The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Few reliable sources discussing this term: most of the article was unsourced original research. Only three live sources currently in the article, of which only two actually use the term - and these are merely examples of use, not a discussion of the term itself. The first source provided as an example of use is hardly notable; a newsletter from the Village of Cottage Grove, Wisconsin (population 4,059). The second source provided as an example of use isn't clearly an example of its use as a distinct term. An additional source mentioned on the AfD as once being in the article, but no longer there, is http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49406, which also doesn't use the term "Spring Holiday". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Holiday[edit]

Spring Holiday (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 topic. No relevant google hits for "spring holiday" or easter controversy." EeepEeep (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks to me like the article was created just to stir up the (otherwise nonexistent) controversy it claims to describe. How could Christians be opposed to something they've never heard of? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know that schools now give "winter vacation" and "spring break" when they used to give Christmas and Easter vacations. However I have never heard of "Spring Holiday", besides which Easter is on a Sunday so no holiday needs to be given. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as creator of this article. I created this article, and I support its deletion. It seems that although it may have been notable at the time I created it (in 2006), it appears to no longer be relevant or notable. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've never heard of an "Easter vacation," it's always been spring break. And never "Spring Holiday." I tried to fix the article, but I couldn't find any sources to corroborate what it was trying to say. EeepEeep (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My memory goes back to the 1960s. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Easter. The previous AfD (in which I !voted "reluctant keep") was unanimous that the article should remain. The sources addressing the controversy, that existed and prompted the keeping of the article in 2006, have not magically disappeared. Notability is not temporary. That said, a couple of lines in Easter about the euphemistic use of the phrase "Spring Holiday" and notable objections thereto would be entirely appropriate, along with a redirect from this title to the appropriate section. Powers ^T 13:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, the sources have disappeared. Most of the refs and links in the article were dead links. For the most part they were examples of usage, not references describing the alleged controversy, making the article original research. I agree notability is not temporary; in this case the topic was never notable. EeepEeep (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We still have [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49406] which was removed from the article for some reason, and [1] which is still referenced. Powers ^T 14:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or just redirect to Easter. This seems to be one of those politically correct secularisms, as bad as "winterval" for Christmas and other festivals near the winter solstice. If you said "Spring holiday" to me as an Englishman, I would probably have thought you meant "spring bank holiday" (which comes at the end of May) and replaced the variably-dated Whitsun bank holiday. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as disambiguation page. It may have a number of meanings. --PinkBull 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to Spring break. For all it's worth, if someone said "Spring Holiday" to me, I would probably think they meant "spring break" or "spring vacation".—Sandahl (♀) 22:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not and never was a notable controversy. It was invented to support a particular POV.Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:48, 28 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groove Stain[edit]

Groove Stain (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)

Contested prod. Band whose notability is asserted but not established by third-party reliable sources. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can't find significant coverage either, just a few notices of gigs in the news. Although I did like this line from the article: "it became evident that some of the performing members were more serious about pursuing the band as a career than others. Patterson and Hatton went to sharpen their music education at the Atlanta Institute of Music, while Pope and Etheridge attended the University of West Georgia." Oh, snap!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:24, 21 January 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. There's a clear lack of consensus to do anything in particular here. A merge may be appropriate with some trimming - this can be undertaken through normal editing if agreed. ~ mazca ^talk 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Buses[edit]

Central Buses (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)

Corporate entity that has no apparent notability. Doesn't appear to me to warrant an independent article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think those references would warrant a merge/redirect to West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see how this meets WP:COMPANY. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive per Eastmain and Blanchardb.--PinkBull 05:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. Article is too long to justify a merge. (Search for "Central Buses" in the target article to understand why.) Only options are keep or delete. I like the references and I think it's notable so I say keep. Chutznik (talk) 20:05, 28 January 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure for both AfDs. Warrah (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purplera1n[edit]

Purplera1n (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)

Contested prod. Hackware with no assertion of notability; only reference is a blog. Also, reads like an instruction manual.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

• Blackra1n (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Keep Purplera1n per [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the second article also per [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per sources found by Joe Chill, which include CNet, Wired (magazine), Techtree, etc. Pcap ping 08:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep great job Joe Chill. I will make an effort sometime to make the articles more suitable for an encyclopedia. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per the sheer number of high level references. Justin Ormont (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep references are enough and notable enough publications. MrMacMan ^Talk 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin close this? It's clear that this article will be kept. Girafe53 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 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. kurykh 06:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Preston, Viscountess Gormanston[edit]

Lucy Preston, Viscountess Gormanston (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)

Not notable. She is related to a famous actor by birth and to a minor peer by marriage, neither of which confers notability on her. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no need for seperate article on this person. RadManCF (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not inherited. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, as per above. Viridae^Talk 00:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into Edward Fox, her father's page. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • She seems to be a full-time socialite, but there is enough media coverage of her at this search to make me think she's notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anything in those results that constitutes significant coverage, although of course if you can point out a couple that do I'll be happy to reconsider. The sources in the article tell us who her family is and that she attended a memorial service, and nothing more as far as I can see.--Michig (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. UnitAnode 03:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nobility is not automatically notability. I don't see enough for notability (which requires discussion of the topic, not just mention) in the links provided above by Eastmain. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject simply is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:01, 21 January 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.

Avatar 2 (film)[edit]

The result was deleted as likely copyright violation

Avatar 2 (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)

Appears to be speculation and content copied from the Avatar (2009 film) page.

