The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neco Scooters[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable clone scooter manufacturer from China. There a probably a hundred such companies producing cheap copies of European bikes/scooters. Google for Neco and you'll find lots of mentions, but nothing of any substance - mainly forums or companies selling the bikes. I challenge you to find a single mention in a reputable motorcycle or scooter publication. Biker Biker (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you read the article the Neco isn't a clone of a 1960's Vespa, it's a mechanically modern scooter that closely copies it's styling. This makes it unique and at least as notable as any other scooter article in Wikipedia. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No mention in any books, magazine or news articles at ProQuest or General One File, nor Google. A single blog post is insufficient. --Dbratland (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Firstly, the UK distributor's website is a reliable source of information. This bike is known as the Neco Abruzzi in the UK, a Google search for this returns over 6,000 results (presumably you are using the US Google). Secondly, this bike is already on sale in the French market. If you search www.google.fr you get over 3,000 results including reviews, small ads and www.scooter-station.com. As far as I can see this is an on-line scooter guide and not a blog. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits is a poor indicator of notability. What's needed are independent and reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. tedder (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was just trying to answer Dbratland's query about a lack of web presence. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK distributor's website hardly indicates a professional company and is most definitely not a reliable source. Look on the specifications page. Do you see the glaring mistake there? Obviously the company haven't. Notability is indicated by mentions and reviews in respected motorcycle or scooter journals, yet the UK's leading scooter magazine (Twist N Go, which I subscribe to) has never reviewed or even mentioned the Neco. Motorcycle News which regularly features Aprilia, Derbi, Piaggio, Vespa, Gilera, or Sachs scooters has never once mentioned Neco. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - they just mixed the headers up, easy to do when you're creating HTML. I suspect the lack of mentions in the UK media is due to the fact that Neco are just entering it. I've found at least two French language reviews, they seem to be more established there. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just launching in the UK? So why weren't they among the manufacturers at this week's NEC motorcycle show? More evidence, perhaps, that they are a non-notable clone manufacturer who don't merit an article on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've watched Top Gear then you'll know that it's not unusual for even major manufacturers no to bother with automotive shows. Like I said before, the Neco Abruzzi isn't a clone. It's bodywork might be a close copy of a 1960's Vespa but it's mechanical components are right up to date. There is nothing else like it. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. What has Top Gear got to do with motorcycles? Show me a notable manufacturer who wasn't at the NEC. There is no way cheap Chinese clone manufacturer would appear there because they aren't even professional (or big) enough to have a proper website. Anyway, that's the last word from me. Let others judge the notability of this outfit. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were LML at the NEC? Regardless of what you think about Neco you can't deny that the Abruzzi/Italia is unique. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble connecting the dots between "unique" and WP:GNG and WP:ORG. In other words, you haven't given an argument about how Wikipedia's notability guidelines have been met. tedder (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing indentation
Here are two articles from on-line scooter guides that meet WP:GNG:
http://www.scooter-station.com/Neco-Italia-125.html
http://www.scooter-infos.com/essai-1573-neco-italia-125.html
Would it be acceptable to use these to rewrite the page so that it is about the Neco Abruzzi/Italia scooter? This is what it was going to be mainly about anyway. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now have exactly two blog posts. Do two blog posts constitute significant coverage? The answer is based on Are weblogs reliable sources? and WP:COMPANY. I would say not -- if it were two blog posts on highly influential journals or institutions, perhaps 2 would be enough. But these two blog posts -- only one of them signed by the author's apparent real name, the other uses an Internet handle -- do not show any evidence of being written by professionals who are recognized experts, and there is no evidence that they are subject to editorial control found in normal journals and publishing houses. To me these two blog posts look like a half step above a community forum. They prove existence, not notability. --Dbratland (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't blogs - they are articles in on-line scooter guides. They're probably as reliable as anything you'd find in a printed motorcycle magazine. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've just clicked on the scooter Station 'Who' page and found this, it's a professional magazine.

The staff Scooter-Station and Moto-Station:
Editor & Publisher: Emmanuel Cadiou
Associate Editor: Mehdi Bermani
Section editor test: Christophe Mao
Section Editor terrain: Arnaud Vibien
Editorial Assistant, Community: Alexandre Guichard
Webmaster: Laura Eslan
Developer: Eric Mezzani
Contributors: Philippe Lebreton (Talk Sport), Bertrand Carrière (photo), Christophe Harmand (test market), Christian Boor (test), Philip Chanin (test), Pierre Leguévaques (special old)
Heads pub: Gilles Maillet, Virginia Hoang, Paul Blondé

So it is an online scooter guide with a few people working for it. How does that estabilish its notability as a reliable source? It doesn't have a print copy. Not being Belgian I can't tell whether those people listed above are also reputable journalists recognised in the motorcycle/scooter world. The magazine's "About us" page also clearly states "Scooter-Station est aussi un outil promotionnel (publicité, petites annonces)", which translates as "Scooter-Station is also a promotional tool (advertising, classified ads)". In other words it will print anything it can to get page impressions and advert clicks. None of this does anything to establish the notability of Neco and I stand by my original assertion that it is nothing but a cheap Chinese clone manufacturer that doesn't deserve coverage on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full quote with the key words highlighted, "Scooter-Station is also a promotional tool (advertising, classified ads) recognized by the profession with a target readership."

All magazines have adverts. This was one is subject to editorial control and is as reliable as any other. I think a 1,300 word article in it more than satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for notability and verifiabliity. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized by whom, specifically? It's easy to say, but is it true? This blog is not written by journalists and they do not do reporting. They rewrite press release material and post publicity photos supplied by marketeers. You know one reason real journalists do not speak of these knock-off products is that they are basically illegal? The GY6 engine design was stolen from Honda and after being copied by so many Chinese companies for so many years, it became impossible to contest it. Some faceless, nameless factory in China has slapped a fake Italian scooter copy on top of a copy of an illegally-licensed Honda powertrain, and they claim to have invented something "unique". They even have the nerve to try to deceive buyers by putting a false Italian flag on it.

It is for these reasons that reputable sources will not touch them with a ten foot pole, and why we have no trustworthy facts to base an article on. --Dbratland (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather ironic that you mention the GY6 Engine as its page had no references for over 2 years, before I added one from the Neco UK website! You and Biker Biker both edited in that time and didn't list it for deletion. As far as I can see Scooter-Station is a professionally produced scooter guide which is as reliable a source as any other. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did nominate GY6 Engine for deletion on July 11, 2009. It squeaked by due to no consensus. I still think it should be deleted and will probably try again, although I don't want to belabor the point if I'd only be wasting others' time. But now that you bring it up, I'd be happy to remove the Neco Scooters citation, along with all uncited "facts" from GY6 Engine. I'd prefer to have only information you can trust and let blogs and forums discuss rumors and self-serving propaganda. --Dbratland (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing indentation

I don't think we are going to reach a consensus, so the future of this page should be decided on whether Scooter-Station is a reliable source.

If it is just a blog then the Neco Scooters page should be deleted.

However I maintain that it is a professionally produced scooter guide that is subject to editorial control and recognized by the industry. A 1,300 word review in it would therefore meet WP:GNG for the Neco Abruzzi, but not the Neco company.

