad. Right now, it almost reads like a specific event, whereas it should be written more like a general type of event, like sack race or three-legged race. (Just changing it from "Greased Pig Race" to "Greased pig race" would help. lol) A quick Google News archive search brings results of stories about greased pig chases going back as far as the 1920s and 1930s, and the 1950s and 1960s. As well as articles about the type of greased pig chase controversies the article briefly describes. Interestingly, there is one article from 1916 that, according to the headline, also seems to indicate controversy. I think with a bit of work and Wikilove, this could turn into a pretty interesting article (not to mention with some interesting art! lol) — Hunter Kahn _(c) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with pig wrestling, which already mentions greased pig chase as a variation. News search brings up quite a few hits so there are other potential sources. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well-attested historical practice with plenty of coverage through the ages. Sorry that I can't provide the source, but when I was little, I owned a children's book that discussed the childhood of George Washington and noted that greased pig chases were popular in his day. Period sources surely would be useful here, not to mention sources from the last 2½ centuries. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little OR — pig wrestling appears to be more a variant of greased pig chasing, as I've heard of GPCing (by that name) in many contexts but never PWing before; perhaps merge PWing into GPCing? Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite popular. Most rural towns in Spain have pig chasing events also, especially around San Martín.Tris2000 (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found a US NYT mention from 1888...http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9802EEDA1230E633A2575BC1A96E9C94699FD7CF --75.145.91.229 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Pig wrestling - direction merge should go is not entirely clear to me, but I think they should be one article, which I am confident can be well sourced. LadyofShalott 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's only a snippet view, but it seems greased pig contests (I'm seeing 'contest' and 'competition' coming up a lot more than 'chase' in my searches) were established enough to be outlawed in Minnesota. Wish I could see what year the law was from. Also In 1821, Northamptonshire poet John Clare immortalized the greased pig chase in verse, for what that's worth. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: According to this State of Minnesota website, that law was apparently adopted in 1971, revised 1981. The citation would be "Minnesota Statutes, Section 343.36 GREASED PIG CONTESTS AND TURKEY SCRAMBLES" Jonathunder (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with pig wrestling and create greased pig contest as another redirect to the same, per above. Jonathunder (talk) 18:30, 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. Tone 14:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9 O'clock Woman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable pornographic manga created by a non-notable mangaka. The OVA adapatation has only recieved one review from a reliable source and is likewise non-notable. A search for additional reliable sources turned up nothing more then sales catalogs, copyvio websites, and self-published websites, such as Animetric.com (a fact that hasn't changed since the previous nomination). Having only one review does not meet the significant coverage test in WP:NOTE, nor does a non-notable adaptation of a non-notable manga make the whole thing notable. —Farix (t | c) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still as unnotable now as it was in the last AfD. No evidence of notability has yet to be found, and its single review is not enough to give either it nor its minor OVA any notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I contacted everyone who participated in the previous AFD, other than the two who have already commented and thus know this is taking place. This is the exact same AFD is before, nothing changing. Keep because, as mentioned before, the manga was notable enough to be turned into three movies/episodes, has been translated into at least one other language, and is sold through vast numbers of stores with other things of this type, plus you can not find reviews for the vast majority of things of this nature anywhere. Google gives 95,700 results in English, and probably a fair number more in Japanese and French, the languages it was released in. So at least that many people have heard of it, adding to its notability. Dream Focus 20:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goggle hits are irrelevant, especially when you have not filtering out illegal scanlations and download websites, forums, blogs, etc. Second WP:BK requires that an adaptation must be notable. However, in this case it is not. Being translated into other languages does not make something notable. Neither does being sold make something notable. And "being known" doesn't make something notable either. Seriously DF, the notability guidelines are there for a reason and have a strong consensus behind them. They simply can't be ignored because you don't like them. —Farix (t | c) 22:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are suggestions, not absolute rules. It says to use common sense and ignore them when necessary. Common sense says you can't judge something by reviews that that type of media almost never receives. Other factors have to be used to determine notability. And it does not have strong consensus, it has a very small number of people who argue nonstop to get it to that current state. Not even a tenth of one percent of Wikipedia editors ever bothered to state their opinions there. Dream Focus 01:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The status of WP:NOTE as a guideline doesn't mean that it can be ignored. If almost no reliable third-party sources have cover the subject, then it's a very good indication that the subject is not notable. In fact, you even admitted that reliable third-party sources rarely cover this subject area. Guidelines are built around community consensus, therefore they have weight behind them and should generally be followed. Exceptions to the guidelines should have very good reasoning behind them and leave the guidelines intact. But when you suggest that we ignore the guidelines all of the time, then you are not really invoking WP:IAR. The spirit of WP:IAR acknowledges that there are reasons behind "the rules" and that ignoring them should be done with care and only when it is to improves Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. And frankly I don't see how always ignoring the notability guidelines improves Wikipedia. In fact, I say that always ignoring the notability guidelines actually harms Wikipedia as it becomes an indiscriminate collection of information. (that last link is to a policy page) —Farix (t | c) 02:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It wasn't notable during the first AFD and nothing has changed. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not seem likely that sufficient sources can be found to verify notability. Mah favourite (talk) 00:57, 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. JForget 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Karen J Stevens PhD[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS coverage. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Author of one self-published book, some unsourced TV appearances, no outside sources at all - the article appears to be totally self-promotion. I distrust anybody who feels compelled to add BOTH "Dr." and "PhD" to their name every place they go - especially when the article doesn't mention where or when she supposedly got that PhD. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absence of reliable sources, clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:PROF as a non-notable academic and WP:FRINGE as a non-notable practitioner of a fringe science. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a few days ago in another AfD I warned against assuming that an article was a puff piece just because the title included "Dr", but when the title is "Dr ... PhD" I'm really not inclined to do anything at all to help substantiate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as having no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 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. JForget 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Cyril of Alexandria reconsideration of the death of Hypatia[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. PROD was contested (if not directly) on the talk page.

Original PROD rationale was 'This is a theological essay, not an encyclopedic article' Ged UK 21:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly an essay (and a copyright violation if it has appeared elsewhere). EALacey (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork and apology for the murderer Cyril. Copyvio from [2]. Glittering Pillars (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a copyvio so much as a (cited) quote. Ged UK 22:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are other unquoted sources. The bold line at the top of the essay says, "Saint Cyril of Alexandria reconsideration in the death of Hypatia by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette". Glittering Pillars (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a POV essay, regardless of copyright issues. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an encyclopedia is not the place for this. Constantine ✍ 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the topic is always going to be someone's point of view so should not be included in Wikipedia. Mah favourite (talk) 01:01, 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. in regards of WP:IINFO and WP:NOT. Much of the Keep arguments were rather weak. JForget 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between HMS King George V and USS North Carolina[edit]

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

Oh my, my, my. Another comparison between battleship classes. I'm glad I got my university work finished ahead of schedule yesterday, since it enables me to take on last look at Wikipedia prior to my finals and graduation.

As for this article, there are a lot of problems with it. And I do mean a lot. So lets delve into the reasons why this needs to axed:

First, this is in open violation of the NPOV policy. Comparing battleship class 1 and battleship class 2 does not provide a neutral assessment of the battleships in a fleet at the time, nor does it fully take into account the matter of other nation's battleship. Neutrality demands that all nations get an equal share of the comparison. Creating such an article would be a waste of resources on Wikipedia.
Secondly, we have had this discussion before. It caused a lot of trouble. It created a lot of drama. It cost the project a valuable member. It created a lot of interesting theories. Worst of all, it took WAY too long to address the issue correctly. I am ashamed to admit that I had a big hand in all this, it is and remains one of my worst moments in my time on Wikipedia. For what its worth, I did manage to redeem myself eventually. Since all this went down I have penned explicit instructions concerning comparisons sections based on the incident. Whats true of one article should be true of all: Leave them out. No exceptions.
Third, this is in open violation of our Original Research policy. Short of actually having a documented battle between these two classes everything in the article is based on educated guesswork, and while it may be educated the fact remains that guesswork is guesswork. Since all ships in both classes are now razorblades or rust piles we will never know. Not withstanding paper statistics there are other matters that a comparison could never hope to take into account. After the loss of HMS Audacious Admiral Sir John Jellico developed a near phobia of German anti-ship mines, and in this fear in part caused him to let the German High Seas Fleet escape: he thought they may have been attempting to lure the British fleet into a mine field. At the Battle of Jutland a number of British ships were loss due to powder magazine explosions thought to have resulted in inadequate safety measures to keep burning embers out of the powder chute. I guareetee that would not have been a factor in paper analysis, we only know about it from the actual combat action these ships saw. All the statistical comparisons in the world would not be able to detect this. The bottom line: its got no cite-able backbone to stay.
Fourth, the ship class articles themselves can serve as a comparison. One of the main goals of Operation Majestic Titan is to create a "we report, you decide" nature with the articles: we will report the strengths and weakness in the articles with citations to second and third party sources, and leave it to others to decide how they ships would have measured up in combat. Articles like this defeat the whole purpose of both OMT and Wikipedia.
Fifth, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So we are comparing numbers. So what? Our ships templates can do the same thing in half the space with a greater investment return by adding histories, service records, armor and armament info, etc. If the article adheres to WP:NOT, you must delete it without a second thought!
Sixth, other have covered the same territory already. Cases in point: Battleship Comparison, WWII Battleship :: Iowa Bismark Yamato. If I can find these then surely somewhere out there a comparison on these two ships must already exist. Add a link in the class articles to these site and let the off site the debate begin.
Seventh, this invites a ton of articles here all with a comparison between class-a and class-b, which wastes space. We don't need these kinds of articles clogging up our site with information already presented elsewhere, no do we need the nationalism, drama, or warring over the articles this invites. Keep everything in one nice little place or we are going to end up with (for lack of a better term) "comparison-cruft" pages. Shelling this beachhead now ensures that we crush such an invasion before its members get organized move on to other articles like tanks, bombers, missiles, etc.

It is for the reasons that I move that we deleted this page as soon as possible. Help me send a message to all our contributors that we will not tolerate these articles on our site, nor we will accept their drama and conflict. Delete this article, ladies and gentlemen. To allow it leave another week speaks poorly to our ability to uphold our own policies and guidelines. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much of the above is simply irrelevant and OR driven that it is hard to respond to.

This article was created from data that was collected and analysed by the both the USN and the Royal Navy in WW2, and is now in the public domain. The Royal Navy had full access to the ships involved including access to both Navy's design teams and the information was presented and analysed by Norman Friedman, in his book, US battleships There is NO guess work involved. None! And I will repeat this for emphasis, the data was collected by access to both RN and USN official records, RN and USN design teams and by physical access to the ships during WW2. The article is valuable because it presented this data without bias during WW2 and as such is a valuable look as the two designs where such variables as armour and machinery weight could be calculated on the same basis, rather than being simple estimates. It is an invaluable and insightful article that reveals the design trade-offs by the two navy's. It should not be deleted and the basis for wanting it deleted is simply unwarranted. The article has not been subject to edit warring nor has even received unfavourable comments in its discussion page.

1) data was collected during WW2 with full access to both ships and is in the public domain
2) The data has been analysed and presented by an eminent and respected naval historian.
3)It is completely unlike the comparisons TomStar81 is referring to, such as between Yamato and Iowa because any such comparison must involve OR due to the fact that the IJN and USN did not have access to each others records and the Yamato class did not survive the war for design teams to evaluate it.
4)The article does not draw conclusion as the relative combat power of each ship and merely confines itself to presenting data on non subjective matters such as dimensions, weight and speed, nor does it attempt any other subjective analysis.

This attempt at censorship should not be allowed and this article should not be deleted and should be allowed to stand as is, as an aid to the study of Naval History, and as such will be of interest to persons studying the results of the Washington Naval Treaty on Battleship design and on the relative design priorities of the USN and RN prior to WW2.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I am reading your reply right, instead of adding the material to the articles where its presence could help the push for FA class we need a whole new article with what is essentially a chart of information in the North Carolin class and King George IV class articles because the article is cited to three sources and can not be covered by bring the latter two articles up to FA status, and we should interpret WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV as being in favor such an article by overlooking the fact that two previous attempts to place this type of information of wikipedia resulted in an edit war that lead to the depature of a user who was caught in the cross fire. Is this right, or was there more to the argument? 76.211.107.188 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based upon a wartime study done by the RN, with USN participation, between these two classes and then presented by a respected naval historian, it is not based upon an eclectic gathering of information from various sources and of dubious comparative validity and this is why it is unique and deserves it's own article.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, does the subject of the article meet notability to warrant its own article? Individually there is no argument that both classes of vessels are notable; however as a stand-alone article about comparison between two vessels, citing three references, even if it does so significantly in depth, I have to wonder.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Anything that can be summed in in chart on two separate pages doesn't really deserve its own page. 76.211.107.188 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is certainly notable to anyone interested in the study of naval history and the effects of the WNT on warship design. This study is unique in its access to data due to the close alliance of the RN and USN during WW2, and the ability of the study's authours to properly compare the vessels in question and thus merits it's own article. Reading the articles on each battleship class separately cannot provide this kind of analysis, since, for example each navy had differing methods of calculating armour weight, and a true comparison cannot be done without extensive access to design information, which the authours of the study were in a unique position to do, yet the data obtained cannot be presented properly in either battleship class's main article because it is only valid in comparison to the other ship- to be valid it can only be presented a separate article.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hardly a problem with NPOV, but not an encyclopedic article or list: this is a valid subject of study, but it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The data is invaluable for the study of naval history and the study of the KGV class battleships, but it cannot be presented in the main article for that class for the reasons stated above. The article should be retained.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC

It seems that some people here have not even read the article and/or understood some of the key points:

Source: U.S. battleships: an illustrated design history, Friedman, p278 and "taken from ADM 1/15578 in the Public Record Office, Kew".
The information is from US Battleships, by Norman Friedman. The data was produced during WW2 by the RN Director of Naval Construction to explore the differences between RN and USN Battleships as there were concerns that the RN was falling behind it's foriegn counterparts in battleship design. Specifically there were concerns that the USN had produced a more powerful ship on the same displacement. The RN study made with full access to USN records and physical access to USN battleships showed, however, that the USN had achieved more fire power and range, by reductions in armour and speed while the USN torpedo protection was designed to protect against a much smaller warhead. The RN study argued that the USN had given up too much in the way of protection to achieve greater fire power and range. The data is invaluable for the understanding and study of the KGV and NC classes but just doesn't fit into either class's main article.