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and as far as I can see WP:OR RWJP (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd already deleted it as "fancruft" and a possible copyright violation. No really relevant Google hits for "Avatar 2" beyond casual speculation. The AfD header is on top of a blank page; it looks like we both caught it at the same time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 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, default to keep. A previous (non-admin) closure resulted in a "keep," but there are valid delete comments here so "no consensus" seems a more accurate close, though the effect is the same in the end. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ManhattanitesTheMovie[edit]

ManhattanitesTheMovie (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)

Unremarkable independent film. Fails WP:GNG. Prod removed by obvious sock of article creator (who also tried spamming his website here). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Film's correct title is simply Manhattanites. More comprehensive searches might include search parameters using production and cast. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Doesn't this [12] count as enough coverage? Its what showed up when I hit the Google news search up top. More could certainly be found, but I think that review is enough. Dream Focus 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Profiled in a major film news outlet.--PinkBull 01:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and recommend closure. It's very substantially improved from version as of deletion nomination, and the outside review establishes notability. Chutznik (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs multiple sources, not just one. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - The film obviously exists but what it needs is one strong review from a recognised permanent source such as a print media - and I haven't been able to find one. The web sources are blogs which are generally not acceptable arguments for notability.--Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 30 January 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 Renaissance Trains. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humber Coast and City Railway[edit]

Humber Coast and City Railway (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)

Proposal for a railway company that does not appear to be going ahead Simply south (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Renaissance Trains. This proposal seems to have died and it can be adequately covered in the Renaissance Trains article. Adambro (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. Either merge to Renaissance Trains or keep. As the service has not been denied and there is large proof that they have applied for access rights. I think the best option would be to merge making Renaissance Trains article better than it is right now.Likelife (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the "large proof that they have applied for access rights"? As far as I can tell no track access application or similar has been made. Adambro (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Adambro, here is proof Renaissance Trains.com near the bottom of the page it says future access rights have been agreed. Likelife (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't find a track access application or similar on the ORR website. The full quote from the RT website says "We have begun work to determine an optimal train service plan and have already held a briefing meeting with Network Rail and the structure and form of a future track access agreement has been agreed." I read that as saying that RT and NR have agreed what form a track access agreement should take. That doesn't in my view indicate either that a track access application has been made or accepted, merely that the company has discussed with NR what form such an agreement could take. Adambro (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. RadManCF (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge into renaissance trains.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Renaissance Trains. Website stated to be running by late 2008, it's now 2010. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per others, and my proposed notability guidelines for British open-access train operating companies and proposed companies. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: precisely this subject was discussed last month here, where I proposed merging this into Renaissance Trains. Unfortunately I was too busy and never got around to doing it..... --RFBailey (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see also similar cases at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail) (Result: Merge). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Looking at the target article, a merge would give disproportionate attention to this line over other lines. Chutznik (talk) 20:14, 28 January 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: Withdrawn by nom, after references were added to verify WP:MUSICBIO criterion. Mattg82 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

A+ (rapper)[edit]

A+ (rapper) (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 performer. No coverage in third-party reliable sources. Article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice sources, although it's a shame it took five years and an AFD to get the article sourced. Can we SNOW keep this now, or withdraw it, or something? SheepNotGoats (Talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Multiple sources exist to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. For example, this Billboard article (and another), plus reviews at Allmusic(x2) and Vibe. Additionally, he has reached the U.S. album and singles charts, as well as the UK singles chart. I'll incorporate these sources in the next few hours. I've added these sources to the article.  Gongshow ^Talk 22:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Gongshow. Joe Chill (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gong.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:47, 21 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1989 The Right Stuff[edit]

1989 The Right Stuff (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)

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find significant coverage for it either. If it exists then it's buried by the New Kids on the Block's 1989 single of the same name, which unfortunately is also its first track. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources for this compilation album; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow ^Talk 17:13, 21 January 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. kurykh 07:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Truth universe[edit]

The Sword of Truth universe (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)

Unreferenced article on entirely in-universe fictional subject. I don't believe that there is enough verifiable real-world material to justify an article at this title. Any content that could be salvaged would better belong in other articles either Sword of Truth or the articles of the individual books. According to the talk page, most of the current content was merged from previously deleted articles. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• completely disagree... real world material "sword of truth books" 1-11 + "debt of bones"(a prequel which took place in this universe)and "Law of Nines"(which make refference to this universe whilst linking it to your own universe). All info in this article is relevent, and whilst it could be split up and put in the article belonging to the particular book it was taken from it is far more useful together. one shouldn't have to keep flicking between articles to read this obviously linked information. 122.57.0.252 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2010

