The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. AfD is not cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. & Subsidiaries[edit]

Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. & Subsidiaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Legal company of uncertain notability. Speedy tag removed by creator (who is also owner of a franchise of said company). Oscarthecat (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not noteworthy, most of the statements require references for which there are no sources. Just seems to be a vanity page, if the company does anything exceptional, an independent contributor will create an article. Until then, delete.Parkerparked (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• G11. Regardless of sourcing this is too highly promotional, and would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopaedic. Easier to start from scratch, and I'm frankly sick and tired of blatant marketing hype being injected into this encyclopaedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When this gets deleted, could the closer please also remove Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix. It's traded on the NYSE, and all such firms should be considered notable. The article could if necessary be reduced to its first paragraph. The NYT article is good additional documentation and indicates the way to find a good deal else. The present article, based on the information there, is to a considerable extent a PR whitewash. Editing is what is appropriate; thiswill preserve the history of what the original article looked like, which is in fact of some interest. DGG (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix -- per DGG's reasoning, but under the proper name, not the bizarre one to which the COI editor moved the article (I've reverted all that stuff). Stub it as far down as needed. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix, in a change of heart. (Orange Mike and I have both been through it with an axe, and it's looking more like a Wikipedia article now.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It seems a prominent, albeit sleezy, NYSE company.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is too much on the article to be edited to get away from advert and blatant COI.--TRL (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if a massive pruning of self-promotional spam takes place. The original editor is also in the process of creating a new entry for every subsidiary for what seems like all 50 states. I have marked them all for speedy deletion under A7 as they only mention that they are a subsidiary of the main company; clearly not an assertion of notability. Wperdue (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[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. (X! · talk)  · @135  ·  02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad Communum[edit]

Reductio ad Communum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This terms appears to be a neologism on the pattern of Reductio ad Hitlerum, but with no evidence whatsoever of any actual external usage. Moreover, the text of the article is just copy-and-pasted from the RaH article, with just the term itself changed (and removal of the pedigree of the actually used term; i.e. "coined by Leo Strauss". LotLE×talk 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unverifiable/non-notable neologism. snigbrook (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can add evidence of actual usage to the article. LotLE×talk 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without any doubt. In this forum post [9] the author admits that he/she made up the term and wrote the Wikipedia article to go with it. For further confirmation this post is the only Google hit for "Reductio ad Communum" which is not either a Wikipedia page or a web page quoting Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:15, 4 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @135  ·  02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hopkins[edit]

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

Unsourced, doesn't seem to meet the criteria for notability. CarbonX (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity page, with unverifiable and unsourced material. Definitely does not meet notability guidelines.Parkerparked (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can verify that he is a working video game music composer. However, I cannot find any coverage about him that would establish his notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 9 July 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. WP:SNOW J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mumford, Texas[edit]

Mumford, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable unincorporated community. Completely unsourced, however text appears to primarily be copy/pasted with minor variations from the Handbook of Texas[10]. Deprodded by User:TheCatalyst31 under the claim that "deprod, unincorporated communities are considered notable" without pointing to an actual official guideline or policy to support this. Wikipedia is not a mirror and simply existing is not a notable criteria in any topical area, including little communities with less than 200 residents. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable as it's a place. It does, however, need substantial work. It'd be better as a stub for now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "clearly notable"? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's a place which clearly meets WP:GNG as it has reliable, verifiable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires significant coverage in those sources, not just sources showing it exists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How is this any different from the dozens of other unincorporated communities that have been kept at AFD? Even if longstanding AFD precedent isn't sufficient, consider the state of the article now. As you note, it was a copyvio of the Handbook of Texas, but not now — I've completely rewritten and added six reliable sources, including the Handbook used properly. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zipcode.info is not a reliable source, and, again, its having a zipcode doesn't make it notable. None of the sources discuss the community in significant detail beyond the Handbook of Texas, they simply source that something exists there. Again, where is the significant, third-party coverage of this community which is the only valid notability guideline that actually matters, not people continuing to perpetuate the mistaken idea that because a community exists it is notable (which has never been a valid guideline here). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). Also, this article is now apparently properly sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Long-standing precedent states that unincorporated communities are considered notable, especially ones with a post office and school district, not to mention six sources. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "long-standing precedent". The page continually being referred to clearly states that it itself is NOT a valid argument to use in a deletion argument. Only two of the sources actually discuss Mumford, Texas beyond just "yep, this exists there". And those two are tertiary sources, other encyclopedias. Its having a school district is actually a better indicator of notability, than any of the non-arguments thrown out so far, but does it have any actual coverage anywhere. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is precedent for this. I think it's because they always turn out to be notable if you look hard enough. Probably have to use books. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nom obviously knows our practices with these articles, but disagrees with them. A nom like this is getting close to being disruptive, requiring people to spend time defending what will certainly be accepted, when they could be improving articles. Policy is made in two ways: one is by trying to write down what we do. That we can agree 90% on what to do but still a few people can prevent it being written down is a defect in our procedures. There is a practical guideline here. DGG (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing disruptive about it, so please don't go throwing around bad-faith remarks. It does not reflect well on an admin. Why is it no one seems capable of defending this place as notable other than attacking the nomination, the nominator, or just claiming "because precedence says so", despite said "precedence" noting it is NOT a valid keep reason and being based on a community rejected proposed notability guideline? Consensus can change, and no, 90% do not agree on "what to do" otherwise the proposed guideline would have passed. Obviously enough people do agree that these little communities are NOT notable unless they meet WP:GNG to warrant continued discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And at least a large enough percentage of Editors are in the opposite camp, believing that places, that can be verified to exist, do have a place within the Encyclopedia, using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes as a good indicator of past outcomes. Consensus is unsettled at this time. Although the occasional AFD like this is a good test bed to see if consensus has changed, it should not be overused. Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a sourced article about a verifiably real settlement, meaning that even without the significant coverage this has it would merit inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is well-sourced, and as per longstanding concensus, real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Edward321 beat me to it -- the article meets WP:RS standards and verifiable towns are inherently notable. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real place=gets kept. I think that the community has spoken often on this, and even if it isn't codified, trying to thwart community consensus is very disruptive - we should be building the encyclopedia rather than wasting energy on people's ill-conceived attempts to tear it down. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Request Can this now be snowballed? Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 4 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elctrikchair[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No write up in independent reliable sources and no other sources provided which might try to establish notability. Fails WP:MUSIC Astronaut (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No real indication of notability, Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (note Article creator has repeatedly removed afd notice and has suggested legal action saying Rxxx Fxxx, "a 15 year old in Topeka, KS, continues to maliciously post deletion tags. Legal action against parents may be necessary") Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator has been blocked indefinitely for "making legal threats and attempting to out another user". Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one nefarious IP at work--see this AfD's history, for instance. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - reads like a band's personal website. No significant coverage from independent sources, no real assertations of notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yahoo turns up 10,000 hits--but none of them are very good. Blueboy96 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:RS, WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:V. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not MySpace. Band is NN and fails WP:MUSIC spectacularly. Article reads like a press release. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (while I'm here) for being an entirely non-notable MySpace band. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 6 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelock, Texas[edit]