Support Delete. The article is a POV-fork for the various articles related to the KGV class, which were already suffering from the fanatic 'setting things right' mentality by the creator of the the comparison article, (talk). As it is, the specific article in question contains little more than just a table, the subject of comparison itself is not an encyclopedic content, but dealt on numerous websites for the better or worse.. worst of all, any such article is a can of worms and a magnet for other POV-warriors. Besides as pointed out, if anyone wants to compare numbers, its easy to do by just using the data boxes of the two battleship classes. You don't need a seperate article for listing pretty much the same tables on one page... Kurfürst (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot compare numbers that are calculated on a separate basis. For example, comparing machinery weights and deriving things as weight per SHP, a measure of machinery efficiency, is impossible unless the machinery weights can be calculated on a common basis, as the RN comparison was able to do. I should note that Kurfurst has been suspended on several occasions for edit warring and seems intent on stirring things up here as well. His remarks are highly offensive. Damwiki1 (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A juxtaposition of two ships that is unsupported by sources, and thus WP:SYNTH. We need to stick to what the sources say about comparisons between ships and navies rather than playing Top Trumps on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 02:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, these comparisons are (I believe) all sourced to Norman Friedman's United States Battleships: A Design History. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but this is an interesting controversy; I didn't realize there would be a chance for POV-pushing in battleship articles. This one isn't doing that, mostly because it is made up of only the table, but I'm sure that if this article is allowed, it'll lead to all sorts of comparisons, the most scary of which is Iowa vs. Yamato. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I keep forgetting that you and MBK were not around for round 1. It was ugly; trust me, I know this from personal experience. That experience is what compels me to move on this matter, I fear if no action is taken a rerun of the 05-07 Iowa class battleship edit war will eventually erupt. Not that we couldn't ride out such a storm, but since I know its coming I am moving to sail our fleet away from the storm before it strikes us. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unlike Halsey, I see. ;-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correct :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - TomStar81 have you read Friedman's US Battleships? It sounds like you haven't.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this information belongs on a third party website, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't (that I know of) make comparisons between two different things, and thus this article is not needed. If it is kept, there might end up being a sleu of articles that are created based on comparisons. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a workable article format (1 vs. 1, very table heavy), but there is a potential merge to Battleships in World War II; ultimately that page or a relevant subpage should describe the approaches taken by the major powers in designing battleships. I would probably move this to a subpage there to sit until it can be appropriately integrated. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is quite amazing. It is as if most of those commenting have only glanced at the article. The article is 100% cited. There is no original research. Unfortunately Wikipedia has far too few properly sourced tables. A tale that can be referenced by several articles is most useful. Most of the numeric information only makes sense if you compare between designs.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, perhaps this can be merged into the article regarding the Washington Naval Treaty, or Naval Architecture, or something relating to the subject matter it's supports have said that it falls under. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually thinking about that, from where I sit the information presented could be added to reinforce citations in both the King George IV and North Carolina class articles. I have no objections to a merge if others agree to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing in WP:IINFO that justifies deletion, and none of the criteria stated apply.Damwiki1 (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Number 3: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." The article in its current state does not do that at all. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:IINFO. The creator of this article might want to state policy or guidelines which justify his defence of the article rather than "OMGITSCENSORSHIP". Ironholds (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic in any conceivable way. May as well create Comparison between lawn mowers and hair dryers. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be useful, actually; it might explain why my blowdryer uses gasoline and I haven't paid a barber since I got it. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while this might be interesting, it certainly seems to be a very, very specific comparison that would seem to go farther than might otherwise be done in an encyclopedia. I agree that WP:IINFO is an issue here. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The spirit of WP:IINFO applies here. I just don't see this as being encyclopaedic. Benea (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a comparison is a subjective judgement based on the facts of the two ships mentioned. It is not for Wikipedia to present a subjective comparison as fact, but for the books the article cites. SGGH ^ping! 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. If a report on the comparing the battleships were commissioned during the war, and that report had a significant impact on battleship construction, or served as a major reference for study of warship design generally, or was still cited in modern warship design, an article about that report might be appropriate. One could ask the question "What was the thus-and-such report?" and find the answer, and then further information on the subject, here. One cannot do that with this article. Also, in my opinion, the article has a thesis ("Since both the USN and RN were tasked with building the same class of vessel, the comparison reveals differences in design philosophy..."), supporting evidence (the chart), and a conclusion ("the USN had achieved more fire power and range, by reductions..."), making it in the end, an essay. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The passion of the nominator seems unwarranted. We have many comparisons on Wikipedia, see Category:Comparisons, Category:Computing comparisons in particular. They are considered quite useful by those with interest in the subjects covered, as I think this article would be. The information here is sourced and hardly an unrelated colletion of facts. There are only a limited number of battleship classes from WW II, so this comparison could easily be expanded to cover them all. The fact that other sites have similar info is no reason to exclude it here, quite the contrary -- it shows interest.--agr (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will disagree with your comment about the limited number of WWII battleship classes (assuming that means those that served, not that were constructed during WWII). Of the top of my head I can list about twenty and upon further examination could probably double the number. About half of the classes that are under the scope of WP:OMT are WWII. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Twenty is not an unreasonable number for a comparison article. See Comparison of Internet Relay Chat services for example. And the classes included could be further limited to ships laid down after 1930, say. As those battleships represent a pinnacle of warship design, such a comparison article would be very interesting. I'd also add, in response to previous comments, that conclusionary statements are easily removed if they can't be attributed to published sources. Such editorial shortcomings, unless insurmountable, are not a basis for article deletion. --agr (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic, inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. Although I admit the concept of a Comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica page might be hilarious. Ray^Talk 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopaedic per WP:IINFO. Hohum (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful snippet of fully referenced history that will be lost to the world if we delete it. A good historical table I would find very useful. This is not WP:OR Mike Young (talk) 19:04, 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. JForget 00:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X B Nite[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL, possible hoax. I've never heard of it, and a quick Google brings up nothing. Airplaneman ^talk 20:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedily, if applicable) Significantly WP:COPYPASTE of something, it appears to be the Xbox 360 article. Vulture19 (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - It looks like it's a slightly amended version of the Xbox 360 article. Right down to this quote from the article: "Before the launch of the Xb nite , several alpha [disambiguation needed]". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the speedy deletion criteria apply to this article (it's not obviously intended as a hoax, it's not a copyvio since it's on Wikipedia, and technically it's a different topic). Regardless it's spam, and Wikipedia has no place for such barring the sandbox. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 23:09, 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. JForget 00:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mucky Puddle[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google is full of recipes for a drink called a "muddy puddle", which does include orange juice and cola. But "mucky puddle" doesn't return anything except this article, a facebook page, and the name of a website designer. Could the author have confused the name? --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More like "things made up one day" than anything. I love the, "thought to be popular," to show lack of notability. Angryapathy (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Opens Doors[edit]

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

Declined G11 nominee. Sources seem questionable, but my knowledge of Spanish is somewhat lacking. Seems to lack notability, based on the way a lot of the references look. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I live in Chile and I've never heard about it, probably it's a hoax, and if its true, it's promotional, non-encyclopaedic. --MisterWiki talk contribs 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It most certainly isn't a hoax. Either that or the wool has been pulled over the eyes of the New York Times which is the very first reference provided in the article. Many of the other references appear to be dead links but this one works and is also about the program. I didn't comb through the rest of the referencing but I suspect that there's likely to be more Spanish language refrences available. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Still being non notable. It can be redirected to Education of Chile or Culture of Chile instead, because I live in Chile and I've never heard about it (except about the English classes, obviously, but about English Opens Doors, not). --MisterWiki talk contribs 22:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We gauge notability based on coverage in reliable sources. We don't base it on personal knowledge. Just because you have not heard of it does not mean it is non-notable. It's quite apparent that the New York Times found this effort notable enough to devote a newspaper article to it. -- Whpq (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not a hoax, and seems to have attracted notability. Referencing has suffered from Chilean web content management systems I think. MisterWiki could make himself useful by reading the Spanish sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I readed some of the sources and appears to not be a hoax. Well, some of them I can't even understand but (the article) its needed to be rewritten, removing all autopromo statements.
Keep Per above comment. --MisterWiki talk contribs 19:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i judge it better to improve the style and citations of the article and put a clenup or similar template above than deleting. I will try to contact the creator. In his user page. Dentren | ^Talk 02:42, 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. JForget 00:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LPWL[edit]

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

Appears to fail general notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 28 google hits for LPWL and Maricopa. The article was created by the person running the league and the only references that talk about it are the leagues own website. noq (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local sports league. As notable as a flag football league. Angryapathy (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above described. Seems less notable than your average flag football league, actually. --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:45, 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 merge to Leamington, Ontario#Education . Clear consensus to merge, especially since both a "keep" and "delete" expressed interest in the possibility. No one objected to the target proposed by TerriersFan, but of course this can be changed through the normal editing process. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Carmel - Blytheswood Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. -Pickbothmanlol- 20:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rewrites do not necessitate deletion. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused, what do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a rewrite, not a deletion. WP:SCHOOL failed as a notability standard, all public schools are notable. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite WP:SCHOOL being a failed notability standard, the main standard WP:N can still be applied in some way. -Pickbothmanlol- 13:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate why the school is notable. In fact no references at all. I'm sure it's a nice school, but just another K-8 school. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, average elementary schools aren't notable. Is there any school district article to which we could merge this? Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Leamington, Ontario#Education as is normal practice for sub-high schools. The school districts in Canada are too large for a sensible merge so we go for the locality. TerriersFan (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm fine with a merge here if the article can't be cleaned up. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems to be the best course here. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TerriersFan. --Jmundo (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just a merge of the basic information as this is mainly unsourced. Polargeo (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gilberthorpe[edit]

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

Removed CSD, procedural nom. Aditya Ex Machina 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure what the problem is. Article seems adequately sourced, subject seems notable enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Comment. It would be useful to have a substantive reason for deletion from the nominator, so that we know what we are discussing. There is no procedure that compels anyone to nominate any article for deletion, so "procedural nom" is meaningless. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why is this article nominated for deletion? It seems to fit the criteria and specifications. The subject is notable, the article is neutral and the artist was utterly unaware of the creation of the article and not involved in any way.([[User talk:Qtmonky (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)|talk]])[reply]

Keep - There is not rationale given for deletion. A Google News search provides results behind pay walls but the available summary information would indicate the artist is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, there is no reason given for deletion so there can be nothing more to add to the debate. Mah favourite (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cormalis Jr[edit]

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

Declined A7. Autobiographical article, fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete Vanity article, no evidence of WP:N notability. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Delete I am also not seeing any reliable secondary sources from mainstream media that mention him. Fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. the improvements made certainly helped the cause JForget 00:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas at Maxwell's[edit]

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

Declined speedy nominee. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable film spammed here by the film's "producer". Fails WP:N and WP:NF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also see this and this. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its ability to meet WP:NF through WP:GNG. No matter who put it here, now that it IS here, it belongs to Wikipedia and editors serve the project by improving it through regular editing... just as I am about to do. Back in a while. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been cleaned up, slightly expanded and sourced. More yet to do. Assistance in further improvements would be most welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. You can clean it up, expand it, add all the references you want, and then put a bow on it, but this is still an insignificant film that fails WP:NOTFILM. LargoLarry (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I must disagree. Cleaning something up, expanding it, and adding references is exactly what guideline instructs when it advises regular editing. Certainly a big-budget, highly publicized and promoted blockbuster will get more press than a small-time independent, WP:NF instructs meeting WP:GNG in order to merit an article. As it's ours now, my contributions we offered to improve something added by a newcomer who received no welcome, and who had a COI and showed lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Being helpful to a newcomer is no crime, and making an article better improves the project... bow or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided with the article show marginal notability, but it has been mentioned in mainstream sources. I'm leaning keep on this one. Angryapathy (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do all the results from Google news [3] and the two reviews mentioned in the article, not count as notable? Dream Focus 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the improvements by MichaelQ, the article shows that the subject meets the criteria of WP:N which trumps any and all other specialized notability guidelines, including WP:NF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Laufer[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the CSD tag I'd put on, which was converted to a prod by User:SoWhy, and by his prod reason of "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2009 December 6 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.".[4] Why the prod was removed, I honestly don't understand. No one had protested it yet, the only editors to this and the other two related have been Laufer's daughter and a sock/meatpuppet, and the related company AfD is currently at unanimous delete. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Collectonian. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search for "Bill Laufer" and including the film's names and/or Dove Foundation brings more sources that the name "William C. Laufer" by itself. Appears that sources independent of the subject may be available for the article's cleanup. I'll look into it in the morning. Anyone else wish to begin in the meanwhile? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And can you confirm that they are the same, and not that Bill isn't some other Laufer family member? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I can note is that in several interviews, William C. Laufer of Laufer Films and Christmas at Maxwell's is often referred to as "Bill". The confirmation is within the text and context of those articles and interviews. But as I am off now to work, this is something I will not be able to get to for several hours. You are welcome to continue questioning whether or not the name "Bill" is ever used by someone named "William". Article improvement, at least be me, will happen later. Then I will be back to report my progress and offer an informed opinion as to keep or delete. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. LargoLarry (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe he passes WP:ENTERTAINER having a notable role in notable films. Dream Focus 18:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not an actor. Joe Chill (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever. He played a notable role in various notable things. http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2008/11/10/news/nh82776.txt talks about the The Lost Sparrows of Roodepoort, and Christmas at Maxwell's gets plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Collectonian and everybody else. Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 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. not sure why it was relisted though JForget 22:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citymoves dance agency[edit]