  Comment You may wish to read WP:Writing about fiction. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually I think the article might have real world content in the comparison of how the TV show Legend of the Seeker has seriously changed the construction of the universe. However, I suppose a merge to Sword of Truth would be appropriate but we would have to be careful to make sure the information focuses more on the series. Sadads (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Written in a primarily in-universe style, this is the type of thing easily characterized as fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this sort of thing does not belong in an encyclopedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete duplicates the in-universe plot sections of Sword of Truth 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I agree the article needs help the concept of the fictional "universe" having it's own article is well established for large fictional / epic book series. See Midkemia, Middle Earth, Andor (Wheel of Time), Discworld (world) and so on. Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  But those articles have sources establishing the notability of the fictional universe in the real world. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point but that at most warrants a prod to improve the article and provide additional sourcing. Being a best selling book series with a TV series based on your books (admittedly not the best adaptation ever) seems to meet / exceed the notability of Midkemia, Andor (Wheel of Time). Nefariousski (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no agreement on the need to establish notability of the parts of a fiction in the RW. It is appropriate to split a discussion like this from the main article, as a summary and combination article for the various topics. Attacks on such articles destroy the possibility of compromise on fiction topics. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, there is consensus on the need to establish such notability. Look at the guideline at WP:MOSFICT; it states: "Wikipedia contains numerous articles on fiction-related subjects, fictional worlds, and elements from them. When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources." I understand your pragmatic approach, DGG, but I don't think it excuses a lack of established notability for this subject. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Nefariousski, DGG. Legitimate spinout article to keep main article from growing too long. An article needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but WP:NOT is. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V and WP:N. The article has no references to any sources at all, let alone reliable and independent sources, to support any of its content. This makes it unverifiable (possibly also WP:OR) and causes it to fail the general notability guideline.  Sandstein  06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No secondary sources analyze the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In-universe. When there is already an article on each individual book and on the series of books I feel additional articles should require some secondary sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and when spin off articles are there just to describe at length the universe within the books with no secondary sources then this is becoming an issue of WP:NOT. I would consider deleting Midkemia as well even though I used it as the basis for a three year long game of D&D that I ran as a kid. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Just because the sources aren't on the page doesn't mean the sources don't exist. Saying unsourced = not notable is bad logic in my book. If someone created a page about the Queen of England but was too lazy to write it properly or source it it doesn't mean she fails WP:N. I do see logic for holding BLP to a higher standard but this is obviously not in that category. If being unsourced or poorly sourced is justification for deletion then prepare for one hell of a flood of entries to AFD. Here's my Suggestion. I just added a rescue tag. Give it a week and see what can be done to fix the article up and re-evaluate at that point. I personally tend to sway towards the deletionist side of the scale but with so many examples of similar long standing articles of fictional universes I find it hard to justify deletion. Nefariousski (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further CommentI added sources that back up the geography (links to maps etc...) and some of the historical background. There's still a lot more that needs to be done but at least the article is not in the realm of the unsourced anymore. Nefariousski (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Still no sources independent of the subject though. Also, bare google books links are not very readable. You should probably use ((cite book)). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something and if I am I'd love you to direct me to policy articles or MOS articles that clear this up but where does it say that in order for an article about a fictional universe to be notable it has to have some source that shows some sort of real world analysis, comparison or academic value? While I agree that it would be wonderful to have a section in the article / source that goes over such a concept I don't think not having it is reason for consideration for deletion. See Discworld (world), The growing consensus to for a Niven Ring article, Midkemia, Novindus, JRR Tolkien's Arda, Charn etc... all of which have no mention or reference independent of the subject. Nefariousski (talk) 23:23, 29 January 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. NW (Talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Junction Street[edit]

Great Junction Street (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)

Appears to be an average city street; not notable. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Coverage here: [13] Polarpanda (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless substantially expanded in Afd period. The street appears to be the start of the A901 road, but its article A901 road (Great Britain) is only a mere redirect to a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to be an average drive-by nomination made without following the due diligence of our deletion process. I have expanded the article by reference to some of the numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "The street was the site of a triumphal arch which was constructed for the reception of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert in 1842." Google Book search for it and "triumphal arch" reveals some notable mention of it [14] for that prominent feature. Dream Focus 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reasonably detailed article with ample room for expansion. I added an image, but more are available. --DThomsen8 (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reasonable road article with historical context adding notability. -- Banjeboi 07:01, 25 January 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 into World Pyro Olympics. This was a reasonable result because the event has not established its own notability but exists in the context of a notable series of competitions. Non-admin closure per my discretion. Chutznik (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines international pyromusical competition[edit]

Philippines international pyromusical competition (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)

Future event - no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Bizarre, but it's the Philippines (sorry, Honey), and it's about two months premature. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It fails WP:CRYSTAL for less than another month, why not leave it alone and see what happens? RadManCF (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps merge into World Pyro Olympics. --PinkBull 05:41, 27 January 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. --kurykh 00:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of provinces and states in North America[edit]

List of provinces and states in North America (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)

This only lists all of the states in the US, and not North America. Furthermore, it is redundant to the existing articles about the list of states in US, Canada and Mexico. JL 09 ^_q?c 16:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Covered more coherently in other, more focused lists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After reverting vandalism not spotted by the nominator, this appears to be a useful list (even though its utility may be limited to middle/elementary school students). Appears accurate and harmless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What Hullaballoo said. Accurate, harmless, and useful if someone stumbles upon it. Ginsengbomb (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - technically, the three Canadian territories (Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories) are neither provinces nor states. Thus the title is inaccurate or the territories should be removed.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hullaballoo and Ginsengbomb. Our core constituency, high school and college students, would use this. Bearian (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete better covered in other existing articles and no interest to high school and college students in other parts of the world. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a poorly-defined list that is inferior to lists contained in the articles Provinces and territories of Canada, Political divisions of Mexico, and U.S. state. The list identifies its scope as including provinces and states, yet it includes the three territories of Canada, the Distrito Federal, and the District of Columbia. The "useful" argument is simply not convincing since anyone with the ability to find this list could just as easily search for and find the others. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Black Falcon and others. PKT(alk) 15:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant to Provinces and territories of Canada, Political divisions of Mexico & USA#Political_divisions. Incomplete as it does not explain the differences between each nations idea of what a provinces or states is, which is explained in the respective Articles or sections. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I fear the precedent this could lead to ... list of States in Europe, List of States in the Superpowers, List of states in the worlds poorest nations. There is a tenuous link between these political divisions at best. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Simply duplicates info in other articles. Furthermore, even if expanded to include all of North America, the structure of political divisions differs from nation to nation. EeepEeep (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per eeepeeeps cogent point.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a useful article - all information is readily locatable elsewhere. Bazonka (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TenPoundHammer (and his otters) DigitalC (talk) 20:15, 24 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FastFormat[edit]

FastFormat (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)

Also nominating:

VOLE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I cannot find significant independent coverage for these software libraries.