Wheelock, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable unincorporated community. Failed PROD with prod removed by User:Nyttend with reason of "Decline prod (like any other community)"; minor mention in a single regional website and its existence alone are not valid reasons to have an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - google maps view suggests it's a big enough settlement to support an article. Yes, it needs more work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's consider this like other unincorporated communities at AFD: regardless of your claims, it's notable per being a populated community. Aside from that we already have two reliable sources, thus passing the GNG aside from anything else. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no real notability guideline that backs up this claim, and tertiary sources alone cannot prove notability. The two reliable sources are directories/encyclopedias themselves. Wikipedia is not here to mirror the Handbook of Texas. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). Also, article is apparently properly sourced and thus crosses the notability threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Precedent indicates that unincorporated communities are considered notable, and sources can be found for them; for example, this substantial entry for Wheelock in the Handbook of Texas. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Said precedent is not a valid keep reason by its own page, and a single entry in the Handbook of Texas, a tertiary source, is not enough to establish notability. Wikipedia does not exist to be nothing but a mirror of other sites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit, and according to the Handbook of Texas, Wheelock was one of the best-known towns in Central Texas in the 1840s. It was also considered as the site for the Texas state capital and the University of Texas, and it was once the county seat of Robertson County. All of those facts are pretty strong indicators of Wheelock's notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in a print encyclopedia (which the Handbook of Texas is) is certainly enough for inclusion. --NE2 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Same as with Mumford Texas, above. Had Nyttend not removed the prod, probably every admin here, other than the nominator, would have done so. Our practice is quite clear abou tit, and its a de facto guideline, much stronger & with more consensus than a lot of the things we call formal guidelines, DGG (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A sourced article about a real place with significant coverage in reliable sources is more than notable enough. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Obvious claims of notability, well-sourced. 00:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable towns are inherently notable and the article passes WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Towns/population centers are inherently notable regardless of size. Sources already in the article indicate verification. According to this book, it was even a county seat.--Oakshade (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep real place=gets kept - deleting former county seats now, this is a ridiculous and WP:POINTY nomination and is disruptive. What effort did the nominee undertake before nominating this? Whatever it was, it was insufficient. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 4 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge, Robertson County, Texas[edit]