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

non notable dance studio WuhWuzDat 18:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Supported - It's one of a large number of dance studios in Scotland, and to be fair, I can't find anything to suggest it has done anything of notability to warrant an entry here. It's a council funded dance studio, big whoop. Doesn't mean it should be listed here :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks substantial third party coverage. ~YellowFives 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Deletion not supported: Citymoves is a major player in the contemporary dance scene in scotland, it is not just a a dance studi, but one of three regional/nationsl dance agencies in Scotland, which produces new work and supports new choreographic development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddybunting (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — Teddybunting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete; citymoves as a regional agency is of national important to dance / arts in Scotland, I have added references. Jennykphillips (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Both Teddybunting, and Jennykphillips, have been blocked for vote stacking - CU has confirmed that they are socks of each other. Their votes accordingly, have been struck. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak (so far...) Keep The reference list looks reasonable. It's funded by the Scottish Arts Council, which means the higher (national) levels of arts management have looked at it carefully and decided it's worth dishing out money to. (For the benefit of Americans who probably don't have such a thing, see http://www.scottisharts.org.uk/1/aboutus/whoweare.aspx ) This is the organisation that took over the Scottish arts when the former UK Arts Council was split. While I am no fan of contemporary dance (give me a ceilidh...), it is a field that is of artistic importance. The festival contains names I recognise - and that's saying something... The weakness of the Keep is down to the rather brochure like style of the writing. Slightly over promotional without actually triggering my spam reflexes. Peridon (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as notable in dance, but article needs improvement.Talullah77 (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kill: Non-notable. --MisterWiki talk contribs 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Talullah77 has also been struck from the vote, per WP:DUCK, as a sock of Teddybunting and Jennykphillips. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is on the edge of notability, but Teddybunting's self-promotion and disruption make me choose deletion. Ggreer (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the references are from the agency or the SAC - given that the SAC funds them, such references can hardly be said to pass WP:GNG. WP:ORG's tests are failed here, since it doesn't have a national scope nor pass the abovementioned RS requirements, which leaves smacking with the hammer as the only commonsense option here. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 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. JForget 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. John the Baptist Church (Cincinnati, Ohio)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This very old church would probably be notable if still standing, but it was demolished decades ago and there is no evidence of any current notability. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete, the only other coverage that I can imagine is a simple list of all parishes in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati: no evidence of sufficient reliable sources that give in-depth coverage to this church. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm entitled to vote keep because notability is not temporary. If the church was notable before it was torn down, it's still notable now; hopefully this encyclopedia will be around for a long time, and deleting articles about things no longer around isn't a good practice. However, there is a lack of reliable sources now, so I'll defer my vote until I can search for some... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. If there was any proof that the congregation was especially large or notable for its day, or a pastor had gone on to become bishop, or a monsignor served there, or the building had been listed on a landmark registry, then I could change my mind. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per nom's indef block as a sock and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix (album)[edit]

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

This album did not chart and has not received enough adequate coverage from reliable, third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. One MTV reference does not equate to notability. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable ~~and nominated by a suspected sockpuppet~~ because it was their debut album and helped to launch their careers. A young Katy Hudson was also on many of the songs in the album. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That argument not only fails WP:ITSNOTABLE, but you should assume good faith despite (as yet unfounded) accusations outside of the AFD environment. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your amended comment is still not policy-based, which sparks serious doubt in your nomination. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't nominate it, you did. I'm going to add more now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page supplys useful information and contains accurate sources. ~ Themonkeyofdoom (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The group is notable, and enough information [5][6][7] exists about the album to create a reasonably detailed article; appears to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 18:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see comment above from Gongshow --SveroH (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to satisfy WP:GNG, shown by Gongshow's sources. Mah favourite (talk) 01:24, 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. Per nom's indef block as a sock and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Hudson (album)[edit]

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

This album did not chart and has not received enough adequate coverage from reliable, third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The artist (now known as Katy Perry) is clearly notable, and Google News/Books searches show coverage of the initial release by sources like Billboard. As WP:OSE declare, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items"; such selective deletion undermines "the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference." This would become the only entry in Perry's discography without an independent article, and as her debut album the gap would be conspicuous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One way or the other, this content should be kept. I favor keeping it in a separate article rather than merging it to Katy Perry, but either of those outcomes is a keep. More than that, I agree with Hullaballoo's point about WP:OSE—since Perry's other albums are notable, it makes more sense to have an article for this album also. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Just because Katy Perry is "famous", it doesn't mean that anything she's ever touched passes WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Bravedog (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you say that Perry has infinite albums? :) Again, that comment was in regard to the finite set with most entries notable. I agree that the article could use expanding; however, I think the remedy in this case is to fix and expand, not delete. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Expand" with what? Where are the reliable sources to prove notability? Bravedog (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard and Christianity Today, for starters. I just added text from a contemporaneous review. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a too-often-ignored point is that WP:NOTINHERITED says quite specifically that notability may be inherited under the music guidelines, as well as in other situations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Bravedog (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please note this user and the nominator are the subject of an SPI, in which this AfD has already been submitted as evidence~~. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has been confirmed as a sockpuppet here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Hullaballoo. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does meet WP:ALBUMS. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another review is here at Allmusic. There is enough coverage overall to meet WP:NALBUMS, as we have a released album from a notable artist and coverage from WP:RS to ensure the article consists of more than "just a track listing". Gongshow ^Talk 19:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it meet's WP:ALBUMS --SveroH (talk) 18:05, 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. No consensus can be determined, defaulting to "keep." Also it seems to meet WP:NALBUMS because of the "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" clause. Malinaccier (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Katy Perry[edit]

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

Unreleased album with no coverage from third-party, reliable sources (all of the references are from unofficial, copywrite-violating YouTube videos) A major WP:NALBUMS fail. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above user is a confirmed sockpuppet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced content to the appropriate section of the artist's article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging the referenced content to Perry's article. There's no need to preserve a redirect from the title of an unreleased album. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only youtube sources are refering to the music videos. The other information has been gathered through a series of interiews with Perry. The songs recorded are verified by the ASCAP. ~ Themonkeyofdoom (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the album is never released by Perry herself, it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and WP:ALBUMS. It failed notability requirements. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:NMUSIC and WP:NALBUMS, right? kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People need to read up on WP:NALBUMS properly before using it to alarm a delete. It clearly states unreleased albums "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" - now it has pretty significant coverage in both Blender here - where it is the subject of and reason for an interview (her first real exposure, yes, due to this recording), and also Billboard here - where it is included, described and covered in a sort of biography of her career so far. It is a notable moment in her career that has received coverage and holds it's own, it's existence is not merely trivial like many other unreleased or scrapped albums. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per kiac's sources. It passes WP:NALBUMS as it has the independent coverage in reliable sources, as stated. talking birds 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User: Kiac. Apparently recerived coverage in reliable sources.--Pink Bull 23:08, 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. Tone 14:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles S. Rushe Middle School[edit]

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

I don't believe that articles about middle schools meet WP:N Tpk5010 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Middle schools generally aren't notable, and there aren't enough third party sources for this school to pass the general notability guideline. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep based on the recent expansion of the article; it's evident that it passes the general notability guideline now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Middle schools are not inherently notable, but the long-established practice is that their articles should be merged into those of their school district or locality rather than being deleted. In this case, however, there is an abundance of reliable sources to indicate that the school passes the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources available to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't about the middle school. Writing about the school is simply an excuse for bringing in dirt about two different persons who happened to have taught at the school. Forget WP:ORG, I'd worry more about WP:BLP. I'm waiting for someone to add a story about a teacher touching someone's breast. Mandsford (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you have a good point. I have thinned out the accounts and removed the salacious details. TerriersFan (talk) 14:41, 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) 17:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No encyclopedic content. This school opened in 2007, and all that has happened is a couple of teachers getting in trouble in comedic/tragic ways. Of local interest only. Once deleted, create a redirect to Pasco County Schools. Glittering Pillars (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems encyclopedic enough to me. Merge to Pasco County Schools. Polarpanda (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Glittering Pillars and then redirect to Pasco County Schools. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Glittering Pillars. Them From Space 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the schools article: while the subject shouldn't stand on its own, there's some useful information — already properly sourced — that could be useful in a small section on this school. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add necessary content to the article for the school district, as usual with middle schools. The incidents inclusion violates both NOT TABLOID an the do no harm guidelines, for minor events in a person;'s life. It does not matter if the article is a bio article or not, the rule applies regardless. Delete first in this case, (or merge, using only appropriate parts of the edit history) to remove it from the history. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 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. JForget 00:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemplative art[edit]

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

I don't think the sources exist to write a neutral article on this topic Polarpanda (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears to be primarily original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Maybe someone can help the author of this page, I feel their heart was in the right place. Just not well presented in the main space. -- R. Mutt 1917 Talk 19:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this catagory is not original and readily available using both a regular search (i.e., Google), as well as, a focused search within university libraries.Docob5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Seems like WP:NEO to me. Angryapathy (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Various searches, esp. with Scholar, show that the phrase isn't used in any terminological way, but covers the spectrum of possible combinations of the two words. The one accessible reference doesn't say what is claimed for it and doesn't speak of a class of art as such. Mangoe (talk) 17:13, 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) 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Rally IV[edit]

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

Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Nothing distinguishes it from the 100's of other pong console clones from the period. We don't support articles on Wikipedia simply because an item exists

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a ton of these, and this one does not appear remarkable in any way. Reach Out to the Truth 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's existence seems to be fairly well-documented though ([8], [9], [10]), including in some books. Maybe a List of Pong clones could be created? SharkD Talk 06:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a documentation of notability. Just as with the pong-story link, it's simply listed in a large listing of pong consoles, including the (non-usable) database site. Again, that doesn't make it any more notable than the 100's of other pong consoles that were on the market. Certainly not for it's own article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does this have to be relisted? You've got two votes for delete and zero for keep. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't show any in-depth coverage, which is required for notability. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite ridiculous that this was relisted twice. I find it funny that two out of thousands of users is considered not enough consensus, but if you get it up to six or so out of thousands of users you suddenly have a more valuable opinion. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 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. JForget 00:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maza Chintamani[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any third-party coverage. Polarpanda (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No evidence of notability. --Ragib (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator's rationale.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:06, 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. JForget 00:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Konspire2b[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) 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, somebody's non-working concept for a file sharing protocol: There are currently no known public katcher servers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to judge this product on. Miami33139 (talk) 00:15, 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. JForget 00:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Scholars & Leaders Conference[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Global Scholars & Leaders Conference

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

Google News has no mention of this on the first page which hints of failure of notability. Before nominating this I though I could help the creator fix some issues with this article but no reliable third-party publications have been provided in the given time period. -Pickbothmanlol- 16:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this conference. Joe Chill (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:RS and WP:GNG. Very few Google hits, and most of those are here on Wiki. ArcAngel (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as hoax. See below.--Chaser (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical counter-projection[edit]

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

Expired prod was removed without comment. Prod reason was - "Only google results on news, scholar, books, and web for this topic and the "journal of spurious references" all lead right back here. No verifiability means we can't have an article on it." The article creator also put in a meaningless link to a bio of a rapper. CitiCat^♫ 16:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of phrase, no sign of journal (rotherham does medical not depth psychology journals), spurious link to rapper. this is a hoax.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - fake reference exhausts AGF. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If there's a source for this, let the editor raise it at my talk page or DRV.--Chaser (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upol Islam[edit]

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

Notability of this article's subject is in question as Google News pulls no results. -Pickbothmanlol- 16:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent conflict of interest, promotional article, no sources demonstrating notability. ~YellowFives 03:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND and WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited so having famous parents (if that were verified) does not make the subject notable. No claim of notability, no sources known, fails WP:BAND. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 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. JForget 00:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproganda on Global Warming[edit]

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)).