FastFormat is mentioned in a book by its author, Wilson's Extended STL book (not available online), but only in passing on p. 53 where the Pantheios logging API is discussed, and another passing mention on p. 55 in the same context. The only in-depth coverage is in a two part article from Wilson in ACCU's journal Overload, which is still a primary source, even if not self-pub. There's another mention in google books here, but it's accidental, in the screenshot of Akregator. There are some blog entries about it too, but nothing else in WP:RS that I can find.

I'm also nominated VOLE for similar reasons: only a passing mention in Wilson's book, and the references are actually WP:SELFPUB in this case.

The creator of these articles, Special:Contributions/Jjcolotti seems to have significant WP:COI. He also created Wilson's bio, and the related articles on Pantheios, VOLE, and (based on the same day timestamp) likely Synesis Software too, which got deleted as A7. Pcap ping 10:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I've rewritten my nomination because it was hard to follow. Pcap ping 10:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There seem to be a fairly large variety of different products that use the name Fastformat, but hardly anything I've seen in the first several pages of news, books, and scholar searches is unmistakably about these C++ libraries. Looking for VOLE is even harder: you'll find rodents, rodents, and more rodents. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 21 January 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. kurykh 05:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EAS3[edit]

EAS3 (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)

Reference review:

• Official website- Reliable source, not independent of the subject.
• Sourceforge- Reliable source, trivial.

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, weakly, per nomination. This is university developed software described as a software toolkit for reading and writing structured binary data with geometry information and for postprocessing of these data. It is meant to exchange floating-point data according to IEEE standard between different computers, to modify them or to convert them into other file formats. This doesn't seem to be a commercial product, and may be valuable and important, but I don't see any google scholar hits that are obviously relevant, and the article lacks sufficient context to explain any importance to the ordinary reader. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do find significant coverage in this article. However I have to admit that links to related file formats are missing. I'll change that in a second. EAS3 is one of the few file formats and computational libraries that enable you to read and write large binary data fiels, independent of the endianess of your machine. Therefore, it is as significant as CGNS and netCDF---even though it is roots are a little bit older i think. Concerning the Hits in Google scholar---you will always get hits unrelated to EAS3 because it's a three letter abbreviation you are searching for like "jpg". Anyway, nobody writes down in his publication which file format (eg. netCDF, CGNS, EAS3 or whatever) he or she has used to store his data or perform a Fourier analysis. Therefore, I think that google scholar hits are not relevant for a discussion about deleting this page. Marcus Zengl 19:02, 15. Jan 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep As mentioned by Marcus, you will hardly find references to used software within scientific publications (you may find at least some in this bunch of abbreviations if you include the word simulation [15]). However this is also the case for other file formats (CGNS, NETCDF, ...) and probably one wouldn't delete these - otherwise we wouldn't have many articles dealing with scientific software. Older verions of EAS were used for the first spatial Direct Numerical Simulations and the current version is used for example within benchmark codes of the PRACE project - so relevance is given. --Babucke (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: references (with the limitations described above) were mentioned and added to the article. --Babucke (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Articles about scientific software may not be of interest to many Wikipedia readers, but for those who need a particular kind of software, this article and articles like it are crucial for filling a need. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news, I search for its name plus the word "software". One promising result which Google says is a valid news source is [16] which has promising things to say of the software. Dream Focus 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: that article is referring to PowerBuilder Enterprise Application Server version 3, aka PowerBuilder EAS3. Not the same thing at all. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I just don't see how it passes WP:GNG. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:46, 24 January 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kettlebowl[edit]

Kettlebowl (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)

I'm not so sure this subject is notable. Its a hill with snow. Yes it has received minor coverage from its local town newspaper, but is that really sufficient to meet the notability bar? JBsupreme (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Places do have it easier than other subjects, as far as notability is concerned. But I agree, a local ski area with fewer than 4,000 patrons during a season? Seems thin. I'll dig around a bit later. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It does seem to meet WP:GNG andWP:RS, but does seem trivial. RadManCF (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any problems with this article. It contains multiple reliable independent sources to prove it meets the general notability guideline - so what if they aren't the New York Times! It's written neutrally by an unbiased person. Why would it matter how many people visit it? It's not like ski hills in Wisconsin are open year around - maybe for a few months. I argue that any non-private ski hill with sufficient independent sources should be kept. Royalbroil 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The coverage is in-depth and from independent reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:GNG. Hills with snow can be notable just like anything else. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 21 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felecia Lindsey-Howse[edit]

Felecia Lindsey-Howse (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)

Nomination by User:98.248.32.44 (talk). Reason: Contested PROD. Completely unreferenced so there's nothing to verify. In addition to all of the research done by AndrewRT on the article talk page, there's no indication of how she is allegedly involved in her various musical endeavors. The fact that she's "confused as the woman who sings backup vocals" doesn't inspire confidence that she's notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider this a back up singer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbVs1a_g9zs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.225.10 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reference http://www.amazon.com/Mo%27-Thugs/e/B000AQ1S3C/ref=s9_dpt_sa_bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.225.10 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Neither one is even close to a reliable source, and even if they were there is no mention of her anywhere in them. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is not a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.43.96 (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon states on the music section Biography Mo Thugs Family is an all-star project featuring Bone Thugs-n-Harmony along with a variety of acts signed to the group's Mo Thugs Records. Besides Bone Thugs members Layzie Bone, Krayzie Bone, Wish Bone, and Flesh-n-Bone, the Mo Thugs Family includes II Tru, Poetic Hustla'z, MT5, and Felecia. The supergroup debuted in March 1997 with Mo Thugs Family Scriptures, which hit number two on the charts

http://www.amazon.com/Mo-Thugs-Family-Scriptures/dp/B000003C0E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1264036854&sr=1-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.43.96 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - YouTube, Amazon.com, and similar sites are not reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear that necessary independent sources exist Vartanza (talk) 12:35, 24 January 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. The consensus below is that the expanded and sourced article demonstrates notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Burke[edit]