Ridge, Robertson County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable unincorporated community. Its article is nothing but a one line statement that gives no more information than Bryan-College Station metropolitan area's listing it as an unincorporated community does. WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid reason for having an article. Failed PROD with prod removed by User:Nyttend with reason of "Like any other community"). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep real place is notable. Nomination of these is disruptive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to an actual official guideline or policy stating that any place that exists is notable. Nothing in WP:N states that, which is the only actual guideline for places. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a pretty strong precedent that all communities, including unincorporated communities, are considered notable. Like most unincorporated communities, sources do exist for this one; for example, The Handbook of Texas, which states that Ridge once had a post office and was the site of a railway switch, both signs of a significant unincorporated community. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please point to actual consensus based notability guidelines, not "precedence" as other communities have been deleted before. Also, the Handbook of Texas is not really a third party source, its a state reference that includes pretty much everything under the sun, including other people/places/topics that are not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places; "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source" (in this case, the GNIS and the Handbook of Texas). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a city nor a village. Nor does that, in and of itself, prevent any such places from being AfD nor is it really a valid reason to oppose by itself considering everything it points to are personal essays and dead proposals, not actual valid guidelines. As that page itself says, consensus can change and "Precedents defined here should be used with caution — using this essay as the sole argument in an AfD is disputed at best, as there can be conflicts with extant policies or guidelines" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the US doesn't have villages. Your nomination notice to me says: "Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised". If, as you contend, the place is not notable, no amount of improvement could address that issues. Both the USGS and the USPS (which assigns the place a ZIP Code) think the place is sufficiently notable, what evidence do you have short of your unsupported allegation that the place is NOT notable and why should we believe you over official US government sources? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to disprove notability, one has to prove it. And it seems clear that no one is actually capable of doing it as thus far every keep argument is purely versions of "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" and falsely claiming that old "precedents" are good enough to trump actual guidelines and policies. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear Keep because it's a place that's big enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). - Dravecky (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, contrary to your arguments, there's every reason to trust precedent when there's nothing different between this article and ones that have been kept before. Anyway, what's wrong with the Handbook? So what if it includes topics that aren't notable? It's a detailed treatment (from a university, too) of various Texas topics, and its coverage of Ridge is a great example of in-depth coverage from an independent source. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reason is there to trust a dated precedent that has not been updated in a long time and that, it self, clearly indicates it should NOT be used as a "keep" argument in a deletion debate by itself. The Handbook of Texas is a reliable source but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be its mirror, clearly violating WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a verifiable place and thus notable. Tavix |  Talk  20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ditto. To do a considerable number when you know they haven't a chance is clearly POINTY DGG (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A considerable number"? And again you are throwing out bad-faith accusations and remarks. Its a related group of articles that were all being added to the same article. Nothing more. And sorry, but I thought people actually still followed WP:N in AfD discussions rather than some claimed "precedence" with no actual backing by any guideline or policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A sourced article about a verifiably real settlement meets my standard for inclusion, and this article goes further than that by demonstrating significant coverage in at least one reliable source Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per everyone but nominator. Article is well-sourced, and long-standing concensus is that all real places are notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:RS standards. The nominator may wish to consider withdrawing this AfD. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all except nom. Passes WP:N. Towns/population centers are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 14:57, 4 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wellborn, Texas[edit]

Wellborn, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable unincorporated community. A few minor mentions in local sources (which are therefore non-thirdparty) is not enough to meet WP:N, and its lack of status as a city or town does not make it "automatically" notable. Its having a zipcode also does not make it notable, many unincorporated communities and suburbs do. Failed PROD with prod removed by User:Nyttend with reason of "Like any other community") -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With as many unreferenced, unincorporated community articles are on Wikipedia, I dont understand how this one is being put up for deletion. The sources I used are frequently used for Texas-related articles and aren't minor mentions, they provide a detailed history of the community. While I strongly believe that there is absolutely no reason this article should be deleted, I get tired having well-referenced articles that I have created be put up for deletion when other, less credible, poorly-referenced articles are untouched. --Acntx (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Clear Keep because it's a place with enough size... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). - Dravecky (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How can something with references to six different pages from four independent reliable sources (as well as the obvious print coverage) be unnotable? How can anything, even if it isn't something considered (by the majority of us) automatically notable? Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References that do not give significant coverage do not establish notability. Anyone can throw in references to show something exists. That does not meet WP:N. And a small group of editors who quickly pounce on every location AfD and flood it with kepes by pointing to a single person's personal essay, a proposed guideline rejected by actual consensus, and an outdated list of "precedents" that itself states is not a valid argument in a deletion argument shows to me that the issue isn't that these items are automatically notable, but that they are being kept purely through sheer numbers and "majority" despite Wikipedia not being a democracy. No one has yet to actually provide a single source beyond the Handbook that actually gives the place significant coverage itself, not just "yep, its there" type sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Maps are considered reliable secondary sources. They can have errors, but so can everything else. When it's confirmed in the official state handbook, and when even the nom says that the Handbook gives substantial coverage, it seems quixotic to pursue such a nomination. DGG (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per long-standing precedent, unincorporated communities are considered notable. Besides, the article is well-sourced at any rate. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All real settlements with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources are automatically notable per precedent. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My neighborhood is a real place, so that means its notable enough for an article? What about my house? Also a real place. Just saying "real places are notable" pretty much means anything and everything that exists and is a "place" can have an article, which clearly goes against WP:N and WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Actual population center which are inherently notable. Towns don't magically become un-notable simply because they're "unincorporated." Sources already in the article indicate passing the letter of WP:N. And what's with this "A few minor mentions in local sources (which are therefore non-thirdparty)"? So the article for New York City Council majority leader Joel Rivera should be deleted because he's covered by only New York City sources, "which are therefore non-thirdparty"? For the record, WP:N does not "ban" local sources as indications of notability and certainly does not label them "non-thirdparty."--Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep real place=gets kept, and what exactly do we have against Texas this week? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:08, 4 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Z80182[edit]