Consequently I would suggest moving the Neco Scooters page to a new Neco Abruzzi page. I would then expand the article using Scooter-Station as a source. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Let the AfD run its course. In the meantime if you want to start a Neco Abruzzi article fill your boots, but that too may get nominated for deletion if the only source it has is one which you alone maintain is reliable. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. Even if scooter-station is a reliable source, that doesn't demonstrate the depth of coverage necessary to fulfill WP:GNG. The fact that everything hings on one quali-reliable source is proof the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. tedder (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that article is 1,300 words long? There are also dozens of links to dealerships ranging from Bitain to Eastern Europe. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS What does quali-reliable mean please? (for future reference) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown Unknowns (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"quasi-reliable" means it isn't clear if that one source is reliable. Read WP:GNG carefully. "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In other words, even if this source is reliable (which is questionable), this is far from "significant coverage in reliable sources". tedder (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article [1] in Gente Motori, an Italian motor magazine described in Amazon as "an Italian automobile magazine which offers the readers a driver-oriented approach to the automotive world mixing practical topics and entertaining features for all kinds of car lovers."[2] The Neco Italia/Abruzzi is mentioned in at least two different magazine articles in two different countries in two different languages. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an article, it a mention - at best taken from the manufacturer's own press release. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article. The Neco Abruzzi has now appeared in different comercially produced magazines in different countries in different languages. It has come to international attention and cannot be anything but notable. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE maybe this should be mentioned on the Vespa article, but neither of the references are good/substantial enough for that use. --Bambi Kebab (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Bambi Kebab (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And here is yet another article[3] from Omnimoto, a professionally produced Italian language magazine[4]. A quick Google search has so far found 3 reliable sources for the Neco Abruzzi. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a fourth article[5] from the professionally produced moto-infos.com. Take a look at the copyright message in the bottom left hand corner of the home page[6]. You can't copyright somebody else's work. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, run-of-the-mill company with 144 total Google returns. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Alberta

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state beverages[edit]

List of U.S. state beverages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Um, this is twaddle. "Official State Beverage"? Say what? This is just a collection of marketing endorsements, and the major source, from which most are taken, is unreliable. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. If this was List of Official Beverages of sporting leagues/events/something, I'd be thacking it with the delete stick and hard. Official state beverages, however, is another kettle of fish. Like it or not, a "State Beverage" is on the same level of notability as a state bird or state flower; they're not marketing endorsements, they're actually things passed by the legislature. Do the legislatures in question have too much time on their hands? Probably. But it doesn't change the fact that this is, indeed, a notable topic. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. ^What he said...Smarkflea (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: such state endorsements would appear to have little real significance -- do most states serve milk at formal official dinners? And the choices appear to show little in terms of imagination (being mostly 'milk'). What's next, official state pizza toppings? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would further note that Alabama also has an official state: Bible, Salt Water Fish , Mineral , Rock , Horse , Fresh Water Fish , Game Bird , Folk Dance, Nut, Fossil, Renaissance Faire, Alabama State Championship, Official Mascot & Butterfly, Insect, Reptile, Gemstone, Shell, Outdoor Drama, Barbecue Championship, Agricultural Museum , Horseshoe Tournament, Historic Theatre, Outdoor Musical Drama, Tree, Soil, Quilt, Wildflower, Amphibian, Fruit, Spirit, Mammal, & Tree Fruit[7] (sorry, no official state pizza topping). I would suggest that lists of such obscure state emblems goes well beyond the line of WP:IINFO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But it's well within the remit of WP:NOTPAPER, I might point out. A lot of those more obscure ones could easily be in a table in the state's article, yes. But "official xxxs" that a large number of states have (as opposed to, say State Quilts!) should be lists. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is interesting to note that in no case is the official beverage beer - shurely shome mishtake? Anyway, this information is contained in numerous almanacs and encyclopedia such as Collier's encyclopedia and so is appropriate for us too. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ((failed verification)) on that Collier's link. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Page 81. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^converse 17:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In my opinion, this is a very silly topic and is borderline unencyclopedic, but somehow it appears to documented enough to pass WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^converse 17:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep States have official birds, amphibians, flowers, foods, beverages, and a lot of other stuff. Dream Focus 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What a bizarre thing to have. I'm looking forward to the "state pizza-toppings" article, soon as the other states realise that Hawaii's already got one it's surely only a matter of time. pablo 11:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - (1) it easily passes [WP:GNG]] as one of those sorts of things that is clearly notable; (2) it passes WP:LIST as something that should be in this format, as opposed to just a category; (3) it is easily sourceable and verifiable with a mix of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, as may be seen by recent efforts to rescue it through sourcing; and (4) just the sort of thing that our core readership -- high school and middle school students -- would look for here at WP. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This subject obviously shows much notability as pointed out by The Bushranger, Bearian ect Venustas 12 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Keep As long as all entries are cited. It's one of many state insignia, for the which the laws creating them are passed by state legislatures. It's true that many of these, especially the beverages, become official because of some food-production-related board's lobbying efforts--obviously the state milk promotion boards have a lot of money and influence--but that doesn't make them any less official. A lot of the state flowers, birds, etc., were lobbied for by the states' schoolchildren. Again, that doesn't make them any less official. It's also true we don't need lists with only one entry. See List of U.S. state neckwear. Valfontis (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In referenced to the nom, the world is 95% twaddle, so notable twaddle is 95% of wikipedia. Americans drink a lot of milk, apparently.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to General Binding Corporation. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fordigraph[edit]

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

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

Non-notable product which has a similar name to other products but no references to prove notability, Sadads (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rediect to parent company. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to General Binding Corporation. While I'm confident that we'll eventually have an article on this brand, I don't have time to work on it right now. This being the second time it's been considered for deletion, see Talk:Fordigraph, I think something needs to be done. Andrewa (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to General Binding Corporation would seem to be appropriate. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kaneva. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneva Game Platform[edit]

Kaneva Game Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't see any claim to notability here. It also lacks significant coverage and is written like an advert. DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self-sourced article, no evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has no reliable sources and appears to be primarily promotional.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kaneva per WP:PRODUCT Marasmusine (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and or Redirect to Kaneva per WP:SOAP and WP:Advertising. Wikipedia is not a advertising machine Venustas 12 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Promotional article.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 9 December 2010 (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.  Sandstein  13:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Geissler[edit]

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

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

This seems to be a cross between a poorly referenced biography and a promotional article for the subject's business interests. There may be some notability in here somewhere but Digital Angel already has an article and that probably covers it. DanielRigal (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Clearly promotional interests.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overly promotional. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think the article is advertising sounding or self-promotional sounding. Geissler has done all those things. He has numerous patents, and inventions. That's not self-promotional; doing some basic research reveals that Geissler founded Digital Angel and several other companies, and later sold them. This alone would make him deserving of his own article, and makes a merge into the Digital Angel article somewhat inappropriate (this was a company he sold). BoogieTime (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC) — BoogieTime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks sockpuppet! Since this is your only edit, we can discount you from the consensus. This article was created by User:1weezie23, a sockpuppet of indef-blocked User:Smkovalinsky as a paid article writing. The efforts were done just prior to the sell of Digital Angel as promotional. Since Kovalinsky insists on calling us Wikipedians morons, etc. and states that she will persist as she pleases, knowingly violating policies for money....very ugly behavior...this article needs to be canned.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Click the Google news archive search please. The first result is about him, giving ample coverage, and I'm sure other results are about him as well. And if you think its overly promotional, then work on the article, adding a tag about that even. AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD IS Cleanup in this case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the principle that AfD is not for cleanup. I would not have started the AfD if I didn't believe that deletion was the right outcome and that cleanup was not possible. I probably worded the nomination quite badly, by not mentioning notability and verifiability as concerns. Deletion is to be decided on the notability and suitability of the topic. The possibility of it being a commissioned piece of COI is not pertinent to deletion, although it is a good reason to gut the article down to a neutral stub if it is kept. Dream Focus's argument is valid. I just think that he is mistaken in believing that there is material here for a verifiable biography sourced from reliable independent sources. The USA Today article is about Digital Angel's products. It offers little of use in a biography. What we would need is coverage of him as a person, focussing on his career as a serial entrepreneur, not just coverage of his companies where he is covered in passing. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He probably has done all that. However, do we need such repetitive detail and such an unreadable article? It does look promotional in places, perhaps not surprising considering its origin. Could I suggest (without volunteering) that the article would well cut down to basics (which would not please Ms Kovalinsky or whoever she is) which would give an article about someone who does seem to have a certain notability. (Don't tell him I said this, but MichaelQSchmidt is rather good at that sort of thing...) Peridon (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G5: lack of notability/significant third party sourcing (especially beyond the business side, which already has its own article), lack of focus (article jumps from person to business interests), promotional tone. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upgraded to 'Speedy', per Artemis84. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If BereanHunter knows that BoogieTime is a sock for certain, s/he should have blocked BoogieTime immediately and removed h/er vote. My suspicion is, however, that Bhunter is playing some sort of political game here that we're unaware of. I don't think s/he should make this kind of blanket accusation without some clear evidence. Nevertheless, my vote is to
  Delete regardless. 1weezie23 is a known sock. Therefore, this article shouldn't have been created in the first place; it is fruit from a poisoned tree. Sockpuppets can, within reason, have their entire edit reverted or deleted, as a matter of course. Although I do believe the subject is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. It seems unfair that the subject should be penalized simply because the writer was/is a sock. My recommendation is that someone (and I'm not volunteering) move the article to their userspace and clean it up. Artemis84 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Artemis is a meatpuppet of Smkovalinsky and he is all around the articles crafted by gnosisarts. He is promoting their search tool (M0rpheme) on his user page (only person on Wikipedia to do so). I recorded an accusation about you last night here...and then, out of the clear blue, without having edited since July, you appear at AfD to try to save your client and worker. You are associated with gnosisarts, yes? Owner? (yes) Anyone looking at your contribs will see the articles that were the work of S. Kovalinsky or her socks. I see you editing the article, Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African Americans, which was commissioned at gnosis. I see you tried to save an article written by User:34pin6, another Kovalinsky sock, here. You also appear at Keithley Instruments where Kovalinsky's sock, User:Dcsm23 edited for money. You also tried to save an article written by same sock here and now have it as a draft in your userspace. The high coincidence of you appearing on their articles with no more contribs than you have is implausible.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 20:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Promotional article created by a paid editor. We should not be encouraging editors who are creating articles for money by keeping these articles around. All of the references about this subject are primarily about Digital Angel and its products, not about Geissler. SnottyWong ^chat 20:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and block all sock puppets. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunflowergal34 Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts Multimedia Communications LLC Sunflowergal34 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slender Man[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