Christy Burke (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)

Two line stub on non-notable local councillor who has not held any statewide office and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN: quitting your party to sit as an independent is not notable. Nothing substantive in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non notable, fails WP:Politician. Recent updates may indicate notability. Snappy (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. If the subject is notable per WP:GNG, it's only for one event (resigning from Sinn Fein). Move to neutral per the sources provided. This may be a case where the subject passes WP:GNG, trumping WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Does seem to meet WP:GNG, and isn't very far from satisfying WP:POLITICIAN, IMO. RadManCF (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've added a few more details that may be of significance in deciding notability.Autarch (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as Snappy.Red Hurley (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - added sources show that he was also involved in anti-drugs activism in Dublin in the 1980s (a major issue as inner-city Dublin had a serious heroin addiction problem) and that he was in jail for IRA membership.Autarch (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a notable politician with plenty of coverage in reliable secondary sources; see Google Books. Scolaire (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator is right that being a local councillor does not of itself constitute notability per WP:POLITICIAN. However, Burke has been an unusually high-profile councillor, for 25 years, so I'm not surprised to find that he has in fact been the subject of substantial coverage in mainstream media, which has now been added to the article. As such, he meets WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - local councillors are not often notable, but Burke has received substantial coverage in a variety of media for political activity. Warofdreams talk 00:20, 26 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

V. Curtis Watkins[edit]

V. Curtis Watkins (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 autobiography. Credible assertions of notability (thus bypassing speedy delete) amount to co-founding a relatively small software company, garnering a local Chamber of Commerce award, and working on a local civic task force. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete subject still is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 20:28, 20 January 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 Minor characters of Days of our Lives. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conner Lockhart[edit]

Conner Lockhart (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)

unsourced article about non-notable past soap opera character. Rm994 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN character. JBsupreme (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to a suitable list with a redirect. Every named character in a soap opera with more than a bit part in a single episode should have at least a redirect, and I challenge the nominator to give a reason why that at least would not be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A merge could certainly be appropriate. Perhaps to Minor characters of Days of our Lives. Rm994 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 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 and Redirect Relevant info was already on Redemption Song and I added sources (NAC) CTJF83 chat 08:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Song (Rihanna song)[edit]

Redemption Song (Rihanna song) (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)

Should be deleted with relevant information merged to Redemption Song (see Come Together, Twist and Shout for similar examples) ~DC _{Talk To Me} 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the merge, that's the standard. Can't be deleted if any material that needs attribution is copied over, per CC-BY-SA, so merge & redirect. Amalthea 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Redemption Song and redirect to the same (see also Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) - a cover of this was the 2008 Christmas No1 in the United Kingdom and doesn't have its own page). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, as above - this is a satsuma, we wanted a football... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Redemption Song per Amalthea. Cover versions generally do not get their own articles unless the main article has size issues. –Chase (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, that's what's done in all similar situations. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:37, 23 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane Scott[edit]

Mary Jane Scott (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)

unsourced BLP; multiple attempts at prod. Jack Merridew 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as unreferenced BLP. (unreferenced BLP articles should be a criteria for CSD) JBsupreme (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an easily surmountable problem: see [17]. But Delete because she doesn't appear to meet the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Holly25 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the nom. has been prodding a number of articles as "unreferenced BLP without checking them--even those with prizes that were already specified in the article--I have been checking some, & if they seem possibly worthwhile, adding the refs. & deprodding. Perhaps we should consider the mere assertion "unsourced" as a deletion reason to be not acceptable for listing a AfD, and insist on a statement of a valid deletion reason, such as unsourceable. (I have no comment here on this person's actually notability) DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't pass any of the notability guidelines, no reliable sources from which to cobble together a proper biography, and there's chance for great harm to be done with these unwatched and unmaintained blps.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unreferenced BLP with no notability. Viridae^Talk 05:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails PORNBIO Hipocrite (talk) 20:17, 21 January 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 Purification This isn't Wikitonary (NAC) CTJF83 chat 08:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repurify[edit]

Repurify (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)

Dictionary definition. Article was originally created as a vehicle for a spamlink to an online beauty products store called Repurify.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Purification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Guy. It might not be a bad idea to Delete to remove the spam and shenanigans in the history; it's not critical, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per JZG. smithers - talk 04:11, 21 January 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 Lake Urmia (WP:NAC) CTJF83 chat 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kazem-Dashi[edit]

Kazem-Dashi (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)

I don't see how this rock is notable. I redirected it to Lake Urmia but my redirection was redirected with an edit summary saying my edit was vandalism. Nice. :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rock is a major tourist attraction in West Azarbaijan Province. You have blanked and redirected the article without discussion. Blanking is considered vandalism. :-) --Professional Assassin (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to blank to redirect, and you know I am sure that that isn't vandalism. But if it's notable, then there's no problem, just provide the evidence. I did look, but you may have sources I couldn't find. It would have helped if you'd added them before reverting the redirect, I did say in my edit summary it didn't appear notable. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, I'd already looked for sources for this rock and I can find no significant coverage. There is nothing to suggest that it is notable. Redirecting to the lake is the best thing to do. Professional Assassin's belief that a redirect is vandalism is very far off the mark. Fences&Windows 20:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lake Urmia - I just can't find any decent non-WP coverage, even under its Farsi title "کاظم‌داشی" [18]. I'll change my mind if someone can find anything substantial. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems the best option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - a tourist attraction would show up in one of many tourism guidebooks. I cannot find any evidence that this is a notable tourist attraction that can support a stand alone article. - Whpq (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lake Urmia. Plvekamp (talk) 00:18, 26 January 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. closing now per WP:SNOW. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Raven (musician)[edit]