Z80182 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product. A merge back to Z180 would be possible, but that article already contains the relevant material from this one. And that target article is probably deletable, as well. Mikeblas (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of WP:NOTABILITY. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. The article contains considerably more information than the line in the merged table. (and they contradict each other about the presence of timers, so that needs to be checked) Each of the variants was a very important product in their time. This is individually discussed in a standard textbook of the period Milman's electronics, a/c Google books [11]. there should be a good deal of material in the computer & hobbyist magazines of the period. DGG (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No reason to delete as the nominator offers a good alternative such as merger to Z180. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you used a modem (amongst other things) made sometime between the mid 1990s and 2001 or so (and I'm not talking about one of those winmodem things), you likely used one of these chips. An argument of "Non-notable product" for this particular component has to be one of the silliest "notability" arguments I've ever heard. Heck, I can't even fathom why the nom would also claim that the Zilog Z180 article "is probably deletable, as well". Now, if the real issue is that the datasheets are not being cited in either of these articles, that can certainly be fixed without too much trouble but an editorial issue such as that would not be a proper reason to bring this article to AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:44, 10 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clayton (footballer)[edit]

Adam Clayton (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played in a professional first team match. No sources provided to establish noteworthiness for other reasons. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete make when he becomes notable Spiderone (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as usual, remake when he plays... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, fails WP:ATHLETE for not playing a professional match. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cs-wolves(talk) 05:37, 5 July 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. Non-admin closure: strong consensus, the nominator withdrew. — Rankiri (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-cola Bottling Company Building[edit]

Coca-cola Bottling Company Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Badly written list of coke buildings. Oscarthecat (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator - AfD raised in error. Apologies. --Oscarthecat (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Under what policy is this disambiguation page (not a list per se) being nominated for deletion? If being poorly written was a criterion for deletion I can guarantee wikipedia wouldn't have nearly 3 million articles. The page has proven worth as a dab page for several notable sites. Nev1 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The creator of the article labeled the page to reflect that he was making a dab page. He included a descriptive clean up tag. Based on his prior work in the area and my familiarity with the need for dab pages for histoical building, I assume that this page will met inclusion criteria when completed FloNight♥♥♥ 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a speedy keep, now, since the disambiguation page is done and looks completely appropriate. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: needed disambig; useful to readers. Jonathunder (talk) 15:21, 3 July 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 G7 Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phace designs[edit]

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

Non-notable graphic design company. No notability asserted. Oscarthecat (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G7 (apparent author request). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:53, 3 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @135  ·  02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of coeducation at Johns Hopkins University[edit]

History of coeducation at Johns Hopkins University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted as opposed to being merged as the title is an unlikely search term. The references do not verify the information in the article, they are dead ends. Furthermore, it is written like a personal essay. Drawn Some (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a really weird content fork. Any sourced content can be added to the main article, but a merge definitely doesn't make sense as it's difficult to figure out what's sourced and what's not, and the resulting redirect would just be absurd. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, that'd be a very clear delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear content fork. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not suitable as a separate article, but there is content here that is mergable., I agree the redirect would be a problem, but I do not see how to avoid it. DGG (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Needless fork. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 4 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @135  ·  02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BerkeleyLive.Net[edit]

BerkeleyLive.Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable forum, absolutely fails the criteria at WP:WEB. Drawn Some (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree per nomination. Might warrant a brief mention on the university's article but certainly not its own article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no more notable than its counterparts at a myriad campuses around the planet. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the main article.DGG (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable web forum. WWGB (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wonder why every single aspect/entity of a University is considered a good topic for an encyclopedia article? What's next, articles on autoclave systems? The footbridges of University of Wisconsin-Madison? Abductive (talk) 20:38, 8 July 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chamberlain (artist)[edit]

Tom Chamberlain (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist per WP:ARTIST. Drawn Some (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be a vanity page, no real references despite the list of exhibitions. Delete as not notable.Parkerparked (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity article, highly promotional tone, no actual notability displayed.
• Delete – for lack of notability. Clear vanity page. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 20:17, 8 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @135  ·  02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mendonca[edit]

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

Freelance journalist with no apparent sign that he meets WP:N. The claim to fame seems to be that he has interviewed famous people, which is not enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria. Mosmof (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Unreferenced; Google News, Google Books show no relevant results. — Rankiri (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The notability of the people he interviewed doesn't rub off. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 4 July 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. Copyvio of http://www.publishersglobal.com/directory/publisher.asp?publisherid=19608 GedUK  21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-India Publications[edit]

Inter-India Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company does not appear to meet notability standards. No references at all (tagged for seven months). Google hits are apparently only in bibliography entries or articles that are exact or near copies of this article. No articles from independent sources found about the company. (Contested speedy and prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry about that. Twinkle does that sometimes. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely unnecessary page, seems to just be a vanity article. Completely unsourced and not notable. Parkerparked (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G12 tagged as such. Also, NN company, and the claim is a bit absurd - one of the oldest publishers in India, and in existence for 30 years. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:08, 3 July 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 Early flight. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of early flying machines[edit]