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

Non-notable Internet meme. Lacks any reliable secondary sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Contested PROD. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Videos on this are nearing a thousand and its getting popular on numerous sites, its been mention on Coast to Coast with Art Bell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.62.44 (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC) — 74.110.62.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. Something Awful meme sourced from Something Awful, Something Awful and... Something Awful. Grow up, guys. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's becoming a more and more prominent phenomenon: it's more well known then half of the articles in the "Internet memes" category. The fact that the marble hornets videos are getting 60 000+ views within the first week of their release, plus the older videos having as many as half a million views is testament enough to that. SlightlyChaotic (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)— SlightlyChaotic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. Maybe it could be kept if it were getting lots of coverage via reliable sources (or a lot of Gnews hits). Right now, the only "sources" I can find are blogs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Marble Hornets creators were featured in some online magaziene articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.6.40 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's far more prominent and noteworthy than many other internet memes and proper sources are certainly available, its the article itself that just needs to be improved. --Chaos Indy (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Erpert. A check for sourcing gives only blogs and meme related sites at the moment. This topic is well documented on such sites that collect memes, but I don't believe this meets the notability requirements for an entry in an encyclopedia. --Taelus (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Jebavý[edit]

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

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

does not pass WP notability for a tennis player either as a junior or senior player Mayumashu (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets guidelines for notability by participating in the highest level of his sport.Edward321 (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NTENNIS as a junior player achieving a ranking of 3 (see [8]). -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I failed to notice that it says a top three ranking makes one WP notable. Nomination withdrawn Mayumashu (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities Worldwide[edit]

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

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

Orphaned article about a minimally notable media company. References do not demonstrate notability and some are not even relevant. DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The first AfD lists delete as outcome and this should have happened then. Not notable.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was deleted over four years ago and was recreated this August. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Spam-tastic, mate! Have a look at the creator, Saf251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Guy (Help!) 23:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've just declined a speedy on this as it is no so horrible as to warrant being deleted without discussion. I considered deleting it as a recreation of previously deleted content, but this version uses sources that were not attached to the previous version. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional page on non-notaqble business created by paid editors.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. So blatantly spammy and promotional. Cindamuse (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Multiple rocket launcher.  Sandstein  08:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Launch Rocket Truck[edit]

Multiple Launch Rocket Truck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be an ill-conceived neologism. The only references I found were forks of Wikipedia. Marcus Qwertyus 21:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteRedirect to either Technical (fighting vehicle) or Multiple rocket launcher, The rocket-launching trucks can be covered under Technical (fighting vehicle) as opposed to making up a name for them. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Multiple rocket launcher. There is no distinction with that term between trucks and tracked vehicles. Seems like someone was on the right path, but didn't use a more general search term. I'm not sure I buy the distinction with technicals, either. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why there is any reason to redirect if the term is original research or just made up. Marcus Qwertyus 01:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me like the kind of thing that might be searched for, actually. Somebody with no military knowledge who's curious might well think "truck that launches multiple rockets = Multiple Launch Rocket Truck, right?". - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like he said, it was a valid enough search term that somebody couldn't find "multiple rocket launcher" and started an article on this name. Redirects are cheap. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:41, 8 December 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huburban[edit]

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

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

Non-notable term. No legitimate uses found when googling, let alone academic information needed to establish notability. Malinaccier (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I am listing this after a 10 day PROD expired, but there was a declined PROD in the past, making it ineligible to be deleted by PROD later. Malinaccier (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was thinking redirect to urban renewal, but this word doesn't seem to have caught on. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOTNEO/WP:MADEUP. Roscelese (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. The structure of the target article does not currently allow a merger. Once to does, content can be merged from the history.  Sandstein  13:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Widlansky[edit]

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

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

26-year-old AA (Double-A) minor league baseball player. Not notable enough for his own article, yet. Perhaps a merge? Alex (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Spanneraol. He's still active, though doesn't appear to be a serious prospect. I don't consider "Bleacher Report" to be e reliable source. It's certainly not up to the caliber of "Baseball America" --Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the CHERUB and Henderson's Boys series[edit]

Chronology of the CHERUB and Henderson's Boys series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article has no real-world notability and it's written with an in-universe perspective, it has zero third-party sources to verify notability and it's a plot-only description of a fictional work. It does not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline or appropriate topics for lists. This is an unneeded content fork and meets the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- excessive fan trivia, written in an in-universe style, with no sources to establish the real-world importance. Reyk _YO! 00:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK from the main series article. Being a notable series doesn't entitle you to two different articles about the series. Moreover, this article is entirely an explanation of the plot, and Wikipedia articles are supposed to be WP:NOT#PLOT only. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is a Content fork then why not merge it into either CHERUB or Henderson's Boys? Regards, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Offshoot to wikia or something. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:41, 10 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 13:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Mob[edit]

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

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

Essay, something made up one night, see WP:NOT (prod removed) WuhWuzDat 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, author admits in deprod edit summary that this is a neologism; only source is a joke article in The Onion. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Author refutes assertion that term itself is a neologism, cites October 7, 1919 Article from Atlanta Constitution entitled "NEGROES BURNED BY MONSTER MOB AT LINCOLNTON"

Author also cites, in Wikipedia entry, well-documented evidence (in seven instances) the phenomenon/plot device the term describes does, in fact, exist. Author also refutes assertion that article cited in The Onion can be regarded only as a joke, and thus not as a source of the idea of "Monster Mobs". This article is piece of satire based on the aforementioned well-documented examples of this phenomenon/plot device. To assert that this article is can be considered nothing more than a joke is to suggest not only that the staff at The Onion are not serious, credible, and legitimate writers, but that satire itself is not a credible part of literature, when satire, as a genre, has earned great credibility by enhancing it.

Also, the phrase "Monster Mob", although used in a different context for a different meaning, is not technically a "neologism", as it is the name of an established company, MonsterMob Group Plc, http://www.monstermobgroup.plc.uk

I have created this page because, this phrase has been insufficiently attributed to a plot device (and phenomenon) that has been part of the narratives of multiple cultures for hundreds of years. While this is often referred to as by the terms similar in effect to "A group of torch-wielding villagers", this is not necessarily accurate, as not all mobs that pursue monsters are equipped with torches.