David Raven (musician) (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 session drummer. Ridernyc (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Impressive list of artists/bands that he's worked with, but I couldn't find any significant coverage discussing him at any length, so I'm inclined to Delete unless such coverage is forthcoming.--Michig (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreferenced WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm with Michig on this one; given that list, you'd think there would be more sources out there, and I'll take a swing at finding them later tonight. But, it's a BLP, and in the absence of sources, we should delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete unreferenced BLP (which should be a CSD criterion by now) JBsupreme (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all those who come before. Viridae^Talk 05:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not demonstrated. To be blunt, if the author doesn't care enough to show why he is notable, why should that burden be placed on everyone else. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable secondary sources adress this non-notable session drummer. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Let it snow! Drmies (talk) 03:34, 22 January 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Gorman[edit]

Larry Gorman (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 drummer, seems to be a fill in for a lot of bands but not notable on his own. Ridernyc (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sole cited reference is 404. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would suggest redirecting, but to which band? It may be best to keep this as a search result that links to the bands he has been in. The content is easily verified, e.g. [19], [20], [21], [22].--Michig (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

verifiable but not sure about notable. And as you have pointed out where do we redirect to. Ridernyc (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Guy. Viridae^Talk 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Guy and nom. It should probably be speedied per the only source being a 404. UnitAnode 03:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not independently notable. If we really want to clean up, perhaps an admin with an eye for SNOW can come by this and similar AfDs. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:BAND#6. [23] would be one of many sources trivially found. Hobit (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the above assertion that Gorman meets WP:BAND criterion #6, as he "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." That establishes notability, and as Michig notes above it's verifiable that Gorman has been a member of these bands. Like Gina Mainwal, this makes more sense as a stub than as a redirect. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BAND #6, and I have added more references to the article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep member of two or more notable groups. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:58, 27 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CMSQLite[edit]

CMSQLite (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)

Utterly non-notable software with only a handful of Google hits and no coverage at all. Article is written by the author of the software. Prod has been contested twice with no reason given. Haakon (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In this case, I also cannot find independent coverage of the product. Only its own site and a non-moderated listing of PHP software. LotLE×talk 19:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Reliable Sources and WP:GNG. Plus, GNews returns 0 hits. - FaceMash (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Many need to be Transwiki to Wiktionary as a fad and trends, since they are many Lite software appearing likewise to -zilla. (e.g. ChemIDplus Lite, EditPad Lite, Firebug Lite, iRed Lite, jCarousel Lite, K-Lite, NDS Lite, Skype Lite SQLite...etc.) --173.183.102.184 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 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 deleted by Scott MacDonald. Canley (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takehiko Fujii[edit]

Takehiko Fujii (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)

unsourced BLP Jack Merridew 17:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy A7 nuff said. Ridernyc (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Fails A7, indication of importance despite lack of references to support those claims (even after user Bali ultimate deleted almost the entire article).  æronphonehome  19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  æronphonehome  19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be a musician is not a claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: A7 is "No indication of importance". The article before and after states "Takehiko Fujii [...] is a Bemani musician". Bemani is an international music video game franchise owned by Konami that has been in operation for about 12 years running. It is responsible for prominent game series such as Dance Dance Revolution and Beatmania. That is a vast amount of notability which is no way vague or difficult to understand. A7 indicates "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." I agree that the article is unsourced, fortunately that is not an excuse in of itself for immediate (or gradual) deletion.  æronphonehome  19:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that the notability of the Konami subsidiary/unit named Bemani does not make all of its employees notable? Not inherited, all that? If you didn't before, now you should.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete should be speedy. Unsourced blp on a non-notable musician (unclear what instruments) for video games (allegedly). No notability asserted, none that i can establish. He's just a freelancer for a video game company.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Where) are you looking? [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. Two minutes in Google.  æronphonehome  20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, subjects personal blog and his employers website. What precise biographical information would you like to use those non-inependent sources for, and why do you think they establish notability for the subject of this blp that has been unsourced for at least three years?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are, and there's much more on the subject if further research is done. The point is its easier for you to just delete because you don't care about the subject or are too lazy to do work to an article when you see that it needs it. So why are you even here?  æronphonehome  20:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete is what this should be. JBsupreme (talk) 20:31, 20 January 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 deleted by Scott MacDonald. Canley (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuya Furukawa[edit]