List of early flying machines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Considerable overlap with Early flight and First flying machine, all of which suffer from an unclear definition of what a "flying machine" is. This gives them particularly in their early, pre-18/19th century parts rather the character of a dump area for poorly justified claims. I nominated the list for deletion as the lists in the other two articles (Early flight#Table of flying machines and First flying machine#Claims to first piloted flight by date (19th century)) appear to be more competently written, but a merge may be ultimately a better idea. In any case, without a proper and well-referenced definition of what a flying machine is, none of the articles has a raison d'etre here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to Early flight. There appear to be numerous overlaps between the lists in List of early flying machines and Early flight already, so a "Merge" is, to some degree, already in place. Both articles have almost zero citations for their claims, however the articles on each specific "aviator" generally have some citations. Many of these are, however, dubious. In any case, the Early flight#Table of Flying Machines section already does what List of early flying machines attempts to do, but as a part of a better written and more extensive article. I would personally say that List of early flying machines should be deleted because of similarities/overlap with Early flight and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, if a Merge is to be undertaken, I believe that only list entries that satisfy one of two requirements be added to Early flight. A: The list entry has reliable citations; or B: it has its own Wikipedia article, and that article has reliable citations. Currently, List of early flying machines contains numerous entries which are red links and have no citations, and these do not need to be kept in the event of a Merge. Neil Clancy 16:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Neil Clancy's reasoning. Uncited redlinks should not be merged. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge the table from the article into here. This one does it better, and the other can then be a longer discussion in general. The refs are in the original articles, and can either be considered adequate enough, or copied. DGG (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Neil Clancy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- The table in Early flight appears fuller, but has become rather too complicated. I wonder whether the answer might be to merge a simplification of that table here. The redlinks for articles on the machine are often accompanied by a blue link on the inventor. In most cases the inventor is probably not notable for much else; accordingly, separate articles on the machines are probably not needed and should be de-linked. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- We certainly don't need all three articles ("List," "First" and "Early"). I worked a lot on the table for "Early Flight," but I now prefer the simplified table in either "First Flying Machine" or "List of..." (although some of the latter's entries--Whitehead, Wright--are much too long). I would support a single article (eliminating the other two) in the format of "List..." (my preferred title) or "First...", preferably with at least one reference for each entry. Photos/illustrations from "First Flying Machine" could be retained in the merged article. I also prefer that the long, unreferenced narrative of "Early Flight" be eliminated, leaving just a brief introduction and the list. The early literature list could be included or split off into its own article with a link from the main article. DonFB (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Early flight is the best of all three lists. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the above comments. I agree with Thryduulf that we should not merge the uncited redlinks. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:10, 8 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @135  ·  02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy's Outside Court Golden Ticket[edit]

Cheesy's Outside Court Golden Ticket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable event/web happening. Was initially PRODded, but this was contested. There is no indication that this small segment is notable. It's only existed this year, it only covers a two week period, and there is no indication that it is the cult the article claims it to be. That it exists isn't in doubt, that it exists on a major sports website isn't in doubt. However, there are no third party reliable sources that discuss it that I can find, thus fails the general notability guideline. There is enough of an assertion of notability to pass db-web, but is it notable? Wikipedia, over to you. GedUK  11:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and per WP:NEO. Astronaut (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Short-lived event involving a non-notable sports commentator. Although the BBC website is obviously notable, the section concerning this matter is just a "live blog" of little note. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although my initial thought was "it's on the BBC, it must be notable", I can find no references to assert notability other than the odd, inadmissable, blog entry. Therefore it does indeed fail notability criteria. I42 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:N and WP:NEO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:10, 5 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @136  ·  02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amethyst NiL[edit]

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

An Iranian metal band. The article is unreferenced, Google Search result for "Amethyst NiL" is here. I can't find anything substantial. The only contributor is User:NiL-McR. Possible conflict of interests? --Vejvančický (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (CSD A7).--Cannibaloki 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absolutely no notability. I actually suspect a hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 4 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @136  ·  02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lively[edit]

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

Notability issues, and possible lingering copyright vio. The de-csd suggested the copyright vio was solved, but I don't see any removal of suspect material. In addition, no indication of notability. I don't see reliable source returns on google Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a vanity page with no possible way of sourcing any material. Parkerparked (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article in Survival magazine won't get him past notability. 1 of the The mentions in Blades magazine is merely a mention. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 4 July 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JK Reviews[edit]

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

This supposed 38 year old magazine is unsourced and gets zero google hits. Google books and google scholar also reveal nothing. freshacconci talktalk 10:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete likely a hoax. Peter Fleet (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources and content is unverifiable even after Google searching the creators of said magazine (zero Google hits). I would expect that a 38 year old magazine with 125,000 subscribers would at least turn up a few blog results and entertainment sites but yet there was nothing. So I'm suspecting this is a hoax article. AngelOfSadness talk 12:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be completely fictitious Parkerparked (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and a hoax most likely.Gosox5555 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @136  ·  02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Genocide[edit]