Likewise, a sufficient wikipiedia entry does not exist to describe this phenomenon/plot device. The phrase angry mob redirects to Ochlocracy, which implies that such a mob is a de facto form of government. However, these types of mobs are seldom driven by desire for governance, but rather for a desire for vigilantism.

This concept has been well-documented in various forms of media, in various cultures, for hundreds of years, especially in supernatural folklore. Do delete this article is, in effect, that deny that this well-documented phenomenon and plot device exists. Part of an encyclopedia's purpose is to convey ideas to those who wish to learn more about them.

Uses of the term "Monster Mob" found in search:

"NEGROES BURNED BY MONSTER MOB AT LINCOLNTON", Atlanta Constitution - ProQuest Archiver - Oct 7, 1919 ^[1]--MonkeyPundit (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)— MonkeyPundit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Further Documented Use of the term "Monster Mob". "Monster Mob" used on page 51 of the 2009 biography of Abraham Lincoln entitled One Man Great Enough, written by John C. Waugh. ^[2]--MonkeyPundit (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)— MonkeyPundit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - Maybe merge this with Ochlocracy, it contains info not found there. Maybe keep as separate article. MonkeyPundit, you aren't helping yourself by defending The Onion's journalism. Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion's Journalism I'm not defending The Onion as journalism. I'm defending it as literature. --MonkeyPundit (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)— MonkeyPundit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - sources insufficient to establish notability that is separate from large, angry mobs in general.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Monster delete. "Monster mob" is not in itself a distinct term of art, just a random bit of hyperbole. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citation [1] is absolutely referring to "monster mob" in the sense of a mob that is large in size, not a mob to deal with a monster as claimed, and I'd bet reference [2] uses it in the same context. The rest is WP:SYN and WP:MADEUP. The Onion as a source? Ye gads. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, MonkeyPundit, please top removing the SPA tags, as you did here and here I have re-added them and removing them again WILL be considered a refactoring of talk page comments. WuhWuzDat 06:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guy. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:42, 10 December 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonescent[edit]

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

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

While they had some briefly charting singles, there is no reliable sources available that are from non-paywalled national publications to verify the article. Mattg82 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep However there are plenty of articles behind those paywalls. Those may be all that are needed to pass the requirement that the subject be verifiable, not verified. Anyone have a subscription the the archives of the Evening Times? Also, I found this interview from the Scottish Daily Record & Sunday along with these articles. Several are minor mentions, but a few have coverage. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 04:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Their chart hits make them clearly notable. We don't require sources to be easily available to people sitting at their PC in order to have articles here. The UK News archive has 157 results - I'm happy to work through those and improve the article when the AFD closes. --Michig (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...in fact I've already made a start.--Michig (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and, I would say, finished.--Michig (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article deserves to stay, now that references and citations have been added. Andrew07 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Sporting Moments[edit]

100 Greatest Sporting Moments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A list based on a viewer poll broadcast on UK telesvion. This list is a regurgitation of a TV show that list "100 Best/Worst." This list alone is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article provides no context and the list itself is almost certainly copyright. Generic "100 greatest" space-filler TV with no independent critical sources, not even saying how abysmal such shows inevitably are, and this one was (I watched some of it, God knows why). The only cited source is the listings page from the broadcaster. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and probably all the other articles linked from 100 Greatest/100 Worst should be round filed too as WP:LISTCRUFT. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 100 Greatest/100 Worst. The 100 Greatest/Worst series is now a very well-known franchise on Channel 4, but I'm not sure whether there's enough of a case for the individual programmes to have articles. I would suggest a content debate, but since this article barely says anything other than what this programme is, there's not much to preserve. But I definitely think we should have an article when they make the inevitable 100 Greatest 100 Greatest programmes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This article is poorly sourced and does not belong on Wikipedia, unless all the moments are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock24 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 100 Greatest/100 Worst. Not notable in its own right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Portillo (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Addison[edit]

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

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

A few passing mentions of this researcher in news and TV review sources are not enough for WP:N. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. His asserted ability to hold his breath for six minutes might be worth a mention in an appropriate article, but that ability and a TV show do not demonstrate notability. PhGustaf (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete researcher where? He does not appear to be a professor either. Nergaal (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Invitrovanitas (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2010 (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. The nominator cancelled his recommendation and removed the AfD template from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey (1998 film)[edit]

Harvey (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) •

Afd statistics

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

Lacks sources, references, director, cast, (only Leslie Nielsen), plot and other links rather than IMDB. Also lacks notability Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:23 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cancel that, creator supplied more information

So this nomination was more of a complaint about lack of content that actually believing it non notable? You know, AFD is not supposed to be a demand and supply service.You shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion in ths way. If you want an article expanded just ask. A quick check would have shown that a CBS production starring some very notable actors is more than an adequate subject,..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the page was only made two days ago. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:16 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep standard TV article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 20:17, 3 December 2010 (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Roxxx[edit]