Tatsuya Furukawa (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)

unsourced BLP Jack Merridew 17:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy A7 not sure why all these have not been CSD'd for the past 4 years. Ridernyc (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Fails A7, indication of importance despite lack of references to support those claims (even after user Bali ultimate deleted almost the entire article).  æronphonehome  19:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  æronphonehome  19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be a producer is not a claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: A7 is "No indication of importance". The article before and after states "Tatsuya Furukawa [...] is a Bemani producer". Bemani is an international music video game franchise owned by Konami that has been in operation for about 12 years running. It is responsible for prominent game series such as Dance Dance Revolution and Beatmania. That is a vast amount of notability which is no way vague or difficult to understand. A7 indicates "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." I agree that the article is unsourced, fortunately that is not an excuse in of itself for immediate (or gradual) deletion.  æronphonehome  19:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced blp on an non-notable producer of music for video games. No notability asserted, none that i can find.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Where) are you looking? [29] [30] [31] [32]. Two minutes in Google.  æronphonehome  20:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one a reliable source independent of the subject -- his personal website and the website of his employer, like this one you said was a good "cite" www.konamistyle.jp/customfactory/good-cool/index.html.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are, and there's much more on the subject if further research is done. The point is its easier for you to just delete because you don't care about the subject or are too lazy to do work to an article when you see that it needs it. So why are you even here?  æronphonehome  20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally building strong, sourced, verifiable articles on subjects worthy of inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. Why are you so worried about an unsourced blp? Where were you for the past 3 years?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing and building (single handedly it seems) the Dance Dance Revolution articles. The artists involved in the series (And these two are primarily involved in Beatmania) are towards the bottom of a very large to do list. It's hard enough to find people to help out without people like you deciding that removing content from what aims to be the sum of human knowledge is "contributing". And it's a shame that you think Japanese musical artist and game producers aren't serious enough for your idea of what Wikipedia should be. It's so much more than you allow yourself to see it as.  æronphonehome  20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's attributing things to me that are untrue. Here's my view on people in the japanese video game industry (which also happens to be my view of everyone in every industry, everywhere). Some of them are notable and some are not. We have guidelines to help sort out which is which. Why do you believe that this person is notable, exactly, and which guideline would you point to to support that?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are a citation to your beliefs. ^_- And if you look up, I already said why. You should, I hope, already know what guidelines support a video game producer.  æronphonehome  20:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a shit what you think about me. You still haven't explained what specific notability standard (seems a clear fail of BIO, CREATIVE, GNG, etc...) he passes and what source supports this allegation. Enlighten me.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about what I think of you, it's about how being a deletionist is a such a terribly perfect practice in laziness. You don't go around telling other people to look up the reason why you want to delete something, one has to provide a reason why it must be removed. The "unsourced three-letter-acronym" example that Jack gave up top is a case in point. What does that mean?

You obviously have no knowledge of these people, so you can't be expected to help contribute to the articles, but you bothered to walk over here and slap delete stickers on them cause you think it's something to do. Your profile is the exact same thing, you're posting links to articles, bitching, and demanding that "someone" (other than you) fix it. spend your time and effort helping out, preferably on something you're familiar with, If you can't or won't, again... Why are you even here?  æronphonehome  22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to know much about this person either. This is a deletion debate. So I'll ask a question for a third and final time: In what way does this person pass WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC etc... and what source supports this? If you can't answer this question, the rest of your spew about "helping" and "laziness" is just background noise, more of the dull-droning that seeks to drown out reason so often here.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If what you can't answer directly is filed as 'droning' then yet another case in point. For your question, since you asked so nicely, it does. And with the sources I listed too. Maybe that's not enough for you, boo hoo, so what? You're not exactly a model community member that others would lean upon for a fair and balanced assessment of a situation so I'm not worried if the persistence of these articles makes you upset. It's amazing how angry people get when information they don't care about simply exists. If I was like you, I would be listing those seemingly arbitrary football player articles at least five times a day. Thank God I'm not. I admit nothing we've been talking about is directly related to this deletion debate, but I'll take the time to use one as an excuse to address the underlying problem that more often than not is the reason for the AFD in the first place. Not that it accomplishes anything. Adéu...  æronphonehome  22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you've actually got no argument to make that this person passes any of the notability guidelines? You should have just said so at the outset.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:18, 20 January 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. A near unanimous keep. There is a considered consensus, developed as the discussion progressed, that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to the event, and that the event meets WP:EVENT. There is a proposal to re-name the article, which can be discussed on its talk page (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manila shootout[edit]

Manila shootout (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)

One of the several gang vs. police encounters, not withstanding the high death toll, this like several of the others. Qajar (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. Qajar (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If 12 gang members, 4 bystanders and a policeman were killed in a shootout anywhere in the United States, there would be no debate whatsoever. Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep for failing to provide any valid rationale for deleting whatsoever. Blodance the Seeker 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a massive shootout, that much is very quickly apparant. Clearly notable. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The nominator failed to tag the article with ((afd1)), so I did so on their behalf. I take the nominator's stance to be that the event is not notable, which may be true - was there any lingering coverage of the event? Have there been subsequent incidents of this scale, or is this notable as the largest such shootout in the Phillippines (for example)? NOTNEWS applies as well, but follow-up coverage of the shootout's impact on the city and region (increased security, etc) would mitigate that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a much stricter standard for notability than we insist upon for such incidents when they happen in the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, etc. In answer to the question, their seems to be lingering coverage of the event [33]. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want the same for something in the US, for example - if something happens, and there's an article in the paper about it, and it's never discussed or mentioned again, you can't really call the event a notable one, in my mind. If there's follow-on coverage, that's a pretty good indication of the impact (and notability) of the event. The trick here might be that there is so much more media in the US (and, thus, media coverage) that more events get that follow-on in-depth coverage. The link you provide does indicate that such coverage exists here, though, so I'd now move to Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is definitely notable, statement by nominator seems incoherent. RadManCF (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found it hard to understand why people would think a major street shootout, in which 17 people died, is not notable. Just because it is unknown in the United States and/or lacking English sources does NOT make it anywhere near non-notable. Blodance the Seeker 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and possibly rename I'm inclined to delete per WP:NOTNEWS, but some of the arguments above convince me that this does in fact meet WP:EVENT. Should this be moved to Parañaque shootout? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mandsford and my comments, above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:03, 21 January 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Staffelbach[edit]