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

The infighting between Wikipedia contributors is not notable. The National Review article is basically a self-published source (Solomon has participated in the tug of war) and cbsnews.com simply copied the whole thing, so these do not qualify as reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia is not for neologisms; dic-defs of words such as "Wikipropaganda" do not belong here. --Zvn (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a single opinion column by a participant in the edit warring described is insufficient to establish the notability of this highly self-referential article. Andrea105 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia namespace without a redirect. Self-referential and neologism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that Wikipedia:Wikiproganda on Global Warming would be considered something other than an attack page with respect to User:KimDabelsteinPetersen and User:William M. Connolley? Andrea105 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would very much respect a Wikipedia:Wikiproganda page with all that is or might be involved, from every angle with all issues not just on global warming or whatever.-- R. Mutt 1917 Talk 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even enough to qualify as a neologism. A one-time use made up term. CitiCat^♫ 16:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, article creator has previously been blocked for repeatedly creating this exact article under the name Wikipropaganda CitiCat^♫ 16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no use outside the one partisan article, term has not come into common use. those are the FACTS regarding this article, despite all protests to contrary. I do admire the tenacity of the global warming skeptics, moving forward with only hearsay, out of context statements, personal attacks and pseudoscience. they have even adopted the phrase "pro global warming" to describe the rational scientists and citizens working to stop the process. thats right, we are FOR global warming. however, nature bats last, fellows. start buying beachfront property in the california central valley.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; as a nonnotable neogism. I also suspect the creator has a grudge against Wikipedia for the way we coverage this field. The way to deal with that is to work within our system and not write an article which is critical of the way we handle the situation. Them From Space 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above.Ashley Payne (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to the millions I am paid to !vote delete on wikiprogranda.--Milowent (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; as a nonnotable neogism; and per WP:NAVEL. Bearian (talk)
Delete for reasons given in nom. - Achissden (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non-notable, self referential, nonsense neologism. Global warming denial POV fork also. Verbal chat 11:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the current 26,200 hits on Google it is simply wrong to say that the term is only used in one article. I agree with "R Mutt 1917" that there should instead be a Wikipedia:Wikiproganda page with all that is or might be involved, from every angle with all issues and articles. I believe that this would provide a very interesting page which charts the important growth, and growing pains, of Wikipedia. This page showing one unavoidable aspect of the development of a worldwide "Encyclopedia, For the People, By the People" is very notable and deserves a place here. ~ Rameses (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have Criticism of Wikipedia that could cover the term if its truly notable, and the NR article by Solomon is already cited there. The fact that Solomon thinks the wiki articles on global warming are biased is not shocking to me. Perhaps we need to canvass K-Lo as well. There are many articles that other editors will tell you have a conservative bias (Glenn Beck, [11] for example), and they don't merit separate articles either. A good example of a liberally-coined term that had an article that was later merged elsewhere is Friedman_(unit), which has actually been used much more broadly than Solomon's term.--Milowent (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete preferrably speedy, per everyone William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I have no objection to a fair process to consider this Article for Deletion and will abide by your collective decision. However, while the AfD process is underway, William M. Connolley acting in concert with Verbal have effectively Blanked the article reducing it from 4,734 bytes to just 567 bytes - from a page to just one line! This is clearly Blanking and one of the two behind it is the subject of the original newspaper article - so it's also clearly motivated. When I tried to restore the page to prevent this blanking, Verbal threatened me with the 3RR rule. Since they are tag teaming against me this is effectively censorship. Any advice on how to get some justice here? ~ Rameses (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over the edits shortening the article and they appear appropriate to me. The current version [12] is supported by the sources. Your prior versions were inserting original research (like the number of google hits for the term) and the "Wikipropaganda - Destroying the Basic Concept of Wikipedia" section which went beyond the source materials.--Milowent (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to make accusations like this after the warnings and advice you have received, you will very likely be blocked for disruption. I've already pointed you to why WP:GHITS aren't useful, and asked you to participate on the article talk page. The most pressing need is the provision of multiple reliable sources that detail this concept. At the moment there are none. Verbal chat 15:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I used the history to see the start to end of this and it is an attack piece and the editor who wrote it should be strongly cautioned about this kind of behavior. Two editors that are in good standing with the community are named and attacked. The removal of most of the article was indeed proper by our policies. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. As other people commented, it's one article and a reproduction in one other media. GHITS is not really a solid argument. --193.144.12.130 (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of the wikiproganda global warming cabal. (or as a non-notable neologism used a few times by a very semi-notable "journalist".) -Atmoz (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. No evidence of notability. Oren0 (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list for improvement - I've assessed the ripped-down version, which isn't adequate as an article. It should be re-listed to give time for development & improvement. If no improvement, delete. -Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked hard, there's really not much that can be done with this, and relisting is to get a better handle on consensus, which seems pretty clear at this point.--Milowent (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion and G5. Creations by a banned user(s) and G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject if possible. Delete as nonnotable, no secondary sources, DICDEF that doesn't even merit transwiki per wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Protologisms, and finally global warming has not melted snowballs, which are snowman's bollocks. Maybe some Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid merit a speedy deletion category of their own? Шизомби (talk) 19:06, 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 speedy keep. I'm going to close this one a bit early, as there are already a large number of comments to keep the article. That in and of itself is not nearly a strong enough reason, but the article is linked to from the main page (and was before the AfD started[13]), which fits Speedy Keep criterion 5. NW (Talk) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perm Lame Horse club fire[edit]

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

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper Bravedog (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I knew this was going to come out sooner or later. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I voted keep in the Balloon boy article because there was more to the article than news about the boy. It was a unique event with hoax allegations (and later confirmed) ect. This is just the run of the mill club fire that killed 100. There is nothing encyclopedic about this article that would support keeping it here.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TParis00ap speaks my mind more clearer than Lenin did with his theory of communism. -Pickbothmanlol- 15:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; TParis00ap has it down to a tee. Wiki isn't a newspaper, but this article reads like something from one. Non-notable event. 94.1.148.162 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC) — 94.1.148.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: This is a highly significant event. It may also lead to legal reform as to banning of such fireworks from closed areas. There was involvement at the highest political levels in the affair. Plus the event is substantiated by a lot of media attention and references. werldwayd (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. The article doesn't say that. 94.1.148.162 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user says that it "may" lead to changes in the law. This isn't a reason to keep as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bravedog (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~This is no less significant than the Rhode Island fire earlier this decade and is~~ This event is receiving significant coverage in highly respectable news organizations. The fire has caused Russia to declare a national day of mourning (and the cancellation of quite a few events) and to address building code violations immediately. Any event that causes significant national action is notable. Vulture19 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is no less significant than the Rhode Island fire earlier" violates WP:WAX. Bravedog (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it is classic Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because one article exists isn't an argument for another article.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In an attempt to avoid the Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTStrep I purposely did not cite that article itself. However, if my reasoning is going to be reduced to the first statement, I will strike it out. Vulture19 (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article involves the death of over 100 people because of a fireworks display gone awry. This is unique in Russia as it is the highest death toll since the fall of communism. It also is significant in that the whole display will probably lead to changes in law as people will be outraged. The Station fire would've gone through a similar deletion process, but the fact that it was created after the law changing thing kept it from being deleted. I also don't like how I wasn't notified of this deletion, as I created the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've made 16 edits - 15 of which were marked as minor. Why should you be notified? Bravedog (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have it set to be minor. Looking back, most of them should be marked as major. Sorry, but I think all deletions should involve notifying the editors/creator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a violation of WP:CANVAS. And you can't blame others because you marked your edits incorrectly. Bravedog (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is in no way a violation of canvass. A violation would be asking other editors who have never edited the page and asking them what they think on this discussion. It's a common courtesy to do this to the creator of the page. I was also not blaming others in any way, in fact I was blaming myself. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is borderline violating WP:CANVAS. If the nominator notified all the editors, there would be an overwhelming support while those that may disagree with keeping the article would have no way to be notified. It is generally better to notify the creator and significant contributors instead of everyone who even made minor edits. Canvassing is canvassing even if you canvass against yourself.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Should an article under considering for deletion be removed from the "In the News" section of the front page? Vulture19 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Bravedog (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but this is a unique thing so I'm going to bring this up to the appropriate people now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, they had an AFD earlier today and the vote was to keep it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Bravedog (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the place, but assuming that you accidentally added an AFD decision template to the page, there is an administrators notice on the page noting that. Oddly, it should've taken place here, so I have no clue to where it went. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You accidentally did add the old AFD template. I removed it. No harm done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a significant event with international coverage. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply as that is mainly for WP:BLP articles and for minor stories (announcements, etc). This clearly goes beyond that. The article clearly passes WP:EVENT. freshacconci talktalk 17:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Biting my tongue to assume this was a good-faith nom. We have many articles about similar events; I don't know how you could claim this wasn't notable. Not only is there the coverage in international news, three-digit death tolls in nightclub fires are unusual in and of themselves. The Station fire was inarguably notable; so too was the Happy Land fire. Both were the deadliest fires in particular jurisdictions (Rhode Island and the Bronx); so too is this the deadliest fire in the (admittedly short) history of the Russian Federation. Frankly, this almost seems to be to an inclusionist parody of an AfD nom. Using WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFF as broadly as the delete !voters are in this case is like saying that just because we have an article about George Harrison it doesn't necessarily follow that we should have an article about Ringo Starr. Can we please close this as a strong keep and get back to writing and improving the encyclopedia? Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Speaking of AGF, this nominating editor also nominated Jimmy Wales for deletion. Now that was two years ago, and we all makes mistakes, but... freshacconci talktalk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you would even suggest the nominator didn't nominate in good faith. Especially since I agree with the nominator. This is one of those things that is borderline notable by policies and different people will have different opinions. I personally feel it would be better suited for Wikinews until such a time as it makes a notable impact other than being a news event. Some of the arguments are that it will have future notability, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see how you would even suggest the nominator didn't nominate in good faith. Especially since I agree with the nominator." Well, that's prett solid logic! Sure has me convinced. "This is one of those things that is borderline notable by policies and different people will have different opinions." And that's why we have AfDs. If consensus goes against you, maybe you should admit you misread policy. "I personally feel it would be better suited for Wikinews until such a time as it makes a notable impact other than being a news event." And the rest of us disagree. Perhaps the development of Wikinews would have gone differently if some sort of clear policy decision had been on this point a long time ago, but that's water under the bridge. "Some of the arguments are that it will have future notability ..." It has present notability as the worst fire in post-Communist Russia. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. Would you have nominated this for deletion within the days after the event occurred? By your logic it should have been deleted. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really wondering if someone's trying to make a point. Same editor has also been active at this "are you kidding?" AfD of something else that was on the Main Page. Interestingly, that one was nominated by GaGaOohLaLa (talk · contribs), an account created in the last two weeks that promptly began tagging lots of articles for deletion. I wonder what Checkuser might find? Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said I don't see how you could see possible bad faith and I should have expanded to say that not everyone disagrees with him. I considered AfDing it myself. The !vote is currently 7/4 in favor of keeping so not everyone disagrees with me. Would I have nominating Sept 11 for deletion? Probobly not. As I !voted in favor of keeping Balloon boy, I do see the value in certain news stories. I just haven't seen it here yet. --TParis00ap (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support checkuser as the nominator may be a 'bad hand' account used for deletion nominations, which is all it is used for. Fences&Windows 18:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting more interesting. A review of their respective contribs finds that since the GaGaOohLaLa account was created on 11/25, it and Bravedog have never been logged on at the same time. Yet they have contributed to the several of the same AfDs, not all of them having to do with Lady GaGa. There's already been an AN/I in which socking was suspected, but no puppeteer was identified and it focused mainly on GaGa's allegedly disruptive behavior.

I'm not sure I have the time. Do you want to start the SPI or should I? Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - There is no reason to delete this article. 110 deaths it's for me too much! TouLouse (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:ILIKEIT and WP:BIGNUMBER type of !vote. Can you support your position better?--TParis00ap (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as stated above, the significance of the number isn't just the number but the fact that it's the deadliest fire in the history of post-Soviet Russia. See the forest for the trees. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is still using the WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:ILIKEIT. "100 people like me so I deserve an article." Consensus should be dirived with policy support, not how much you like the subject. The editor said "110 votes it's for me too much"--TParis00ap (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wish deletion nominators could restrain themselves from such early nominations, and also realise that articles about events are allowed in Wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS is not a blanket ban, see WP:EVENT (now a guideline). This is a major disaster for Russia. The President has declared a day of national mourning on Monday (which has lead to the cancellation of an event involving the Indian Prime Minister)[14][15] and there are three days of mourning in the Perm region.[16][17] It may have a lasting effect on Russian fire regulations, which are notoriously lax ("Medvedev demanded that lawmakers draft changes to toughen the criminal punishment for failing to comply with fire safety standards"[18]), and a ban on the use of fireworks at public venues has just been announced by Emergencies Minister Sergey Shoygu.[19][20] The Greek and Ukrainian governments have made statements about this event,[21][22] and it has received massive attention in the worldwide press. It has been directly compared to The Station nightclub fire: "The Perm fire seemed to be similar to one that occurred in Rhode Island in 2003 when pyrotechnics at a rock concert touched off a blaze that killed 100 people."[23] Forget WP:WAX, deleting this would just be reinforcing our systemic bias against non-US events. This is far from run-of-the-mill. Fences&Windows 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these sorts of events have a visceral notability. The Station nightclub fire was never nominated for deletion, and later they made an hour long documentary about it. The See also list in that article has a couple dozen others that could all be nominated for deletion too, under the flawed notnews argument. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus mental hospital fire, a lesser known event survived deletion. So we have ample precedent to keep this one, and to avoid WP:Systemic bias we should. Glittering Pillars (talk) 18:23, 6 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. JForget 00:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of boxers in Fight Night Round 4[edit]

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

unreferenced game guide RadioFan (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources from independent, third party sources. Bravedog (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main article I suppose, although it's too long to fit comfortably. Polarpanda (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Copied to StrategyWiki:Fight Night Round 4/Boxers. -- Prod (Talk) 21:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add StrategyWiki link to main article. --Teancum (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Fight Night Round 4. Armbrust (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A merge clutters up the search box, and it's not likely anyone would search for this anyway. Shadowjams (talk) 10:47, 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 userfy to User:Bozarkian/Albert Shires. JForget 00:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Shires[edit]