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

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

These marginal pornstar BLPs really need to be shown the door. This article was deleted only a short time ago, a deletion that was upheld at a DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 12). Unfortunately, someone took it upon themselves to recreate this tripe because she was nominated for a few AVN awards this year. The problem is that the shaky criteria for this is WP:PORNBIO, the legitimacy of which is in dispute, as its bar for inclusion is rather low. Since the subject of this article fails the WP:GNG and IMO WP:PORNBIO is inapplicable, this needs to be deleted and salted to prevent further abuse. I am especially sickened by this "neener neener" told you so! childishness posted by a porn bio proponent, 2 weeks after the DRV closed. Marginal BLPs are a sore enough subject as it is; they should not be tossed around like glorified trophies. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." (emphasis mine) Tabercil (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AVN is not "a well-known and significant award or honor", that is the point herel it has no meaning or importance outside the closed circle that is the porn industry. The idea that the porn industry can nominate and award little gold stars for itself, and that somehow proves notability, is just ludicrous. This "we make our own notability thresholds" standard needs to be eliminated. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree and so do the books and newspapers. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This nomination has the stink of WP:IDONTLIKEIT all over it.SPNic (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I rather enjoy a little T&A, Racquel Darrian in particular. I just want there to be articles where their notability is crystal-clear, rather than articles lie these which seem to be created for advertising purposes. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AVN and AFDB are unreliable, as with virtually all porn-related publications they do not break the kayfabe and report fiction and PR as fact. The only independent reliable (for some values of reliable) source is a mention in a listing page for a Howard Stern show, which is nowhere near this person having been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. As the nominator implies, we appear to be accepting a lower standard of sourcing for porn "star" biographies on the basis that virtually none of them have ever achieved any mainstream attention. That might just about cut it for Pokemon but these are (notionally) WP:BLPs, although most of them are more fictional character bios. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? So I interpret your argument right, then Variety can't be used for actor and movie-related articles and Billboard can't be used for music and musician-articles? Because according to the New York Times, that's what AVN is: "an industry magazine that is to pornographic films what the trade publication Billboard is to records." Tabercil (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. If WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO support it, then it should be included; if they shouldn't support it, then they should be modified accordingly so they don't, and then the articles no longer supported can be AfD'd. In the meantime, trying to circumvent them because they shouldn't qualify an article for inclusion, IMHO, isn't quite kosher. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes PORNBIO. AVN Awardss are the top awards of the genre, reported by multiple newspapers every year around January, and is televised by Showtime so the argument they are not well-known is weak. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tabercil, Morbidthoughts, and SPNic. AVNs are the awards for a multi-billion dollar industry. It's not fly-by-night or awarded by some unknown web site. Dismas|^(talk) 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trout nominator - Per WP:NOTCENSORED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barts1a (talk • contribs) 23:02, December 4, 2010
• Keep per Morbidthoughts & Tabercil Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per meeting WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO through multiple nominations of notable awards significant to that genre. It would seem reasonable that AVN Magazine would be just as acceptable for verfying the results of their various awards just as are the Screen Actors Guild in verifying their own SAG Awards, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists in verifying their own AFTRA Awards, and the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in verifying their own Academy Awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. This nomination has the stink of WP:IDONTLIKEIT all over it. Tarc, I would call this a own-goal.--Hixteilchen (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete im not going to go in the validity of having a biography on a glorifeid prostitute on wikiepdia. while there asre some porners like Jenna Jameson that have legitimate mainstream coverage in the mainstream media, there are also hunrdedds of porn stars whose names arent really known or covered outside of porn industry blogs and random little dinky ratholes on the Net. one criteria that we need to remember is WP:N and WP:V. especially the later, its difficult to find verifiable sources on these porn people because half the time the article writers dont even bother to find their real names or to figure out what fake name theyre using to whore. this isnt necessarily a disaster except that they rarely bother to find sources that cover this that would meet ANY standard of notability currently upeld by Wikipedia. articles like pople on Rahcel Roxx are only marginally more notable than your average garage band and posting articles on every hooker in California isnt going to fly unless you can find sources to verify some of these comments, which also dangerously push up on WP:BLP without reliable sources. to reiterate, this article should be deleted and ONLY rercreated once verifiable, WP:RSs are detected. User:Smith Jones 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, reading through that, I get a distinct feeling that the tl;dr version of your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As noted, she is notable per the standards established for this kind of article on/by Wikipedia. If you don't think she should be, then propose a change to the criteria, don't go calling for "Speedy Delete"s on articles that meet those standards in an effort to get them changed. In addition, as mentioned before, it's WP:COMMONSENSE that AVN is a WP:RS with regard to the AVN Awards. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe it's just me but I don't see how I'm supposed to take your points seriously when you can't put aside your personal moral objections to Roxxx and others in her field. So, why not try that again without the ad hominem attacks and keep a WP:CIVIL tongue next time. As for "not bothering to find their real names", would you make the same accusations against those who write about John Wayne, Jon Stewart, Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, Martin Sheen, Nicholas Cage, Nathan Lane, or Diane Keaton and refer to them by their stage names? Dismas|^(talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• it's probably just you, because i have never said or implied anything like that. I dont have any personal moral objections to Roxxx or anyone involved in the pornographic industr.y Unlike many politicians and business tycoons, she at least has never killed anyon, never robbed anyone, never violated someone elses rights or despoiled the environment. i might not perosnaly care much for pornography but compared to some of the things that other people who have articles do she might as well be a saint.
• however, my personal feelings -- and YOURS -- are irrelevant. And nice try with that list of names. Unlike this article, the articles for Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, and Martin Sheen bother to mention those people's real names. This article does not. It uses her stage name (Rachel Roxxx) and no one has bothered to produce any source that actually contains her real name. I totally get why the article is called Rachel Roxxx and why it would use that name, but in the other articles the person's REAL name is also at least briefly mentioned in the bio box. this oversight would be completely unacceptable with any article on any one else other than a porn star, but for some reason on the topic of porn actresses every attempt at verifiability and WP:BLP goes out the window for some reason. I really don't understand why articles on porn stars are always so shoddy and poorly substantiated, but it's getting really annoying. regardless o whether or not you think that their industry is good or not, it's disrespectful to them -- and more important, the reader to have such sparse and poorly-sourced articles on them. User:Smith Jones 03:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well for one thing, they use pseudonyms for a reason. Y'know, something about there being a nasty stigma associated by some people about pornography. And there are porn star articles where their real names were redacted at the star's request. One recent example I can name offhand: Flower Tucci. And there's an nice lil' OTRS ticket behind it as well. Tabercil (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You think you're being civil when you call her a whore ("...theyre using to whore.") and suggest that she's a hooker ("...posting articles on every hooker")? But really, why is listing a legal name so important? It has nothing to do with their notability. Dismas|^(talk) 04:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Now is the time to snap the pornographers' stranglehold on wikipedia. [9] Let's send a message tonight.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err...I have no idea what to say to this, other than I have no idea what those two are talking about, and that's a pretty clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Not to mention...let's say it again...the article meets ALL of Wikipedia's own standards for inclusion. Not to mention that saying we should delete an article to "send a message" smacks of WP:POINTY. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Popular article, probably gets more hits daily than 95% of all articles, exists on many wikis, has sufficient sourcing to show notability. Has three XXXs in last name, I think that has some deep literary meaning.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - AVN spam - not notable woman being used for promotion of a industry award. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No more AVN apam than an article about some one receiving a BAFTA award is BAFTA spam when the awards are listed. Listing and verifying one's awards is exactly as encouraged by guideline to show notability per WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, a better analogy would be a comic convention nomination for "Best New Superhero Comic of the Year" being used to assert notability for someone's comic book. A circle-jerk of you-congratulate-me-and-I'll-congratulate-you is not suitable for notability, and I do not feel that ANYBIO's "significant nomination" criteria was meant for this kind of low-hanging fruit. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You could easily make the same case against the Oscars, or the Golden Globes, or... IMHO, (a) winning an major industry award, or (b) being nominated for multipe major industry awards, is a strong argument for notability, and she satisfies (b). And, as has been pointed out multiple times, according to Wikipedia's own standards she is notable. Whether or not those standards are valid is not a subject for AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the Oscars have a much longer-established history of notability and easily demonstrable significance. These "what about X?" arguments are really weak, bordering on pathetic. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So how many years must an award be in existence for it to be notable, according to you. Dismas|^(talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think this proves notability, I was so shocked I had to do a screengrab of it!!!1--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it doesn't matte the # of years, the real issue is MAINSTREAM media coverage in recognzied and respcted WP:RS and WP:N sources. the problem here is that, unlike other porn actresses w ho have articles, her entire noabiltiy exists within a very small niche that has little mainstream coverage. I could create an award for unnotable garage bands and nominate every single garage band 100x and it still wouldnt be okay. User:Smith Jones 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the linked piece -- having trouble getting this one to come up again. [10]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/reply to Milowent -- according to WP:AUTO, the merest fact that the subjet of this WP:BLP is also an editor on Wikeipida is even more of a reason why this article should be subject to the fullest cruinty of policy. We cant just take on credit that everything anyone says about themselves is true and the risk of WP:COI if she edits her own article extensively or particpates in the debate above and beyond a regular user is great. User:Smith Jones 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:...I'm calling shenanigans on Milowent's posted "pictures". There is no User:Rachel Roxxx on wikipedia, and I really, really doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation would allow the language in that second note to appear! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, the wording is suspiciously similar to this, legit, fundraiser ad. Milowent, I'm all for assuming good faith, but what evidence do we have that youthese images haven't been photoshopped those images in a WP:POINTY attempt to get this article deleted? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I !voted keep above, so I don't want to get it deleted. Beyond that, you are right that it seems very suspicious.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. In that case, my apologies for directing POINTY accusations your way, then. But yeah, this stinks, and badly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject fails WP:PORNBIO, since she has received no awards, only one nomination as an actor/performer; nominations for scenes are not classified as performer nominations by AVN itself, and are listed separately from actor/performer nominations by AVN itself. Subject fails WP:ANYBIO, since AVN Awards are not generally "well-known" and "significant". Perhaps their top awards might fall under that description, but no one can reasonably argue that all 75 pages [11] worth of nominations qualify, across-the-board. And it's very hard to argue the significance or independence of those awards, since if you review the magazine's online archives it becomes pretty clear that the awards are closely associated with advertising purchases - pull a random issue and you'll likely see that 90-95% of the releases with half-page ads or larger end up with nominations. The subject pretty clearly fails the GNG, and there's no sign of enough verifiable content to construct an encyclopedic article from. I'm also struck by the frequency with which porn performers whose articles are deleted pick up these noms, making me wonder about marketing campaigns. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - please assume more good fiath sirr; while I do not agree with those who would want to ekep this article on Wikipedia, its also unfair to intimate that they are working for some company or are paid shills of the porn idnustry. I believe that everyone on either sid eof this debate means well and is tryin to aplly policies are fairly and as chivalricly as possible. User:Smith Jones 03:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• .Reply. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that there might be some shenanigans going on with the award noms. Certainly there are porn promoters out there trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool -- see a recent runin I had with one of them over the Vicky Vette article [12] -- and I wonder if there are a few attempts to game Wikipedia decisions. I don't think the "paid shills" are right here, but they may be savvy enough to try to affect the outcomes in discussions like this one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• .Reply and Apology - my apologies then i misinterpreted what you were asaying. I have no doubt that their corrupt forces outsides of the Wiki who seek to influence our proces for political or economic gian. while i do not think that any editor here reading this is part of any dishoenst or devious campaigning, i have also no doubt that there are corrupt forces outside of the Wiki who seek to manipulate this process for their own selfish purposes, and that they might be beyond these unnotable restrictions on our editorial containment.
• .Sincere apologies -- I would also like to apologize for the vandalism and hatreful comments made by the thuggish editor User:96.44.132.23, an non-reggie "editor" who has threatened to kill you or your grandkids on your page in order to win a content dispute on your talk page. this is beyond the pale and i am reprehensed by this behavior. User:Smith Jones 17:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biography without substantial sources, only spam from the porn industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1964 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, Morbidthoughts and Tabercil. Please stick to policy based arguments. Whether AVN is an acceptable source or not has been discussed many times before without any consensus against it. So there is not point to start that discussion over and over again in every second AfD. Whether pornographic actors in general should have articles in Wikipedia or not is also no question to be discussed here. Testales (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the above and as per last time and as per policy. Testales makes a couple of good points. --78.101.253.29 (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2010 (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. Any merger discussion can take place on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Orpheus[edit]