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

Content fork. The article is about a subject which is not generally known as such in English (380 Google-hits, mostly from forums and blogs), and consists of two halves. The first half is also discussed in History of early Ottoman Bulgaria (some of the content may be moved there), while the second half is a copy-paste of Batak massacre. The version on the Bulgarian Wikipedia no longer doesn't exist, while the Japanese version has been created by someone with the same IP address as the creator of the English version (220.43.242.23) is a translation of the Bulgarian one. Preslav (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BalkanFever 08:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Preslav. The name is inappropriate, the grouping of the April Uprising massacres and the 1913 events in Thrace is not based on any logic, and the general tone is extremely biased. Todor→Bozhinov 12:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nonsence. Jingby (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hello. I don't know how you got those 380 hits. I just used Google and 'bulgarian.genocide' got 111,000 hits. The search for a greek.genocide got 352,000 hits. For comparison 'armenian.genocide' got 1,170,000 hits, which is overwhelmingly bigger result than both greek and bulgarian genocides. I just wonder does just the Google ranking matter? You say that the 'article is about a subject which is not generally known as such in English'. I am sorry but I really beg to differ with that statement. Both Irish political activist and journalist James David Bourchier and American journalist Januarius MacGahan write in english and describe the as a genocide. They both write in great detail and if somebody, like yourself isn't acquainted with their oeuvre doesn't mean that the subject 'is not known as such in english'. The Battak Massacre, the April uprising and other events are not unrelated to each other. They are part of the Bulgarian Genocide, recognized by many renowned historians, intellectuals and recently politicians. There is original research on the subject by such world renown dignitaries as the director of the Bulgarian National Museum professor Bojidar Dimitrov, the world's leading Thrace scholar the late professor Alexander Fol, professor Georgi Bakalov and others. I just wonder wether you could state a real reason, or a real breach of wikipedia policies, implying that the world doesn't need such an article. For instance the Greek Genocide describes events in the period 1914-1923.It encompasses the whole of the First World War. But you don't say that these are unrelated events. Well, why not merge the Batak massacre, the April uprising and other events into the Bulgarian Genocide article. I just can't help but see an unwillingness to recognize a 'Bulgarian Genocide' whatever the reasoning supporting it. Kansai mikan (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I Googled "Bulgarian Genocide" (between quotes) to demonstrated that the term does not occur very frequently in English, that it is therefore not a suitable title for the subject of the article, and that not even a redirect to a more suitably titled article is needed. The journalists you mention describe the events as massacres; the term genocide wasn't invented until decades after they died. I do not deny that atrocities took place, but I think they are best described at the individual articles describing them (Batak massacre being one of them), or, if the event is less notable, in History of early Ottoman Bulgaria. I hope you will join us in doing so. If all events together can be described as genocide according to the definition is another matter, but this is not what we are discussing here. Preslav (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not systematic, based on few unrelated events, to sum it up - does not fall into the genocide category; basically no English language usage as demonstrated by Preslav; material is just copy-pasted from other articles. --Laveol ^T 14:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – POV-pushing nightmare, and unsalvagable because the very definition of the topic contains a highly tendentious OR assumption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure OR. Jd2718 (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the good reasons already listed. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original Research. In Japanese Wikipedia, a user with user name (ja:User:Kansai mikan) had posted very biased discription against the Independence of Kosovo, although the relationship between that case and this case is still unknown.--Peccafly-talk-hist 14:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Nonsentic.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The events that overtook the Bulgarians during the five centuries of slavery are usually called "massacres." However more and more historians describe the events as possessing genocidal intent. The "stable" element of the genocide was Bulgarian nationality and language. Christianity represented both a stable and unstable element, as some Bulgarians /the Pomaks/ were allowed to live if they accepted Islam.

What user Peccafly is referring to are at best insinuations, although it might be described as outright lying. Never did I make ‘biased description against’ anybody. Peccafly is a self-declared supporter of the independence of Kosovo’s albanians, so he might not have liked the reference to Kosovo Liberation Army’s roots as a terrorist organization. However these are not ‘bias’ but facts as witnessed by many sources, including American and German ones that I referenced. In fact the Japanese article on Kosovo was extremely biased and pro-albanian, stating that albanians populated the area since the Neolithic Age, and full with anti-serbian propaganda and other nonsense. It badly needed a clean-up, and I effectively brought it to life, by writing very balanced and informative content. I guess nobody here could understand what he means by ‘the relationship between that case and this case is still unknown’. I'll decypher it for you. Peccafly is a supporter of ‘Free Tibet’, ‘Free Taiwan’, ‘Free Kosovo’, but NOT of a FREE South Ossetia. It is easy to guess why. He echoes the American propaganda of the day and the propaganda of the present Japanese government. So as the ‘Bulgarian Genocide’ is not a news story and the Japanese mass media didn’t input in his head what to think on the matter, he perhaps wanders what the ‘politically correct’ stance would be. I guess he went with the ‘delete’ lot, as they are majority here. Indeed, Peccafly, the most difficult thing is to use your head and think for yourself, when there is not NHK to tell you what to think.Kansai mikan (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Keighran[edit]