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

This article fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO and appears to be a memorial page. Searching in Google News and Google Books also fails to match any sources that might address the notability requirements. Ash (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I never feel good about deleting pages of this nature, but there truly does not appear to be any showing of notability at all. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Surely some of his military decorations meet WP:ANYBIO? This would then become a question of referencing, not deleting? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

striking keep, per Shimgray and Xymmax's replies.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His military decorations were all those automatically awarded for periods of service, not for any specific achivement. I would be very surprised if they did meet the general notability requirements. Shimgray | talk | 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did check all of the awards prior to my !vote, and I agree that none appear to be personal awards for heroism/merit/excellence such as might be expected to show notability, but rather service awards as mentioned above. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - As the article was only created a week ago, and considering the nature of the article, I suggest moving the article to the creator's userspace so they can continue to search for sources which may address notability at some future point. Considering the creator's edit history, they may not have been aware of these options for drafting an article.—Ash (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Ash. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Ash. Q: How does that work exactly, will the closing admin explain to this new user how this works? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the creator would have to agree they are happy with that solution. An interesting alternative is to use the Wikipedia:Article Incubator where other editors might be of assistance (so long as there is some potential of addressing notability).—Ash (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Ash. Perhaps one of the best alternatives to strait deletion that I have seen recently. If the author is able to find sources to meet notability via WP:GNG or bio, it can always be made an article again. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Absolutely no disrespect intended for this man who paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country, but he just appears to have been an ordinary Canadian soldier who was killed in action. This does not assert any form of notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly with the lack of sources. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. JForget 00:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Gray[edit]

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

This person does not meet the general notability guideline, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. There's two blogs, a student newspaper which barely mentions her, and some coverage of events where she is asked to comment as a political activist on campus. But none of these sources are about her, and they give us very little biographical information, nothing significant. ~YellowFives 13:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I am article's creator) A full list of Gray's media appearances and coverage appears on her somewhat obsessive resume: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/PDF/Gray_Curriculum_Vitae.pdf I've checked enough of them to believe that they are all likely legitimate, and I think that, taken as a whole, they push her over the notability threshold. While many are about Gray's events, these events have caused multiple public controversies. Maybe more of them should be included in the article, if those who are concerned about notability wish to improve it. TRATTOOO (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She's covered in the Calgary Sun, Toronto Star, National Post, etc. Lots of invited lectures. Not someone I'd want to have dinner with, but she seems notable Vartanza (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep She's covered adequately enough through the references to meet WP:N, particularly through the National Post, Toronto Star, and CBC articles. Them From Space 22:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBC says of her: "Stephanie Gray is the president of the club. She says they set out to shock people." National Post says of her: "The truck will be out on busy streets throughout the Calgary Stampede, confirmed Stephanie Gray, the group's executive director." Toronto Star: "CCBR executive director Stephanie Gray said her organization views its mission as educational rather than political but that the extension of its beliefs sees it advocating for a change in law."

Which of these amounts to significant coverage of Ms. Gray? ~YellowFives 02:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Stephanie Gray" + abortion generates approximately 8400 ghits. She appears to be widely covered in the Christian press and well-known in anti-choice circles. Do these venues, like lifesite news, count as third-party news sources? if so, she's clearly notable. if not, she's a much closer call Vartanza (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's well known in anti-choice circles. You might even say she's an expert at what she does, which is why she is quoted so extensively in r/w media --- BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 12:04, 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. JForget 00:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Rodewyk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. last AfD keep votes were quite unconvincing. she only gets 2 hits in gnews. [24] LibStar (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:ENT through appearances in multiple scripted TV series, including a fifty-episode run, and one reality show. GNews coverage of New Zealand news sources isn't terribly comprehensive, so far as I know. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This actress has appeared in a popular TV Series known people in various countries including New Zealand, USA and the UK. She has appeared in Shortland Street for a number of episodes, taken part in reality TV series, It cites it's sources and I know it can be expanded as more sources have arouse on the internet. I'd say it meets the guidelines.Raintheone (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how she meets Has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows. She only appears to have 1 significant role. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 04:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ENT in having been in 50 episodes of The Tribe and 5 episodes of Southland Street. Multiple roles seem significant and notable, and coverage in tribe-related sites show a cult following. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 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. I disclose that I was asked by Angryapathy to look at this debate. It is clear that all experienced editors agree with deletion on grounds of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and the only !votes for keep are single-purpose accounts. The material is entirely redundant to Graphene#History and experimental discovery. The additional WP:BLP concerns justify an early close. Fences&Windows 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other researchers who claim or may claim their crucial roles in the discovery of graphene[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article seems to consist entirely of the author's opinion, failing WP:NPOV AND WP:OR. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Delete. POV issues for starters, and not enough here for a separate entry, any valid information can go to Graphene. Hairhorn (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given. any valuable references and text belong in the graphene article. this also a WP:FORK.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this information belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, it belongs in Graphene#History and experimental discovery, rather than here where it has no context. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a content fork. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 19:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nice. I will edit the page later this week. graphene page is too long for including such extras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutef (talk • contribs) 09:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC) — Absolutef (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I would certainly leave this page. It is slightly messy but it is not a FORK. More people should be included of course. I expect some of the information from graphene pages can eventually be moved here. Otherwise, the original page is far too long. I agree with the previous comment. Please do not delete to keep the wiki tidy. If no one reads, the article will be forgotten anyway. Best, Simon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.228.169 (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC) — 69.249.228.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Why to delete? Looks good to me (I am involved in the graphene work) but should also mention some other people. It is important to pay credit to those who are not mentioned in the main page. KlausMn (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)— KlausMn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Looks like a sock-fest has occurred here. Oh, and delete per above. Angryapathy (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I contribute on the specific subject of graphene and very rarely. Why should I edit pages on subjects that I know little about?! Cassandra 75 make this sound like a crime. I think he/she just wants to delete this page as this was his/her original suggestion (if I am not mistaken), and other opinions are not tolerated. Whatever ... I am off and leave everything to the guys who think that know more than anyone else. KlausMn (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues. Warrah (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed a clear case of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Assessments of this nature are best made a long time after the event. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I could see a place for an article that listed graphene researchers and their contributions to their subject, although it seems an extremely narrow focus. But that's not what this is: it selects only some subset of (supposedly underappreciated) researchers, and includes editorial evaluations of their work. Along with the problem of original research by synthesis (pulling together information on these different researchers despite the lack of sources that treat them as a group), the large quantity of editorialization is seriously unencyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wnated to add another name but why should I if the page is to be deleted? Potentially this can be a very valuable resource more valuable that the personal wiki pages of the two or three listed researchers. I am interested in the history of the subject not in the personalities involved. If deleting, please move the info somewhere. 71.226.75.223 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an OR and POV vehicle. Nsk92 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a significant enough topic to deserve its own article. No real reasons have been advance for keeping it. ("Nice" is not a reason to keep, nor is "Please do not delete to keep the wiki tidy", nor "I am interested in the history of the subject", etc.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The users arguing for "keep" have all edited only on this topic, some have edited only in connection with this AfD, and some of them share similar unorthodox use of English in at least some of their edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am not mistaken, no one who suggested to delete this page had ever contributed to the topic. It's easier to judge then ;-) Franklinlucas (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Walt de Heer. The list of “Other researchers who claim or may claim their crucial roles in the discovery of graphene” includes me. This entry, and its implications are disgusting and the opinions of a few apparently biased writers. In fact, not a single scientist, save one, for the past fifty years of graphene history has ever claimed the discovery of graphene in any form. It was known to exist in every form that it exists today for a long time. The first person synthesize suspended graphene is Prof. HP Boehm who is a still active carbon chemist. Even he never claimed its discovery which says a lot. Even in 1962 he knew graphene existed in its free state, and yes I have spoken with him. Moreover until recently he did not even know that anybody even had made the claim (in fact many graphene chemist do not know that about the 2004 graphene discovery claim). Boehm is not even on the “list”, which shows how thorough the research is here. In fact it appears to be little more than the opinion of clearly biased individuals. I know all of the people on the list personally and none of them intend to claim the discovery of graphene in any form. To see our names in print in this way and our accomplishments reduced to one-liners, originally including inappropriate “verdicts” is beyond the pale and borders libel. To next see an endless debate of this kind ensue to decide whether it is appropriate or not is demeaning to serious scientists. We will not be bullied into this petty fight or engage in this pointless discussion. I hope that KlausMn, FrankenLucas and Carbophiliac are taking note of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.141.226 (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your concerns, you should understand that for your reasons and many other Wikipedia-related reasons, this article is slated for deletion. The Articles for Deletion process takes up to a week to run its course, but as has been noted near the top of this page, this is not a vote, and the result of this debate will be based on Wikipedia policy and not on opinions of editors. This article violates many of the rules of Wikipedia, and I am confident that in a few days, this article will be deleted, along with all potentially offense material. I apologize that you feel this is an endless debate, but there are literally hundreds of articles added each day, and the current process for deletion is a community-based decison (for most cases). This debate has been occurring for three days, and soon an administrator will make a decison on the fate of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 19:11, 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 speedily deleted at creator's request per CSD G7--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy sofroniou[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, unreferenced. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Web search only comes up with assorted video sites, and news search doesn't yield anything. Favonian (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced, unwikified, not notable, stub, biased. In my opinion, should be deleted unless reliable sources can be provided and subject is notable. Stuff like this, if real, are short enough to go within subsections. --TheGrimReaper 11:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've decided to delete the page I have created. All the information is completely true and based on fact, however I did not get any parental consent on this, and therefore I have been instructed by my parents to remove any information about me on Wikipedia. I have been trying to delete, but haven't been successful. Thank you, MusicalTalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicaltalent (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In view of the request from the author, and since no other editor has contributed to the article, I have tagged the article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G7. Favonian (talk) 16:11, 6 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 by nominator, no other delete votes. — Kusma ^talk 18:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog of articles in probability theory[edit]

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

Nonstandard article, with nonstandard editing rules and techniques. Seems to fundamentally break several core policies. It is also self/wikipedia referential in the lead, and completely redundant with all the other lists, indexes, etc. Verbal chat 11:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Verbal" would it be at all possible for you to notice that "non" is a prefix rather than a stand-alone word? I've actually seen this usage in Wikipedia a number of times and wondered if it's begun to occur elsewhere in the world besides in Wikipedia as well. I don't know where this novel usage is coming from. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where that came from, perhaps I intended to write something else and then changed my mind, and in updating added the space. Verbal chat 17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have other bot-edited articles like list of mathematics articles, which have obvious usefulness to the reader. Each letter-indexed sub-article there, like List of mathematics articles (M) is updated by User:Mathbot. The intro of this article can be edited, and the editing instructions moved to a comment, or better to a warning box (I'd do the latter myself, but I don't know how). We had a similar situation some months back with the main template used in list of mathematics articles containing editor-oriented links, and it wasn't solved by deleting the article(s). This AfD is proposing to throw the baby out with the water. Pcap ping 11:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Clarification: the bot-related procedure as well as the three letter codes (in the user-visible index) appear unnecessary to me in this case, but that's not a reason to delete. We can argue on the best way of updating it on talk page. Pcap ping 13:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fix or move to portal space. This is currently mostly meta-information, with an introduction aimed at editors ("how to edit this") rather than readers and including information about how linked the topics are. As such, it doesn't belong in article space. The current list is full of special abbreviations that could need more human editing, not a prohibition of it. Until this is a proper article, it should be moved to a subpage of the mathematics portal (that is what portals are for: mixing reader-oriented and editor-oriented information). — Kusma ^talk 11:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you object to. We have a lot of article-space indexes in Category:Indexes of articles. Pcap ping 13:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of these pages belongs in article space. They're useful, but not articles. But that problem can't be fixed by a single AFD. — Kusma ^talk 14:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kusma, we've been over your silly point before. To say these are aimed primarily at editors is nonsense. They're aimed at people who browse. To browse is to read without having in mind specific questions whose answers you seek, just trying to see what's out there. Someone proposed moving the lists of mathematics topics to the portal space. Opinion against it was unanimous. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do indeed believe that navigational tools do not belong in article space. The majority may believe otherwise, but I don't see how this makes the point silly. — Kusma ^talk 17:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We also have a manually-edited List of probability topics. Pcap ping 12:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is this bot-updated? Unlike list of mathematics articles this isn't built from categories or the like, but rather User:CataBotTsirel merely parses source and source2. The transformations from source(s) don't seem complex enough to warrant a bot or the unusual abbreviations: the first source is just an alphabetical list of topics each tagged with some codes which get listed in the proper sections defined in source2. I'd be a just a little more work to do that manually, i.e list a topic in all appropriate subsections. Also, the three-letter codes don't really convey any info to the reader. I hope the creator takes no offense, but this seems largely an exercise in geekness to me. Pcap ping 12:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Well, some geekness, maybe. However, do you really want to do the formatting manually (instead of the bot)? Try it once... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Yes, three-letter codes help to an editor, not to a reader. I am sorry if this is bad. Surely I am ready to any reasonable change of the format (and the approach), not excluding deletion, if my experiment is unsuccessful. No problem for me. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Take Borel–Kolmogorov paradox for instance. It is listed as "Borel–Kolmogorov paradox iex cnd (2:CM)" in the first source. It gets listed under "Instructive examples (iex)" and "Conditioning (cnd)", but not at all under "... by number and type of random variables". I'm not even sure if that's a bug or a feature of your bot. I don't see why adding 2 (or 4) such links to the index is prohibitively difficult. Insofar you've been the only one to ever update the sources, so YMMV on how easy that is perceived in comparison. Pcap ping 13:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "if that's a bug or a feature of your bot" – a feature, believe me.
  - "you've been the only one to ever update the sources" – (sigh) You are right. Probably it is better to retire the bot. However, I am lazy to do the manual work; hope others are not. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Definitely non standard as far as editing, intro and maintainance are concerned, but as long as the result is useful or beneficial for readers and violating fundamental project goals/principles, i don't quite see the need for deletion. Aside from being "non standard" I fail to see a serious breach of core policies that really matters (i.e. is harmful for the project goals). In addition some if the non standard behaviour can be addressed without requiring a deletion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but retire the bot. The list can clearly serve a useful purpose both for readers and editors. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's definitely a useful article. I say this as a reader, and not an editor (I don't edit articles on probability theory). I do, as part of my research, have to understand things in probability theory, for which this article is really helpful. Perhaps it violates Wikipedia policy, and I have no good ideas on how to fix that, but this article is an asset to Wikipedia, and thus invoking WP:IAR I strongly feel it should be kept. I think one of the things that bothers people is the use of cryptic abbreviations like "iex". Perhaps you could just program the bot (or do a search and replace) to just have full names everywhere? This would bloat the article, but make it more useful for the reader who wants know how to bound the sum of finitely many binary random variables, and would see "Chernoff bound / (Finite:Binary)". --Robin (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the compliment and the advice. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bot issue is irrelevant to the question of deleting the page. There is a well-established precedent for lists of articles in a particular field (Category:Indexes_of_articles). So I don't see any reason to delete this list. On the other hand, the bot should be set so that it accommodates manual edits to the page (for example, by detecting them and copying them each time the page is updated). This would make the page more user friendly, but is not a deletion issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the strange editing conditions and the bot are removed, I'll remove my nomination. Thanks, Verbal chat 15:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A natural question, then: what you do if the strange editing conditions are removed while the bot is rather upgraded according to the idea of Carl (above)? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - the bot should simply be removed, it does nothing useful now the page is populated. It adds a non-standard way to edit the page, while not allowing standard editing. The codes should also be removed. The bot and editing rules breaking policy are a very big problem if this is to remain in mainspace. If you want it kept either disable the bot or move it from mainspace. Verbal chat 16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, did you read the Carl's idea? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, my reply is the same. Remove the editing conditions and the codes, or move it to project/userspace. The bot isn't a huge problem, but the odd rules etc are. Verbal chat 16:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Carl about manually changing the list. Boris Tsirelson should be thanked for creating this very useful list; however, it should be made compatible with manual edits. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with MathSci. So long as manual editing is allowed, the codes removed, and the bot disabled until suitably modified, this list should be kept. It should possibly be renamed along more standard lines ("List of" or "Index of"). Verbal chat 17:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really obvious KEEP. One of Wikipedia's most magnificent achievements is the lists of mathematics topics, which is formerly a featured list (eventually de-featured for lack of references, although it is questionable whether it should have its own references rather than rely on those in the pages listed there). Here are some questions that I would like "Verbal" to answer:

What should replace this article in the lists of mathematics topics if this article is deleted?
Which "core policies" do you claim this article breaks?
Why didn't you say which "core policies" you had in mind when you nominated this for deletion?
Which particular "rules" and "techniques" in this article do you consider "non standard" [sic]?
Why can't its "non standard" [sic] nature be remedied by editing?
Specifically which other articles in the lists of mathematics topics would you delete for the same reasons? For example,

(Click "show" at right to see the specifics or "hide" to hide them.)

under Algebra we have:

...and under Geometry and topology we have

List of topics related to π

List of algebraic surfaces

List of algebraic topology topics

List of cohomology theories

. ...and under Probability and statistics we have

... and under Mathematical statements we have:

Erdős conjecture — a list of conjectures by Paul Erdős

... and there are numerous other headings there. "Verbal", please be completely specific about your reasons in each of these cases. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael Hardy, 1, I agree it was more the bot I had problems with and ban on editing the page normally. This page could be replaced by this page without the bot, or one of the other lists of probability articles. 2, The editing policies, 3, I thought it was obvious, 4, The ban on editing 5, The lead implied it couldn't be edited as it would break the article, 6, Any that denied usual editing should have that restriction removed. As a request, please don't put my handle in quotes - it's rude. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN Can someone who knows how propoerly close this discussion as "withdrawn by nominator". Thanks,Verbal chat 17:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fred Figglehorn. The sourcing isn't quite there yet but its close. the NYT is one but we need more then one really decent source and arguably this belongs with the main article until the coverage is more substantial, So I'm closing this as a redirect with a specific caveat that this can be undone as and when the sourcing improves without need to refer to me or have any further discussion. Note that I advise against merging as once the article becomes standalone again unmerging it and fixing the atrributation would be a real pain compared to just rolling back the redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred: The Movie[edit]

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

Delete. This character is insanely annoying, but that is besides the point. The film has yet to be released and has achieved zero notability yet. JBsupreme (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete. The film doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Armbrust (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) The New York Times article is a reliable source, which indicates notability. Armbrust (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTFILM. Sock of Lord Spongefrog (Talk to m'Lord) 17:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fred Figglehorn and/or to List of Fred episodes. EALacey (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fred Figglehorn for now. If and when the film meets WP:GNG allow recreation as a seperate article. COI note: I worked with Lucas... as Santa Claus on his Christmas Cash video. Turned out to be a nice youngster and not at all like the annoying "Fred" character, whose popularity baffles me. That aside, I feel that significant coverage is in the offing and believe my merge opinion is neutral and supported by guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ~~Merge and redirect~~ ~~without prejudice to future creation of article if greater notability is achieved. The fact that this movie is being made has gotten some press, but not a lot yet~~. It had gotten more press than I realized, thanks to MQS for noting that. Adult universally dislike Fred, but kids worship him.--Milowent (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Changed - --Milowent (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ with his main article. Its something that should be mentioned there. I can't find anything about his film. He met with Hollywood people to promote a different film [25] but I can't find anything else. Dream Focus 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If you can't find anything about this film why would we merge/redirect? I do see some casual blog fodder, but nothing substantial, otherwise I would have just instituted the redirect myself and bypassed this entire deletion debate. JBsupreme (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course you would. I have read coverage of the movie on tubefilter and gawker (so its above "zero notability"), but it sounded like it is in the early stages (casting).--Milowent (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To JBSupreme: What is always interesting is that for recent topics, coverage sometimes becomes available after the article is nominated... in this instance the recently found New York Times, New York Magazine and Variety articles. Such would seem indicative of a merge and redirect being reasonable... and might almost require a re-consideration of it meeting WP:GNG and a thought toward a "keep and expand". Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoa a full article in the ny times is a significant development.--Milowent (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I might even think that the article might be deserving of incubation, with thoughts for a return to main pages as information comes forward and sufficient notability becomes sourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To JBSupreme: Obviously if a movie is going to be made for a series, that would be something you'd have mentioned on the article of that series. Anyway, it now has news coverage, the New York Times article proving it notable, so forget the merge, just Keep it here. Dream Focus 16:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge to Fred Figglehorn as it fails WP:NFF and WP:N. At this time it does not meet any notability guidelines. A smattering of articles on Figglehorn's possible film does not make it notable, and its non-existence leads to no content to speak of beyond "he says he's doing it". Merge and then if/when its actually produced and released and more than the story of the week, create the article. Wikipedia doesn't operate on the idea of forecasting future notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it got news coverage, then its notable. Isn't that how the notability guidelines work? The New York Times article is about the film, and nothing else. [26] Dream Focus 17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. While I have no problem with a temporary merge & redirect, its to be rememberered that the policy WP:CRYSTAL was set in place only to prevent unverifiable speculation: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred"... And per WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." And so... as this article meets applicable policy and guidelines for its notability, I suggest that either the article be now improved to show the numerous current sources in its meeting GNG, or that there be no prejudice toward its recreation in a few weeks or months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the NY times source. fetchcomms☛ 23:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode list of alleged phenomena on Ghost Adventures[edit]

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

Contested prod, reason: "entirely original research categorising events in a (purportedly unscripted) TV series". It is a POV, non-notable, and unreferenced indiscriminate list. Verbal chat 09:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NPOV; implies supernatural "phenomena" such as apparitions, voices of the dead, etc. seen on reality TV show really exist. Violates WP:OR; no reliable sources found to support classification of "phenomena" into "major" (or even minor) categories. Article title has been appropriately modified, but I still don't understand the criteria for verifying what goes in this "list". Right now it's just one editor watching the show and deciding what he or she thinks is important "phenomena". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what are those "obvious" reasons? We can't read your mind. Dream Focus 17:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the scope of the article violates WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF as it is essentially a plot summary of all the episodes without any real-world commentary. The content is original research because it documents subjective claims without reliable sources. Them From Space 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is OR fancruft, and nothing more. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episode list and improved title and lead. Tone and POV need fixing.--Foxymamma (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)— Foxymamma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - The article has been renamed Episode list of alleged phenomena on Ghost Adventures. That still does not address the issue of it being entirely original research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful list for those curious about the show. Plenty of valid content to fill an article. Has anyone searched for news mention of any of the events for the particular episodes? Dream Focus 17:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the Google news results for "Ghost Adventures", they seem to get coverage wherever they go, in that city's newspapers. Not sure if any mention what was found. Dream Focus 18:03, 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. JForget 00:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fydellian Vessel[edit]

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

A sci-fi fan myself, I can find no mention of this in Google other than this article, no mention at all in Bing, so I'm bringing this to AfD for lack of notability and because the phrase seems to have not been used elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How rare is it to have Google return only a single hit? That's the case here: this Wikipedia article appears to be the only place in cyberspace where the word "Fydellian" occurs. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete. I can't even find any online reference to the story in which this item appears, nor can I find any bibliography for its author. It's clear that this term isn't in common SFnal use, at the very least. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and reference as a classic case of something which should not have a Wikipedia article due to a complete fail of WP:GNG. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This entry represents a valid and established science fiction concept that is commonly used but has not before been classified. It is a new specification that provides a valuable resource to explain and detail the properties of a variety of ideas. It is not an original concept, merely an original semantic grouping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.152.168 (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) — 129.59.152.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Regardless of notability (which I think this fails at also) if the information can't be verified we just shouldn't have an article on it; in this case I think that WP:NFT also applies. To the IP above, Wikipedia isn't the place for "new speculation", that's what blogs and discussion forums are for. -- Atama頭 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an attempt to promote a concept the article creator made up for a work they hope to publish. Edward321 (talk) 04:37, 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. JForget 00:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World of the Living Dead[edit]