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

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

This page has been previously deleted and still does not meet notability guidelines. It also has been edited repeatedly by the subject of the article leading me to believe that it is nothing more than a vanity page.

• Redirect to The Cassandra Complex (band). Still can't see any evidence of notability independent of the band. There's no reason why individual band members can't have their subsequent work summarised on the page of the band, and if that becomes too much for one page, then we can consider a split, but all of the sources cited here appear to be incidental mentions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge to The Cassandra Complex (band). He's certainly notable for his musical career with The Cassandra Complex and (briefly) Sisters of Mercy, and his other work and writing adds to this. The amount of verifiable content, however, means that a merge to the band may be the best option.--Michig (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• When is this article going to be merged or deleted? Theseus1776 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be an awful lot of verifiable material here, actually. And I agree that the musical career alone should be enough for a keep.ArchieOof (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person who just created their account. Spawn of RodneyOrpheus? This page must be combined with that of Cassandra Complex. Much of this information is repeated or created by the subject of the post. It has been deleted before and reappeared. Theseus1776 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2010 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Jin Yong's novels[edit]

Chronology of Jin Yong's novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

All material appears to be original research, the article has no inline citations for verifiability and there doesn't seem to be third-party sources to verify notability. The external links are apparently for a Chinese forum, not a reliable website and the same applies to the two notes used within the article. I don't think that this article meets the general notability guideline or the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. This appears to be mostly an indiscriminate collection of information and an unnecessary content fork primarily written with an in-universe perspective. I believe it meets the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this really is a Wikipedia article in any way, shape or form Sadads (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article is about fictional timelines taken from Chinese sword-fighting novels. Therefore, apart from the novel, there can exist few other third-party sources, unless you count in those on other forums and discussion pages. As for the lack of inline citations, this is because I have previously separated parts of this timeline into segments (see the templates transcluded into the article such as this one) and thus all citations to the novel has been moved to those templates. I hope this clears some things up. NoNews! 02:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User:Newfraferz87 is right that third party sources are hardly available. I don't think the article fits into any of the six types listed at WP:IINFO. The article is a compilation of the plot summaries of all the novels, with the events listed in chronological order, therefore it's not exactly content forking. I think it's useful in helping readers of the novels understand the flow of events better. Again, quotations and information extracted directly from the primary source (the work of fiction, i.e. the novel) do not constitute original research. Therefore, I think it's wrong to say that the entire article consists of purely OR material. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking third party sources to verify notability of this chronological topic. And as a second reason, this article Wikipedia articles are supposed to be WP:NOT#PLOT only, whereas there is no third-party who has said anything out-of-universe about this chronology. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter S. Williams[edit]

Peter S. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Obscure academic, with a junior position at an institution too small and obscure to even rate an article (fails WP:PROF). No indication that his apologetics or ID advocacy has gotten any notice (fails WP:CREATIVE & WP:BIO). There appears to be no published coverage that is either third party or reliable (let alone both). Disputed WP:PROD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only claim to notability seems to be that we should consider him notable as an evangelical Protestant apologist, whatever that is. Unfortunately, that is not how notability is measured on Wikipedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are numerous evangelical Protestants notable in the field of Christian apologetics. There is however no indication that Williams is one of them (so I get your point). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as he is not notable, upon my research. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2010 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WiSmart[edit]

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

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

A notability tag has been added and removed from the article a couple times with no notability established. The article was then WP:PROD'd and that was removed with an edit summary of "it's not the easiest thing to add notability to a brand new product..please be patient and wait at least for an update before change the status twice in a week..otherwise open a ticket for discussi". That leads me to believe that the editors who have been working on this article think of Wikipedia as an advertising platform. The only two "sources" are an article about a related product from Google and a mention in a blog which merely shows that the product exists. Note: The creator of the article was blocked due to their username being the same as the company that makes the WiSmart. Dismas|^(talk) 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing present in the article when I reviewed it consisted of a blog (unreliable source), and the SF Chronicle which is a reliable source, but the article itself makes no mention of the WiSmart so it does not verify anything nor counts for anything towards notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by admin HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G12. (non-admin closure) Ray^Talk 03:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everest (mathematical competition)[edit]

Everest (mathematical competition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced article on a generic maths competition recreated after deletion byt he same WP:SPA who created it. No claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Unable to find any references to the competition on the web, but this may be due to language difficulties (the competition is in Georgia the country, not Georgia the US state). The translated linked website doesn't have any information on coverage of the contest, but does list results for only 2009 and 2010. If no references are found to support the article, I would say Delete. Syrthiss (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This article was NOT recreated after deletion. It was undeleted by me. It was created by someone else. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically you are both correct. The new account created it on Nov 28, and it was speedied. It was then recreated on Dec 2, speedied, and restored. Syrthiss (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How can the account that created this be called a "single-purpose account" when it's only a few days old and has such a short edit history? Everyone's editing history contains edits on only one topic when it's brand-new. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I tend to agree that this didn't qualify for speedy deletion, I can find no evidence on Google News, Scholar or Books for notability of this recently-founded country-specific math competition. There is a corresponding article on the Georgian Wikipedia that Google Translate renders semi-intelligible to English speakers, but it lacks references (or indeed any external links). --Qwfp (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of reliably-published third party sources that would lend notability to the subject. I agree that the speedy deletion was inappropriate, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nom says "No claim of notability", which is false. The first line of the article is "Everest is one of the most famous mathematical competitions in Georgia." —Mark Dominus (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. I tried looking at the Georgian version of the page for sources but no, then searching on the heading of that article in Georgian finds the WP page, the official site, some meta search engines and eventually blog entries. Nothing that looks like a reliable source.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep − I managed to find some sources first time. For example here and here. The latter says that 10,000 students are registered for the competition.— Fly by Night (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Upon reflection, the article seems to be a copyvio of that second reference. I'll tag it now. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Surplus value in Islam[edit]

Theory of Surplus value in Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Entirely OR, not supportable by available sources, improperly formatted with no improvement in 11 months MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought that this might be rescuable, but the most preliminary of searches revealed that this article's creator, Nasireddin (talk · contribs), dumped this same text across several article talk pages. I deduce that dumping it in article space as well was simply more of the same and not really the creation of an article. As such, I think it appropriate to delete this content and leave a proper stub on such a subject to be started afresh at our leisure. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTESSAY ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of battle of white plains[edit]

Ghost of battle of white plains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not well written and entirely unverified article. I cannot find any kind of evidence of an urban myth of ghostly activity based on a supposed event in a battle which is recounted in a novel--but this convolution means I could not find a speedy category. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a hoax: zero ghits for "Lars Oberwith"; no relevant ghits for "Matthew Calek". Your AfD and my speedy overlapped so it's now tagged as speedy. I propose to leave it that way. andy (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent--well done. Thanks. The article should soon go the way of Mix Master K. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Meineke[edit]