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

I think complety biographyical and lack of info. Rabbit67890 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - has lots of articles in many business journals, passes WP:BIO requirements. --Triwbe (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy Keep. Significant RS coverage. Nom would do well to read WP:BEFORE. It took just 20 seconds to see some of the Ghits, not much of an addition to the 120 seconds from page creation that it took to nominate the article for deletion. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was going to argue for merge with Bluepulse, but it looks like that article was deleted twice via proposed deletion due to some notability concerns. The vast majority of the business journals I saw were in reference to his involvement with Bluepulse. Mr. Keighran doesn't seem to establish notability as an individual distinct from his company, see [12]. Alternatively, recreate Bluepulse and merge Mr. Keighran into it. LagrangeCalvert_{<Talk / Contribs>} 08:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Spaceman Spiff has it right.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a quick search shows there is plenty of coverage of him in reliable sources to easily meet the GNG, A new name 2008 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Orderinchaos 10:58, 6 July 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 Newsbeat. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Pearce[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. News journalist lacking individual notability, Redirect to Newsbeat contested decltype (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - No independent references, barely anything to make an article here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Nothing that couldn't be included on Newsbeat. Plastikspork (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - No real substance for him to merit his own article. HarlandQPitt (talk) 03:13, 7 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Long (cartoonist)[edit]

John Long (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

His comic, Lumpy Gravy, won a contest to replace The Far Side in the Detroit News, but no other paper seems to have ever picked up the strip. Despite a couple books by notable publishers (including a Lumpy Gravy compo), he utterly fails WP:V as I haven't been able to find a single reliable source to verify any of the info in this article. Google News turns up only one source, which simply states that the strip replaced The Far Side. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable cartoonist. Refs here: [13] ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE ChildofMidnight's supposed refs are a bunch of crap including things like how Frank Zappa had LONG hair and cut an album called LUMPY GRAVY. Also, some of these supposed sources for a comic from the 1990s date from the 1890s? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just linked to Google News. The nom said "Google News turns up only one source, which simply states that the strip replaced The Far Side" which wasn't what I found to be the case. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we search with quotes on. "Long" and "john" are insanely common, so that turns up nothing but false positives. Did it ever occur to you to search with quotes on to decrease false positives? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I wasn't clear. TPH (and his otters?) said, "I haven't been able to find a single reliable source to verify any of the info in this article. Google News turns up only one source, which simply states that the strip replaced The Far Side." My google news search found at least a couple reliable sources that have substantial coverage about this subject. The book has been reviewed and had some success. I think it's worth including as a stub. If others disagree, they're welcome to vote delete. I apolize if someone inferred that all the sources from google news link I provided are on this subject. Many/ most are not. I provided it because there were some that were. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He also seems to have had his "Long Overdue" panel syndicated by King Features around 1988-90, and it's included in this article from the Chicago Sun Times [14], "John Long, a cartoonist whose Long Overdue is making its debut in today's Chicago Sun-Times, comes to the comic pages after 15 1/2 years as a senior...". A website said the feature began in The Detroit News in 1983. It's also mentioned here where readers at one paper voted it out as "their least favorite" "http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AC&p_theme=ac&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAEA8F2E8709E1F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM]. His "Lumpy Gravy" panel apparently appeared briefly around 1995, before being published with some success as a book in 1995. One of his work's is featured in this collection [15] at Michigan State University libraries. I think it's enough. If it's not, vote delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are times when a comic's writer is also notable in of himself (see, for example, Ryan North), but usually there's no reason to have an article on every writer. In this case, the comic might be notable (personally I don't think so, but that's a discussion for another time), but its author does not appear to be. There's currently no Lumpy Gravy (comic) article and this article has very little content or history to merge there even if there were, so I don't see a reason to do something other than delete. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rjanang's reasoning, exactly. I will take this opportunity to reiterate that the contents of the encyclopedia must be verifiable through reliable sources. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. We have, every time we write or evaluate an article, the choice of making Wikipedia better or making it into a sewer full of.....sewage. Drawn Some (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rjanag. You can't get notable by penning a non-notable comic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 4 July 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. You were right, it's a copyvio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software Capability Maturity Model (SCMMI SEI)[edit]

Software Capability Maturity Model (SCMMI SEI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, original reason was non-notable, possible copyvio and possible original research. This also turns out to be a paid advert, see [16], [17] and the histories of this page and aerial advertising. MER-C 06:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I hate it.. I hate it... Bart Simpson way. This, shall we say, model, was a mandatory bit of exam syllabus ... for accountants (ACCA paper 1.4 (or was it 2.x?), around 2003 or 2004 - the whole course was later removed from exam program). The very fact that a large professional corp included it in its qualification program indicates some notability. NVO (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Borderline G11 candidate. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NeedsRefs: The version I read had zero refs anywhere. IT also reads like a SCIGEN paper- not that it is incoherent, but the platitudes have the same knowledge content as a paper written with no regard to semantics. That is, as it stands, assuming it could be sourced, it just describes a taxonomy and defines the words within this world. So, if you are going to keep at minimum someone needs to go get some sources. If you want to keep it get at least one unaffiliated secondary source SOMEWHERE. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or incorporate into the CMMI article Ecragg (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I suspect much of the material is a copyright violation. There is text taken verbtaim that can be found in this document summary. Based on the style of writing, I suspect that all of the article is a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 9 July 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 to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Way Ranging[edit]