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

Fails notability according to WP:WEB, no coverage besides the game's own website, and no awards since it's not released yet. WP:CRYSTAL may apply too. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 06:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, google news hits for the title appear unrelated. Polarpanda (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 18:14, 6 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. JForget 00:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thrasher cup[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable club hockey tournament held between non-varsity club teams. Its impact is strictly local, and of the handful of Google News hits, all of them have been from school newspapers and the Savannah Morning News. Fails WP:GNG. Article previously deleted through AfD in June 2006, but promptly recreated and somehow fell through the cracks. RGTraynor 05:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Comment False claim. Coverage in WSAV[27], WTOC[28], Savannah Daily News[29], and WSB in Atlanta[30]. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First link - a local outlet. Second link - a local outlet. Third link - a local outlet. Fourth link - a copy of a press release from "ugahockey.com," which fails WP:RS. RGTraynor 08:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Insufficient grounds for deletion. Largest sporting event of medium sized city annually, with large attendance and media coverage. Just part of the attempted purge of all things club hockey by a few overzealous deletionists.--97.81.16.78 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you provide sources that verify this claim? I would say the Savannah State athletics are much more significant then a couple of low-quality club hockey teams. Grsz¹¹ 06:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The line "Low quality club hockey teams" is without merit and displays this editor's bias (although we do not know what the source of his bias is). Please cite the objective authority that considers the Savannah Hockey Classic participating teams "low quality" for club hockey, or concede that you made a baseless allegation. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Here's one link I found atop google that speaks to the event's popularity: http://www2.wsav.com/sav/news/local/article/changes_to_savannah_hockey_classic/47608/ --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Also try: http://www.savannahchamber.com/councils-sports.php --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, no, this doesn't have significant media coverage even in Georgia. Google News hits over the last ten years for "Memorial Health Hockey Classic" from anything other than a campus newspaper - seven. Google News hits over the last ten years for "Savannah Hockey Classic" - TWO. This would be paltry coverage even for a high school hockey tournament. RGTraynor 07:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment I'd suggest more thorough reserach User:RGTraynor. Searching under the tournament's old title will likely yield few results. Search for the "Savannah Hockey Classic", as Memorial Health hasn't been a sponsor for a couple of years. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response: I'd suggest you read my previous comment, where I stated that the G-News archive search for "Savannah Hockey Classic" returned only TWO results. Feel free to review the link for yourself. [31]. RGTraynor 07:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Are you aware of how google news (http://news.google.com) operates? It doesn't archive news articles. It isn't lexisnexis. It only indexes recent news articles, so there's your problem. If you search the Savannah media web sites, you'll find a plethora of articles about this event. Its popularity is only disputed amongst Wikipedia editors that fail to take more than a passing attempt at research. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I strongly suggest you read my comments through, and following the links might not be a bad idea as well. The comment stated "archive search." The link above is Google News' archive of news articles on the subject for the calendar year 2009. A similar search for the years 2000-2009 inclusive [32] return the same two links, one of which is a mention in a generic calendar of events column that fails WP:RS. RGTraynor 08:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And I strongly suggest that you learn how Google news works. I can say I searched disney.com for college hockey stories, but if they don't index them, it's not really much of an argument, now is it? --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        UGA: You repeatedly stated that RGT is searching wrong, yet you haven't provided the "correct" means to find references. The burden of proof is on you. ccwaters (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I wouldn't recommend any breath-holding; UGA was (at best) a meatpuppet active for only a 12-hour stretch two days ago brought on to contest several Georgia college hockey related deletions, most of whose arguments revolved around criticizing methodology, policy and guidelines which turned up results of which he didn't approve. RGTraynor 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An event needs more than local coverage to be considered notable. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable local sporting event involving club hockey teams. No news coverage outside a few mentions in the local press. About par with countless high school basketball holiday tourneys. ccwaters (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Patken4 (talk) 00:37, 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 keep. While several of the arguments for keeping merely state "it's useful," I do not find the arguments for deletion to be convincing. As is, the article does violate WP:IINFO (only because of the "excessive listing of statistics" clause), but because there is an easily defined rationale for inclusion in the list, I see this as a problem to be fixed by editing rather than deletion. Furthermore, it should be noted that the article does not fail the fourth criteria of WP:IINFO ("News reports") becuase the reports included are used as references, not as a basis for an article. Malinaccier (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is an indiscriminate collection of information. It was created by one of the many sock puppets User:Top Gun has employed in attempts to evade their indefinite block, and has mainly been edited by Top Gun using sock puppet and IP accounts. Top Gun's editing pattern is to hoover up random news reports of casualties in ongoing wars and create giant lists of them, including OR casualty totals. Many of these articles have been previously deleted, including the corresponding article for the Iraq War (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq) and this list should join them as it is nothing but a large list of news reports. Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list of information; take a look at the massive "2009" section, which just goes on like the babbling brook. Note however that a summary of insurgent casualties may be useful, but I'd imagine that's covered in existing conflict-related articles. SMC (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Partial Delete~~ as SMC has pointed out the 2009 section is a complete massive mess of reports. And as Nick pointed out it only lists individual random reports, no definite numbers are given, thus the total number provided constitutes OR and is not verifiable. However, as far as I see, the 2001-2008 sections are fairly nicely cataloged. The 2007-2008 sections contain references for totals of each year so no problem there. However, the total numbers for 2001-2006 are still OR based on partial reports, so violation of Wikipedia rules there. But the reports are mostly not of individual incidents but of specific time periods, not the whole year but time periods of several months within a year. I think two things could be done here. One: delete the whole 2009 sections which is the most blatant violation of OR and leave the article, only without the 2009 section. Two: delete the whole article but move the 2001-2008 sections in the form of a table to some other already existing article on the war. I would be more for option two, because like I said, however nice and nit the 2001-2006 section is it's still all just a list, and an article as a whole should not be just a list of these kind of things. In any case as a list of random reports, especialy in the 2009 section, this article can not stand.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only the figures for 2007 and 2008 are cited. Those for 2001-2006 are uncited and shouldn't be used anywhere as they may have been invented by Top Gun. Even if cites can be found, a list of the total casualties for each year of the conflict is not a "List of insurgent fatality reports" so there's no need to keep this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was my point, these things should not be given a whole article, like I said make a table of this somewhere in an already existing article. Like the table for civilian casualties of the 2001 Afghan war that I saw.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change to a redirect and merge the information (except the first section, which is OR) as a footnote. This article is an extremely valuble compendium of references and should not be destroyed in an AFD just because someone doesn't like it.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Addendum: I tried this but it is technically very difficult to do. Please consider not destroying this extremely valuable compilation that has value. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well yeah, that was also my point, hehe. :) Don't keep the article, delete it, but keep the 2001-2008 information, in a merged form with another article. I saw what you tried to do Suomi, I don't recomend that you try again to put the information into the campaignbox, but maybe you could move the 2001-2008 information into the casulties section of the War in Afghanistan article? If you want I can help you. UrukHaiLoR (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of the few articles which it is hard to !vote delete on, but which also necessitates it because it is hopelessly out of our project's scope. Obviously a lot of effort has gone into compiling these statistics, but this runs blatantly afoul of points 3 and 4 of WP:IINFO. Would Wikinews want this for any purpose? Them From Space 23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, into the article OEF-A. The information in the article is invaluable to the information in the infobox, and the references alone could be used in the article to back the number of listed casualties. It need not be a standalone article, or be done in list form, possibly better as a couple paragraph prose in its own section within OEF-A. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge, I am changing my vote to merge with War in Afghanistan (2001–present) after carefully thinking about it. But like I said before I am not for a total merge but only the 2001-2008 section. Do not merge 2009 because it is too much of a blatant violation of OR. Also, do not merge the totals for the periods from 2001 to 2006 because like Nick said they are uncited, but do merge the reports of massive Taliban casualties for those years that are provided.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I work in a news agency and we have used this article many times to assess aproximate total numbers of casualties. This article on what is going on in one of the most importat wars in the world is far more useful than hundreds of thousands of other articles in Wikipedia that do not get deleted.--Againme (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to point out to you that that's an other crap exists argument. The fact that you've used it is of great interest though - perhaps we should write an article like it, but without all the OR. Hmm. Will think on that some more. SMC (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to provide some proof to support this claim? (eg, news stories on insurgent fatalities listing Wikipedia as a source). Given that the main editor of this article has been permanently blocked for, among other things, making up casualty figures and not applying any quality control to what they add, any news source relying on this article would be doing their readers and owners a major disservice. The argument is also an example of WP:ITSUSEFUL. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We never list Wikipedia, we list the original sources. This article has more than a hundred references, which most articles do not. Againme (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the stuff which is added to this article is based on random news stories from agencies I'm skeptical of your claim here - you seem to be arguing that your news agency is using a highly unreliable source to estimate casualties from reports from news agencies... Anyway, it's still WP:ITSUSEFUL. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Againme. I think this type of article (as long as it lists reputable sources) is very important for people who are researching the war. Regardless of how or who it originated from, it definitely serves as a collaborative research tool for human knowledge collection of important historical events. This particular article also adds current events and makes it much more efficient for researchers of all types. Rasmasyean (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Two reasons: 1) it is useful. Articles like these are essential, not only in and of themselves but also in improving other Wikipedia articles, such as those in the Afghanistan project. Most of the reports are well sourced. This is not random information - this is important information about people who died in an ongoing war. Furthermore, it contextualizes information in other Wikipedia articles by giving an overview of where these insurgent fatalities have occurred, the number they occur in and relative links, which is useful to a non-trivial amount of people. Furthermore, like Againme, I also use this article in gathering reports on specific parts of Afghanistan, and whether these areas are secure enough for rejected asylum seekers to return to. In improving other articles in the Afghanistan project I also repeatedly refer to this, particularly when improving issues of security in districts of Afghanistan. 2) It is not a random collection of information. Instead, it is a dynamic list of events, which although at the moment is incomplete and needs to be improved, should not be deleted. Furthermore it is not a "collection" but a list, and more importantly it is not indiscriminate, but discriminate, identifying only those attacks which were related to insurgent deaths, (see Wikipedia:DISCRIMINATE) and including valid information about the location and number of fatalities. Grant bud (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it requires clean-up, not deletion. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 12:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If major clean-up is done in regards to the 2009 section than I wouldn't have any objections to keep the article despite my reservations about summing up the information from the 2001-2006 sections into unreferenced totals. You should probably point out in that case in the article that the totals for 2001-2006 are not definite and may be smaller than the real numbers of killed for those years.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge well referenced article, meets notability guidelines. Needs some cleanup. Ikip (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that there is a consensus that this article needs to be improved. Deletion tag removed, but rescue tag kept. Any suggestions as to the proper format we should put this in to improve it now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just restored it, this discussion has a few days to go, and you should not be attempting to close discussions your commented on. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Where to begin? WP:NOTMEMORIAL? WP:IINFO?? WP:NOTNEWS? WP:OR. There would seem to also be an argument per WP:BAN. Anyone noted the WP:POV-term insurgent? Best, Jack Merridew 10:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree the article is in violation of the memorial rule since no names are listed in the article and I don't agree the article is in violation of the POV rule in regards to the term insurgent. The Taliban are insurgents plain and simple since they are fighting a guerrilla war against the Afghan government. Nothing POV about that. But I do agree, like I said before, about the violation of the Wikipedia rule on Original research and the Wikipedia rule on Indiscriminate collection of information. However, I see the violation of these two rules only in the 2009 section and the Totals section. The 2001-2008 sections are fairly nicely done. If we delete the whole 2009 section or make a major clean up of it than I think everything should be ok. Also, I am saying again to point out in the Totals section that the numbers for 2001-2006 are not definite, if that is done than I think it would be less of a violation of the OR rule.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how does the no OR apply? look at all the sources sighted!Grant bud How is the `not news` section relevant to this discussion. You can't simply list a policy.... you have to explain why the policy relates to this discussion. Furthermore, as for the NIINFO, see the essay listed above about discriminate vs. indiscimrinate information. (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is essentially almanac type information, and Wikipedia carries out many of the functions of an almanac--they overlap with encyclopedias. It is not OR, but we did not develop the primary data, but report reliable sources. it is not SYN because collecting this together is noot a matter oftheory or interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is nothing but a listing of news reports and statistics, which fails WP:IINFO. Them From Space 04:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is an WP:almanac. Plenty of news coverage of this to confirm information. It is very encyclopedic to show how many people died each year of this conflict. Helps put things in perspective. Odd to see how few people were killed some years. Did the enemy take a vacation, or just get very good at running and hiding? Dream Focus 19:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't see this type of information as indiscriminate. It's also notable and well sourced. Perhaps the name of the article can be changed to something less vague (how about "List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan"?), but that's neither here nor there in relation to deletion. --Pink Bull 23:15, 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. JForget 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech Ice Hockey[edit]

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

Non-notable low-level club hockey team. Limited (if any) inclusion in third-party (as opposed to self-published) media to pass WP:GNG. Grsz¹¹ 05:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find any third party reliable sources that could contribute to notability. 16x9 (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a sub-varsity club team. The sanctioning organization, according to its own article, sponsors numerous club teams from universities with varsity hockey programs; its article, for instance, claims to sanction teams at Northeastern, UNH, U Vermont, Boston College, UMass, and Merrimack, all Hockey East NCAA Division I schools. It's long been held that student organizations don't get a prima facie notability pass from WP:GNG, and this shouldn't either. RGTraynor 05:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Insufficient grounds for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.16.78 (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've offered no reason to keep. Resolute 06:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've offered no reason to delete. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a club level team. Club level teams have been regularly deleted as not being sufficiently notable for inclusion on wikipedia. If we added club level teams that just happened to be affiliated with a university then we would have to include the hundreds of thousands of other club level teams in Canada and the US which is clearly not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As DJSasso says, it's a club team. Maybe this could be merged to Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, but a separate article has not notable enough to exist. Patken4 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other delete recommendations. This isn't a varsity-level team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above reasons, non-notable, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ACHA hockey teams are student clubs that no affiliation with the NCAA or their corresponding schools' athletic dept ( http://www.georgiadogs.com/ ). ccwaters (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Snow isn't just a musician. Patken4 (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Ford[edit]

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

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Disputed prod. Tagged as unsourced since December 2007. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, numerous reliable sources assert notability well past any GNG; like these, these and these, and these. This is - yet another - of noms unfortunate fixation in this subject area where their poor judgment including apparently ignoring WP:Before is quite evident. -- Banjeboi 04:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous afd. speedy keep. Woogee (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ridiculous nomination. If someone thinks Leo Ford is an "unremarkable porn performer", he doesn't know enough about porn performers to have an opinion on the subject. - Outerlimits (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Benjiboi. Joe Chill (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The search results provided by Benjiboi appear to be, for the most part, passing references. Leo Ford does not appear to meet the WP:GNG guideline. Four references have been added to the article to support a claim that is inaccurate (see "Hand in Glove" single cover model not Leo Ford discussion on talk page). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found seem enough to pass GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Divine, as the only RS-sourced basis for notability is his relationship with and reported deleterious influence on that notable person. Article itself is not well-sourced, omits well-sourced unfavorable material regarding its subject. Several of the cited print sources mention subject only tivially and do not support notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as i can tell the sources establish two things: That he once dated someone famous and that he was the "butt cover model" for A Smith's album. Can a Leo Ford's ass in popular culture article be far behind?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that wasn't his ass on the single sleeve. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, the owner of the ass is something of a mystery. How exciting! If I can get to the library this week i'll get to work on Leo Ford Smiths cover art ass controversy.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, wait. Seems fairly definitive that the owner of the ass is George O'Mara photographed in 1959. I'm sure some responsible editors will strip that claim out of the article post-haste.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Book coverage listed in the article makes him notable. Dream Focus 06:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be mentioned in many books, more than passing references. Gigs (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you spell out one of these more than passing references and how they would make him a suitable candidate for an encyclopedic biography?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. [33] From the first link, in September 1982 he performed at Nob Hill Cinema in an erotic stage show benefit. Bronze sculptures of him were sold for $125 each. From the second link, a nude picture of him appeared on a sleeve for a single from The Smiths. There is quite a number of book references here with biographical facts about his career and accomplishments. I didn't even look at web sources because there was enough just in the book sources. I'm not sure how you could have any doubt that notability is easily met. Gigs (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, son. The first one, I'll assume is true, doesn't establish encyclopedic notability. As for The Smiths single, it wasn't Ford. It was a guy named George O'Mara. The Smiths claim is bullshit. Even if it was true of course, it still wouldn't amount to notability. Being a model for a stock photo that is later used for a record single is not generally considered to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Son? You are out of line. Gigs (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't George O'Mara's ass? It was someone elses ass? How am I out of line, exactly?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You addressed a co-editor as "son", a term not used of equals. It was inappropriate, and an attempt to be demeaning. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it wasn't George O'Mara's ass and therefore non-notable? That's what actual research suggests.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest in Leo Ford's ass is truly commendable however you're missing the salient point that even if it was disputed - on a fan site I guess - who's ass it was it is still referenced as his ass. This would seem to imply that he was famous enough for someone to assume it was his ass. p.s. You still owe Gigs an apology. -- Banjeboi 14:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per numerous significant coverages in RS passing GNG. Triplestop x3 23:36, 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. JForget 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Folks Theory"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Folks Theory"

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

Topic fails WP:Notability, no coverage except in the minutes of a recent seminar where the topic was introduced. May be notable once it gains 2nd party notice. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you propose it gain further acceptance without further awareness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.Galezewski (talk • contribs) 04:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see the guidelines at WP:NOT PAPERS, WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOT#OR. This isn't the place.Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created by the "proponent" of the "theory"; a clear COI. It fails notability in every sense. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable self-promotion. Hairhorn (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary coverage found.--Michig (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a bad page just needs clear source with refs.-- R. Mutt 1917 Talk 20:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independent sourcing indicates the theory does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:50, 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. JForget 00:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrambled brains on toast[edit]

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

Non-notable pre-release film with text being created by probable COI editor (possibly the film maker). This article has been previously nominated (i'm a bit confused by missing template, but extant nomination? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing template issue is because two users nominated this article for AFD at the same time, this is the first AFD nomination (the second one has been closed). Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and it would appear not to exist at present; given the lack of funding it is impossible to tell whether this will ever see the inside of a cinema (WP:CRYSTAL). Its author appears to be the director/scriptwriter (WP:COI), and its end appears to be blatant advertising putting it perilously close to ((db-spam)). At present I cannot see any evidence that this is not just WP:MADEUP. Oh, and completely unsourced. Gilo ö 06:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable film. Lugnuts (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet any of the WP:NOTFILM criteria. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if or when the film can ever meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Ong[edit]

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

While there is certainly Google hits/newspaper results and the like these are obviosuly only down to Ong's coverage from 9/11. I see no information other than what happened aboard flight 11 with the exception of memorials which, because memorials are common for people that have passed away, do not necessarily denote notability. Any information that can't be merged into the Flight 11 article isn't necessary. raseaC^{talk to me} 02:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed al-Ghamdi is a similar person but much less notable. Just a passenger with terrorist ties that died. JB50000 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. there are quite a few non-notable 9/11 biographies out there that should be considered for deletion as well. I note there was no consensus on a deletion of Ong four years ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Various_9/11_casualties --Mkativerata (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person, Ong, was a character on a movie about 9/11 but 99% of other victims were not portray in that movie because Ong is notable. Also, there is a Betty Ong Day now as mentioned in the article but 99.9% of others do not have such a day because Ong is notable.