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

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 15:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mr. Meineke is notable as the director of both the Ohio Spiritual Warfare Center and the Padre Pio Center for Deliverance Counseling. He performs Christian deliverance for people free of charge. He has written on the subject and has answered many questions concerning spiritual warfare and the Catholic faith at the organizations forums. He is especially notable because the specialization of Christian deliverance is a very small field. Friuli (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - possible speedy candidate under WP:A7. I can't find any coverage of this person in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage, and I don't see much assertion of notability in the article. Robofish (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm pretty sure this doesn't fall under A7 but it certainly falls afoul of WP:GNG. Can't find any significant coverage of the man. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 10:19, 5 December 2010 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight 64[edit]

Moonlight 64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Looks like a hoax. I can't find any reference to this product on Google, or even on Youtube (as the article creator claims). This is such a poorly written article -- it's almost unintelligible -- with no value whatsoever. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Hoax or not, there's little evidence for the existence, much less the notability, of this product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched Lexis-Nexis Academic for "All News" using the phrase "Moonlight 64" and could find no mention of any product under that name. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given that it really contradicts itself, in addition to a complete lack of references, I think this is clearly a hoax article. --Dorsal Axe 12:26, 10 December 2010 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Impact! Entertainment Company[edit]

Sudden Impact! Entertainment Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Non-notable company lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. The references listed are short single item statements within a bigger article about another topic. I see some primary sources, but the article lacks secondary sources. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I wrote the article myself and I have posted my reasoning to keep the article on the its talk page. Themeparkgc  Talk  21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – As indicated in the nomination, the sources are not adequate to support the article for inclusion. The articles you refer to in the talk page are either about the founder with a very, very brief statement that he is the founder of the company or are not "non-trival" coverage of the article. If I am missing adequate secondary coverage that meets WP:RS, please point those out. ttonyb (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because this article clearly has tons of coverage is well sourced and written, and is on a topic of interest that many would probably expect to find on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 November 2010

• Comment – Just saying something is so does not make it so, please point out "non-trivial" secondary coverage about the company (not a very, very brief statement in a reference that would support the founder of the company) that meets WP:RS. Just being a topic of interest that might be of interest to readers is not a criteria in notability. There are many interesting subjects that are not notable that do not meet notability criteria and therefore are not on Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are in the article, it the sources establish notabilityTHISBITES 10:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs)

• Comment – Once again, just saying something is so does not make it so, I assume since you are unable to point out what I have asked for it does not exist in the article. ttonyb (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refer yourself to the "References" section at the bottom of the page and look through the linksTHISBITES 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs)

• Comment – I have looked. Once again, just saying something is so does not make it so, I assume since you are unable to point out what I have asked for it does not exist in the article. I am willing to change my mind and agree with you that there are adequate sources if you can indeed point them out. ttonyb (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because this article is of Wikipedia standard and this company is well notable in the Theme Park industry, creating world class attractions around the world. GoldCoastGuy (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Please indicate how this article meets the criteria in WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – WP:COMPANY's primary criteria for notability are as follows: Depth of coverage, Audience and Independence of sources. To satisfy the audience criteria, the company must be covered by national or international media. Sudden Impact has been covered in the UK, Malaysia, Australia and Canada - more than sufficient international coverage to pass this criteria. The independence of sources criteria states "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles". There are several newspaper articles referenced within the article (all of which satisfy WP:RS) including Adelaide Now, The Age, Courier Mail, Gold Coast Bulletin, Mirror, The Star, and Today Tonight. These are in addition to reports from the Associated Press and Canadian Press. None of this material is press material, self-published nor any of the other exceptions listed in this criteria. The final criteria is that of depth of coverage. To satisfy this criteria it needs to have coverage more than a permastub (which it clearly does) by reliable sources. Although there are some sources which do come under the "identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" section, these are very minimal and only form part of the infobox. Coverage from Park World should be considered reliable because they have an editorial oversight and all articles have been published in print and online. Printed publication has been completed by the UK's Datateam. Similarly, Attractions Management Magazine has an editorial team with all articles published in print (by Leisure Media) and online. Together these two sources satisfy WP:V and WP:RS which results in depth of coverage criteria being satisfied also. Therefore I conclude that the Sudden Impact! Entertainment Company does pass the criteria of notability for a company. Hopefully this is enough of an explanation to solve this deletion discussion. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Thanks for your explanation; however, what you fail to focus on is the statement, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." A national or international article of a trivial nature does not meet the criteria. The articles you mentioned, as I stated above, are not adequate to support the article for inclusion. The articles you refer to in the talk page (and above) are either about the founder with a very, very brief statement that he is the founder of the company or are not "non-trival" coverage of the article. If I am missing adequate secondary coverage that meets WP:RS, please point those out. As I indicated to THEBITES, if you can point to specific adequate secondary sources in the article, I would be more than happy to agree and change my mind about the nomination. Every time I have asked for the specific references, I am only presented with vague references to a publication, not a specific published article. ttonyb (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I would deem the coverage in Park World and Attractions Management Magazine ([13], [14], [15], [16] and [17] - as referenced in the article) as sufficient coverage that is non-trivial. As I explained in my previous comment above, these sources should be considered reliable ones. These sources are non-trivial because they are wholly about the company, its work and/or founder and are not "sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules" (which is the only criteria of trivial coverage that sort of applies here - all the other criteria is unrelated). As for the sources from local and international media, regardless of whether they have trivial coverage according to the guideline this still helps to establish notability. From WP:COMPANY: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." According to the criteria in the audience section it is irrelevant whether the sources are trivial or non-trivial as neither of these are mention in the section quoted in its entirety above. The other two criteria do, but audience does not. Hopefully this clarifies what I am trying to say with the specific examples listed. I feel it passes all three areas of the notability guideline for companies. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Again, thanks for the explanation. It appears we will have a disagreement about the sources and their validity. We may need to agree to disagree. Let me discuss each one. [18] appears to be an article about their laser tag product and not really "non-trivial" coverage. [19]] and [20] are articles about the company's CEO. Granted it does mention the company, but again the article is about Harris. In addition, since it sourced as his opinion (interview), it is not really secondary coverage. [21] this is really trivial coverage. It is about the attraction, not the company. The Attractions Management article is an article about the company's CEO. Granted it does mention the company, but again the article is about Harris. In addition, since it is an interview, it is not really secondary coverage. Again, thanks for your explanation and my best to you. ttonyb (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I agree to disagree as long as the article isn't deleted :P    Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  07:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Comment Note To Closer: Please notice the single purpose account, and blocked editor who voted here. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would advise the closing admin to look at this search, which it definately passes Verify test and in my opinion it has become a Noteworthy company for what it has accomplished in the entertainment business. So my advise, is to Strongly Keep this would be my close.BLUE_DOG^TN 04:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The nature of the events the company has been associated with are impressive, but notability is not inherited, and there's a lack of good quality independent citations.--Korruski^Talk 15:30, 3 December 2010 (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 Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban Deputy Defense Minister[edit]

Taliban Deputy Defense Minister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:N. A number of people have been described as a Taliban Deputy Defense Minister or somesuch (the article for some reason misses Abdul Ghani Baradar, and it looks like there are even more people with the same function). But no evidence is available that indicates that that function is sufficiently notable to warrant an article here, and no actual information on the function is given in the article. Fram (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Bushranger. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 01:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Bushranger. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, other form of name gives the results I couldn't find for the article title. Fram (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i[edit]

Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO. For this WP:BLP, no reliable independent indepth sources are available. The only two non-US goevrnment sources in the article are a blog and an article in the Miami Herald that mentions his name in a list of released detainees. Google Books[22] lists Wikipedia republishers, the only result through Google Scholar has one sentence about him[23], Google News Archive only gives the name in a list of detainees[24], and regular Google gives only 46 hits[25]. Previous AfD (5 years ago) was listed as "no consensus". Fram (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by blog you mean Andy Worthington's articles? Why Obama Must Continue Releasing Yemenis From Guantánamo Why Obama Must Continue Releasing Yemenis From Guantánamo and UN Secret Detention Report (Part Three): Proxy Detention, Other Countries’ Complicity, and Obama’s Record. He tells parts of Mar’i's story as one of the first victims of “extraordinary rendition” in the “War on Terror”. If you do the Google search with his core name "Jamal Mar'i" -wikipedia you get about 3000 hits including this one. IQinn (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, by "blog" I mean the external link in the article to [26]. Are we certain that all these Jamal Mari links are about this one, or are there different people with the same and similar names involved, as is often the case with these Guantanamo related articles? Note also that many of these hits are from the same pages over and over again, as indicated by the only 69 distinct Google hits[27]. Fram (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, thanks to IQinn. Fram (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 11:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Laos[edit]

List of shopping malls in Laos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable, unreferenced list. Delete or merge content to article about Laos. Kudpung (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I'd suggest merging this would somehow give inappropriate undue weight to the subject. I honestly don't see how a list of malls would fit anywhere in the Laos article (as the most generic example I could give). Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either, but I thought it would be fair to leave that option open. I was in Vientiane last week - and it certainly wasn't for shopping. I don't think the article creator has ever been anywhere near Laos.--Kudpung (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very little content, and it is unsuitable for merging. The fact that it's a list of shopping malls does not help. (I am of the belief that such lists should be nuked from orbit.) ----Divebomb is not British 18:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, Wikipedia is not a directory. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 11:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Burma[edit]

List of shopping malls in Burma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A one-item list of shopping malls in a city that does not have a Wikipedia page. I suggest the list should be either deleted or its content merged to the Burma article. Kudpung (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Admittedly I am biased against lists of shopping malls in general, but this is a terrible, terrible article and there isn't even any real content to merge. ----Divebomb is not British 18:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I suppose you could say it has "content" so it doesn't qualify for A3, but still, geez. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. The arguments to keep are weak, and mostly do not focus on the actual reason for then nomination, which is the lack of reliable sources. Given the concern of avoiding systemic bias redirecting seems appropriate. There are two suggestions for an appropriate target, since two users supported Meenkunnam I will redirect it there, but the subject is still open to discussion of course. Any content worth merging can still be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's Catholic Church Meenkunnam[edit]

St. Joseph's Catholic Church Meenkunnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced page on a building that fails WP:N. There are no Google books[28], Scholar[29] or News Archive[30] results, and only 13 Google results, all of them Wikipedia based. This means that we don't have a single source outside Wikipedia available about this church. Making the Search terms less like the actual article title returns some things[31], but still not sufficient to establich notability. The famous Pieta also gives very few results[32]. Fram (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a lack of references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also for lack of (non-Wikipedia) references. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it seems notable, but needs secondary sources. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is the sourcing/notability issue one of language rather than existence? Perhaps Hindi (or other language sources) exist. Perhaps someone in the WP India can help find some relevant sources... LadyofShalott 05:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. The church seems like a very notable one in India, there is bound to be an Indian-language website talking about it. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this church notable? Having a copy of Michelangelo's Pieta? I've got a copy too. Is my house notable? --Quartermaster (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a claim of notability regarding the pilgrimage routes. Now, I am not saying it actually is notable for this or anything else, just that it may be. It would be nice if someone with access to and ability to read materials other than in English could see if there is anything in Hindi or some other Indian language that would support notability. LadyofShalott 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the references are very much authentic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayakrishnan.ks100 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added few ref sites to the article. the page is very much authentic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobanjohn (talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply to the very similar last two comments: the sources are the diocese (not independent), Wikimapia (not reliable or significant), Chruches in India.com (not significant), and again Wikimapia. None of these helps to reach the minimal requirements of WP:N, our notability guideline. That the church exists is quite clear, but that is not what we are discussing here. If you want to keep the article on this church, you have to provide reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of it, not just passing mentions or the name and address. Fram (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment: I am sympathetic to the problems of Indian articles and sourcing, but really we have nothing to show this church is any more notable that the scores of American church articles that regularly get deleted. Not a perfect resolution, but since it seems to be the big deal in Meenkunnam (its half the content of that short article), let's redirect there until and unless independent notability is shown.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems like a good suggestion, esp. given that several days since my initial query along these lines, no one has apparently found the evidence of notability. LadyofShalott 05:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Syro-Malabar Catholic Diocese of Kothamangalam as that's the next hierarchical stop for this church on en.wiki. Nothing really to say that it's notable. Churches in Kerala/Tamil Nadu will get English press coverage at least in terms of Mass/Feast listings etc if they tend to be high profile. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 11 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 11:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. 7–1 Blackburn Rovers F.C.[edit]

Manchester United F.C. 7–1 Blackburn Rovers F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Individual football match. Not notable enough for a standalone article. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and also suggest inclusion of Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. and Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C., for same reasons. FA Charity Shield and FA Community Shield matches, Champions League Finals, FA Cup and European Cup Finals are all examples of matches notable enough for inclusion, but all three articles seem to be citing the match scores as grounds for notability. Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Like the reasons in here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C., also there are planty of matches like this who also have articles (each one and his reason), also Liverpool, Arsenal and few more clubs have articles like this, so you should check all of tham.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of WP:OTHERSTUFF: if those articles should be proposed for deletion, then feel free to propose them. I only browsed the Man U matches category for similar articles, but no doubt there are many more similar articles for other teams. Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable enough match to warrant its own article. No records were broken, nothing was decided, it's just a match with a lot of goals. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm generally pretty forgiving about allowing full articles for individual games that have some claim to fame. But this really doesn't; it's simply a home win with more goals than usual. No records were set or unusual things happened, and the coverage does not seem significantly different to any other Premier League game involving one of the big teams. ~ mazca ^talk 11:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RECENT. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no decent reason given as to why this match is notable. GiantSnowman 14:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Few would have expected anything but a Manchester United win. What no one would have expected, however, was the magnitude of the win" - I must be one of the few as I didn't even know they were playing... Pure vanity from a supporter of one side. Fails WP:NPOV and notability ('equals the record').(Disclaimer: Peridon is not a Blackburn supporter not a Londoner and couldn't care less who wins the League or the Cup.) Peridon (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That text appears to have been copied from Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.:"The two teams went into the match at opposite ends of the table, and few would have expected anything but a Manchester United win. What no one would have expected, however, was the magnitude of the win" Invitrovanitas (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. Actually, looks a bit copy&paste, but can't find it anywhere that doesn't look like a mirror. I see that the 9-0 article reached no consensus at AfD. Peridon (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – For WP:NOT to not apply, individual sports games/matches should have some evidence that they themselves are notable. In soccer (upset American here), any kind of cup final would have notability, as would something like this that has often been written about in reliable sources through the years. (not just in the aftermath of the game, or else every game would be notable). There appears to be nothing notable about this match by Wikipedia standards. It was a blowout, but that's all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - individual matches are generally not notable (per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT) and if somewhat notable can be included in an appropriate parent article (such as league or team season article). Also, the title is not clear, as it's a score without a date. Other games between the two teams could have ended with the same score. Might as well start writing articles like Montreal Canadien 5 New Jersey Devils 1, or Boston Red Sox 7 New York Yankees 3 otherwise...--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three per nom and Invitrovanitas. Wikipedia is not ESPN. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete for this one, there have already been several wins just as big this season alone by other teams. Ipswich game appears to be somewhat notable though due to the scoreline (there would presumably be grounds to delete it should the scorline be surpassed).--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable match. --Carioca (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the note that this not notable enough for Wikipedia --Pretty Green (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 11:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busking in Whitsunday[edit]

Busking in Whitsunday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Panhandling in a city is not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well, theoretically, it could be notable. It just isn't, in this case. Yakushima (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, random intersection of topics. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 11:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cartwright (artist)[edit]

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

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

Autobiography of dubious notability can find nothing on Google, one newspaper article from 1978 is hardly significant coverage. Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a public forum? I second the deletion of this article - bless his cotton sox but Michael aint notable. Mark^Dask 18:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability, no significant exhibitions or commissions. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2010 (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.