Two Way Ranging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not contain enough information to stand on its own. The article has one link to it, and does not link out. The article needs significant attention if it is to be retained. TRL (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or possibly merge to Time of arrival: No real deletion rationale supplied by nominator—being orphaned or deadend isn't a reason to delete. Nom doesn't address why the topic is non-notable or unencyclopedic; it looks to me like this is an encyclopedic topic and could have more written about it (in other words, it needs cleanup and expansion rather than deletion). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the Merge assessment. With the fact that the article has so little content, I do not feel that it fits as a standalone article. If it is not merged, it should not be kept as-is.--TRL (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rjanag (talk · contribs) is quite right. This is an encyclopedic topic that can, should and will have more written about it in the future. The article itself needs a lot of work (hence the other tags), but there is no deadline to make the improvements, so deletion is not the appropriate way to approach it. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has multiple papers written, seems to be notable, and I am not satisfied with the deletion rationale provided. Also, I have moved the article to its proper title Two-way ranging (per this and other papers]). -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 16:52, 6 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @199  ·  03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NukeWatch[edit]

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

Non notable minor UK protest grouping. Even if was notable, Article has major WP:POV and WP:ADVERT issues. Prod removed 02/07/09. Archivey (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Difficult to confirm non-notability because GNews is buried under news of a US group of the same name. In the article, there are three sources: one directory listing all organisations (doesn't count), their own webpage (doesn't count) and an article about them in a local paper. That's not enough. Show me sustained coverage in the local press or articles about them in the national press and I may change my mind. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Nom. Some random UK people protest against 'the bomb'. Not notable or exactly Greenpeace. Agree there are POV value statements in article too. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:CLUB Niteshift36 (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Quick Google search gives: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25], and whilst they aren't all-encompassing-low-down-on-this-particular-group kind of sources I'd definitely suggest that if people like The Guardian and The Independent are going to you for a quote it's at least an indication of notability. Some more digging will probably yield more sources (maybe print rather than web). Issues like POV can be dealt with via a clean-up and aren't a definitive reason for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dylanfromthenorth. Have improved wording and added another reference to the article. Johnfos (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable fringe group. When this group (not other groups with same name) get significant coverage in multiple sources (per WP:GNG) then they can have an article. Verbal chat 19:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the references I've given refer to this group not any others as far as I'm aware Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another non notable group of left wing useful idiots. Source even says they dont have a formal structure. They seem to do nothing more than tail UK Warhead convoys that are public domain anyway...maybe merge with CND. Estragons (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it matter whether they're left or right wing? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Verbal here. Crafty (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The coverage in national newspapers, as linked by Dylanfromthenorth, is more than sufficient to meet WP:N. Artw (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Faction of CND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.118.27 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @199  ·  03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easiteach[edit]

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

Borderline nonsense, unclear exactly what this is supposed to be. This is a three sentence stub containing no valuable information. No prejudice against recreation of a sensible article with references. Drawn Some (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yes, it exists. I don't really think it's notable within the teaching profession even. I'm sure wec an find references to it in places like the Times Ed, but it's not as if Wiki is even a good place to look for it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I'm tempted to say CSD A3 or G2, I think this can be made into a decent article. Gnews shows some significant coverage in The Guardian, Times, Detroit News, Khaleej Times etc. I'll take a first stab at this. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not a great article, but there is sufficient indication the product is notable. Therefore the article should be tagged and developed, not deleted. I42 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the Guardian quote: "M has built on the early success of the Easiteach Maths Software and the growing Easiteach Family has clearly become a standard by which other whiteboard software will be judged. Two new additions were launched at the show, Easiteach Games and Easiteach Science and both seem to have the same clear and flexible interface as the earlier titles" DGG (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here's a stack of sources including one which explicitly says that it's notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of trivial mentions don't make something notable. Certainly here at Wikipedia we have our own standards of notability and we don't just accept someone else saying something is notable. Looks like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of our notability requirements on this point, Colonel Warden, so I suggest you review WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Expanded the article with a few more non-trivial references; Easiteach is clearly notable, as anyone in the educational world will tell you; even if the original state of the article didn't make this clear, a small amount of research would have. Black Kite 23:25, 7 July 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. There seems to be no debate that the sourcing introduced by ThaddeusB is sufficient; all arguments for deletion were made before that was done, and the rewrite seems to invalidate them. Cool3 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Charles Kettler[edit]

Robert Charles Kettler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced BLP of non-notable person per WP:BIO. Delete Drawn Some (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]