Ong keep as notable, al-Ghamdi delete Besides, Ong was kept in a previous deletion application so this is a settled matter. JB50000 (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't kept, it was no consensus. raseaC^{talk to me} 14:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know of only a few 9/11 names and I've heard of her. She did something as a flight attendant on the American Airlines flight that hit the WTC. She and Todd Beamer are among the notable people of 9/11. Wikipedia covers the dead terrorists (is hijacker #15 and 16 really so notable? No, just Atta and al-Shehhi are the notable ones) so they shouldn't hold the victims to a higher standard, especially the more notable victims. John Obamo (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage beyond the "one event" restriction as there continues to be honors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. The event is so significant that many of those who played roles in it are notable. Betty Ong is notable because of her role in passing on information about what was going on aboard a hijacked aircraft. I would also accept all of the hijackers as individually notable as well as collectively notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIf she's notable for what happened on the flight then surely the info is more suited to the flight's article? raseaC^{talk to me} 14:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Henri Paul is similarly notable in my estimation. I created both in response to wiki links from other articles. -- ke4roh (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As notable small part of 9/11 history.-- R. Mutt 1917 Talk 20:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO and WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient reliable source references available to pass notability per WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as User:MacGyverMagic said last time, she is notable for her: role in providing the outside world with info about the hijack. Plus she was portrayed, by name, in a docudrama about the hijacking. Viewers of that docudrama should be able to turn to the wikipedia to see how closely the docudrama corresponded to what verifiable sources say. Geo Swan (talk) 23:48, 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. JForget 00:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLMUD[edit]

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

This article is about a nonnotable text-based game which fails WP:WEB as it hasn't won any significant awards, nor has it been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 01:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a MUD that has received attention from reliable publications. No other claim of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 11:14, 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. Opinion is split on this one. I would note however, that despite considerable work by many editors, the list remains entirely unsourced. Some of the sources that were mentioned in the discussion probably should make it into the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of African American neighborhoods[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Came up in May 2009 as no consensus, still a lot of issues.

Inherent POV issues and inclusion is completely subjective. No criteria for inclusion by number of residents, percentage, land area, etc. ...Notability, for that matter? What makes an area's ethnic makeup notable? No resources, citations, or necessarily resources in any of the articles listed for that matter. Well, I could go on. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Note: Although not in and of itself a reason to suggest deletion, it's worth noting that other racial minorities in the United States do not have lists or categories and as such this. On top of the POV issues of entry in the list, this additionally could be interpreted as an ethnic/racial POV push, and/or a US-centric view of minority groups in the general population. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the list exists in the first place is that it was a section of African-American neighborhood that grew too big. Other notable ethnic neighborhoods have their own lists—there are similar lists in Little Italy and Chinatown. See also List of Italian American neighborhoods and List of Hispanic Neighborhoods. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list was intended to include "the oldest and most influential" African-American neighborhoods, but it has become a list of every African-American neighborhood anybody with a PC can think of. I gave up on the article months ago. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaaah, okay, that makes sense. That would be historically useful to have, but yeah, knowing some of listed places, it's more of a sad POV statement and a passive insinuation of infamy instead of notability when neither is likely necessary or. Hum. Namely I didn't find a list for Asian Americans which if why I said others were missing, but that's moot. Is there a project under which something new like that could be started? Just any sort of organization, though wow would the list have to be named incredibly well to avoid additions in bulk like this again. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no clear criteria of what is in or out. and then it becomes POV exercise. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep POV problems can be solved. Don't just toss the entire article because it's poorly written. Turn it into a stub if need be. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any ideas on how the POV of every single article on this list can be "solved" and a numerical standard applied to all of them, I'm all ears. It's not that it's poorly-written, it's poorly-implemented. A similar article might be "List of very steep hills". What's "steep" or "extremely steep" in comparison? How tall a hill? etc. It's completely subjective without a statistical component. There are countless other issues beyond just the POV on the top of the surface, too, but it'd have taken an hour to type of all of it in the listing. ...Stub also isn't a magical way to save any and all articles that aren't up to very basic article principles like neutrality and POV, either. Stubbing might work on a new article as a stop-gap, but shouldn't anywhere else. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no idea of what makes an african american neighbourhood, what percentage african americans. Or how it is established that that is what the people are. There are no links to information supporting the assertions. Clicking on several areas at random opens Wiki pages which do not suggest the ethnic makeup. There are also several unsupported factoids inserted into the text. Since there is no sourcing and no obvious reason to even have the list, I must vote delete. If ethnic compnent is important it would be better first discussed on the relative pages for each neighbourhood, but right now there is no evidence that this category is noteworthy and less evidence that the content could be made useable. Weakopedia (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This information is worth keeping if correct/accurate. Also the idea of a stub is good. My main issue is lack of source with possible OR or possible intent on negative POV. (Page was created 19 June 2008 by user 12.217.150.38). -- R. Mutt 1917 Talk 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the US Census Bureau doesn't give statistics for neighborhoods, so we don't have any way to know if a neighborhood belongs here or not. We may have a neighborhood with precise official boundaries, like those in Pittsburgh, but how do we know the racial makeup of the neighborhood? Or perhaps we can know vaguely that a certain area in a city is predominately African-American, but how do we know where one neighborhood starts and another ends? Even if we have both, we really can't say reliably that one neighborhood is predominately African-American and that another is not, so this list fails WP:V. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fairly straightforward WP:NOT violation, actually; this is just an indiscriminate list, without any sources or attempt at definitions. For instance, Dorchester is only in fact a third black, so what are we talking about? "List of neighborhoods with a lot of African-Americans in them?" RGTraynor 03:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said in the last AFD:

The requirements are listed at the top of the article. The name should be changed to avoid confusion though. I have added in the reason for several of the entries to exist. If you see any entry that doesn't have any notable historical or cultural influence, then erase it. Dream Focus 11:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. Read the top of the article. Does that sound like an indiscriminate list? They get coverage in the news or history books, for historic events or something of cultural important. Dream Focus 05:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, we saw that. The statement "This list contains neighborhoods that have been described as predominantly or historically African American" begs the questions, however, of "whom by?" and "what makes that noteworthy?" And what makes any of these neighborhoods historically or culturally significant? Just that blacks live/d there? Do you have any policy grounds on which to advocate keeping the article? RGTraynor 07:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is an article defining what is an African-American neighborhood, and having a list of all of them, and listing the reasons why it is on the list, is perfectly valid for an article. Dream Focus 05:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some historically important black neighborhoods like "Chinatowns" -- probably about 10 or so. But that's not how this indiscriminate list is defined, and it's unmaintanable. "Chinatowns" work because they're often officially recognized and are in fact called "chinatowns.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - inherently encyclopedic and verifiable, or merge with African-American neighborhood. POV can be avoided. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has anyone, including the nominator (see WP:BEFORE), made any effort at all to look for sources? If reliable sources define an area as an "African-American neighborhood" or a synonym, then we can accept that for the purposes of this article. So it's perfectly possible to make such a list. There's a whole book about the African-American neighborhoods in St. Petersburg, Florida.[34] There was a documentary made about Como, Fort Worth, Texas.[35] Here's a source for Fountain Park, St. Louis.[36] Fences&Windows 18:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Nominator's comment 2 days in: As of 1800 UTC on 7 Dec the list is already well-improved and encompasses a more varied set of locations. There's some hope yet, I think. Though I still stand at delete at present with good faith toward some lean, I'm starting to think at least some of the article info can be moved/merged/generally messed with even if this not-yet-consensus-defined subjective list goes. It would be just plain cruel to see the hard work simply disappear. Questions/concerns could be okay posted here but should be on the article talk page as well some rewording of the definition is still going to be needed. More AfDs should be this productive :) ♪ daTheisen (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to last, it's been said and confirmed the US Census doesn't have this info per neighborhood which would be the only objective info unless municipalities cover it. Some ... might. We'd still need to come up with a subjective "notability" line that had at least some definitive wording or there's still a case for "random" inclusion. It's okay if it's a low bar, so long as there's somewhere to start from. As said just above, I'm getting more confident a lot of the work can be saved in one form or another. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per previous keep vote. - encyclopedic and verifiable. Badagnani (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of historically significant African-American neighborhoods, paralleling other ethnic neighborhood lists as ref'd above. Other material can be trimmed out without deleting the article as a whole. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a subject of widespread study and commentary, so it is Verifiable. I don't see an NPOV problem either. Maybe a rename to List of historically African American neighborhoods or List of predominantly African American neighborhoods or List of notable African American neighborhoods. I would be fine with either, so long as the article is kept--Blargh29 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , rename as suggested just above, and source. This is material that does need specific sourcing that each is or was such a neighborhood--the general link to the Wikipedia article is an indication, but it should be supplemented by something specific, and I doubt there is going to be any link finding it. If the list refers to neighborhoods that are not currently in this group, the approximate date span should be added. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this would improve with some date spans adding per DGG. Obviously rigorous checking of sourced inclusion criteria from the article's themselves is a necessary minimum. Polargeo (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 Hardman Square[edit]

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

I think the article should be remade when more sources are available. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 18:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's half a dozen sources straight up. The designer was Norman Foster and it was nominated for an award. If construction hasn't started though, I wonder how notable it can actually be. Nev1 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice to recreate if the building ever gets off the ground. This is a bit WP:Crystal. There are only 4 hits for "1 Hardman Square" on google news, the most recent over 3 years ago, saying the building has won a design award, but nothing to say it is actually being built, or has even received planning permission. Also this suggests that the project is on hold, and may never see the light of day. Martin451 (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let me know if they start building anything. It looks like it's been "proposed" for more than four years now, and summer 2009 came and went without anything happening. Mandsford (talk) 19:02, 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, JForget 00:38, 6 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. WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. JohnCD (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Wikholm[edit]

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

No sources to support claim of notability. Web search yields only self-published stuff, and news search nothing at all. Speedy deletion tag was removed by one-minute-old account. Favonian (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two hits for the year 2006 and one hit this year listed in Google News. Fails WP:N. -Pickbothmanlol- 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably a speedy delete candidate. I don't see how working for a notable company is in itself a claim to notability. The A7 tag was removed by an obvious sock of the creator, their only posts so far are in this entry and a cranky user page edit; I've replaced the tag. Hairhorn (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 01:57, 6 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. JForget 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sosmentor[edit]

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

This article is an advertisement for the organisation, apparently written by one of the founders. It is copied almost word for word from the organisation's website. No clear evidence of notability. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:N. -Pickbothmanlol- 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I too could find no third party references for the term, but there are other search possibilities. More important, it's essentially a copyvio from their website, and has so been marked. previous tagging for speedy as copyvio was removed without explanation by an editor with clear COI. . I do not delete it myself because I'd like another admin to confirm that it would not be reasonably possible to rescue the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - speedy declined and copyvio material removed, which makes the article even thinner. andy (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable charity. I presume it was written in good faith but Wikipedia isn't the place to plug your own stuff. Mattg82 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. andy (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - I am in the process of rewriting the SOSMentor Wikipedia so it is not written as an article. What do you mean by "copyvio material removed,which makes the article thinner?" Please review after changes are made. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.214.173 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC) — 69.225.214.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No Not Delete - Please review changes made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroledonahue (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been through all the new references and I can't see a single one that satisfies the requirements of WP:N. Some of them don't even appear to mention Sosmentor directly.

andy (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Don't References 1 (Guidestar - which certifies SOSMentor to be a notable non-profit), 3 (LA Marathon website, which is not temporary), 4 (A page dedicated to SOSMentor from a partner High School), 11 (SOSMentor listed as a a recipient of a grant), 12 (A newsletter from the Rotarian Action Group) and 14 (SOSMentor's mini-grant project summary listed) satisfy the requirements of WP:N? These are reliable, secondary sources, that are independent of the SOSMentor organization. Please let em know if I am misunderstanding the criteria.

Delete; while this seems well-intentioned, I don't think the Rotary Club newsletter quite establishes notability for an encyclopedia. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:12, 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.