Andre Staffelbach (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)

Does not meet notability guidelines Polargeo (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His cycling of the Tour de France course at a venerable age to promote his business (Staffelbach Designs) earned him some mentions but no real significant coverage of him as a person. The creator of the article appears to have a conflict of interest having originally posted coverage of the company on his talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in the absence of new sources that show notability. The Tour de France item is interesting, but if that's the main hook for notability then there isn't enough to pin an article to. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to a Weak Keep. The notability might be a bit thin, but additional sources from Eastmain (and one add'l one I found) are sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I formatted the references and took a look at the awards. I think he's notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is there yet and I'd like to leave this a few days to get more opinion. Particularly because the creator of the article appears to have a conflict of interests. I am not clear that notability has yet been established, he has obviously recieved an award within his own sphere but it is not really clear that this award is notable outside of the area, or even internationally within his area of work. The references for his riding the Tour de France course appear to be local media or media within his business circles, most people pulling a stunt like that at his age can drum up a bit of local coverage but unless covered by national or preferably international general media it does not really show notability. Polargeo (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is there. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only non-trivial coverage is from a local Dallas paper profiling the couple. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria and WP:ANYBIO, he has received a notable award or honor. By the way, here's another source, and another. Wine Guy Talk 01:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By what source do you ascertain that his award is notable? Just assuming the award is notable because it sort of looks like it might be falls a long way short of the criteria. Polargeo (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you point to two local Dallas news sources. This is what we have been discussing all along. There appears to be only local news or business news within his own sphere of influence and nothing outside of that. Polargeo (talk) 17:39, 26 January 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoadBike[edit]

RoadBike (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 magazine. Article is supported only by the mag itself. Confict of interest & spam. Evb-wiki (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNews has a fair number of hits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can see lots of false positives in Google books and news but only perhaps 3 news articles that actually refer to RoadBike magazine. None of these is anything more than a passing mention, and none of them contain information about RoadBike magazine which we could cite in the article. --Dbratland (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, Dbratland sums up pretty much what I could find: a few passing mentions, enough to confirm that it exists, but mostly in the context of saying that so-and-so worked for RoadBike magazine, rather than any actual coverage of the magazine. As a note to the closing admin, Roadbike currently redirects to Road bicycle, but the author keeps changing it to point to RoadBike. In the event this article is kept, Roadbike should be a dab.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:07, 22 January 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 under criterion G7. The only contributing editor had requested deletion by blanking the page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strokelab[edit]

Strokelab (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)

Fails WP:COMPANY, describes what startup company will do, along with the nature of the need it was setup to address; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, mostly self-referenced. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 16:40, 20 January 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. kurykh 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hastings (colonist)[edit]

Thomas Hastings (colonist) (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)

This person's only claim to notability appears to be that he was an American colonist. While there are plenty of sources it does not seem to me that settling in North America is sufficient distinction to justify an article. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (from the author) The Great Migration colonists were mostly of the same generation as those that came over on the Mayflower and comparable also in leadership terms of their own colony. Plymouth Colony was disinct at the time from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. From a macro perspective, the GM colonists to New England and their progeny have had a huge and important impact on the United States. Many of our greatest leaders (and a relatively few rogues) from the Northeast, the Midwest and West can trace their ancestry to one or more of these Puritan / Protestants who arrived between 1629 and 1640. As for Thomas himself, Watertown was a very important town in the 17th century and for some five decades he was one of its leading citizens and served in the MBC legislature (aka General Court). Finally, there are precedents for bios such as this; for instance, his contemporary and friend, Edmund Rice (1638). User:SBmeier —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Appears to have been notable at the time, article is suitably sourced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable for what? Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Article claims he held just about every available public office. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reason to remove it, page is well sourced and "Thomas Hastings" seems to have many decendants http://www.thomashastings.org/ and his own site dedicated to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OfNoInterest (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I am not sure all the sources actually do mention this person directly. In-line citations would be better. Alone he might not be that notable, the article might qualify as a "list class" for all the descendants. There seem to be several "list of youtube commedians from East Podunk" etc. that are less encyclopedic. Needs a biobox. Also get rid of the peackock words from the prose.W Nowicki (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being one of 20,000 migrants is not very impressive evidence of notability. The first source, from 1866 appears to be a privately printed genealogy which makes questionable assertions of "noble birth" as was common in vanity genealogies of the time. Notability is not inherited, nor does it percolate back to ancestors of notable persons. The article reads like speculation based on directory entries, and appears to fail WP:BIO. Ancestry.com is thataway and welcomes such ancestral prose. Edison (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sounds like he was notable as politician in the 17th century and it's sourced Vartanza (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Deputy for Watertown to the General Court of Massachusetts " is a member of the provincial legislature. Fully sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 08:08, 27 January 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. There is clearly no consensus for outright deletion. Redirecting or merging is a definite possibility, but that should be worked out on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan[edit]

List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan (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)

Consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_15#Lists_of_highways_in_counties.3F is now against this type of list. As such, it is also listed at WP:FLRC. The key content from the list has already been merged into Marquette County, Michigan. As list creator, I'm asking that this now unpopular list article be removed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think it's eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G7. If you like, you can try tagging the page with ((db-author)). — Rankiri (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I don't want to shortcut the processes, because of community opinion outside of the project sustains the existence of the list, then that's an acceptable outcome too. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not eligible for G7 speedy deletion: CSD explanations, G7 says that it "[d]oes not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject." Bencherlite^Talk 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not asking for it to be deleted. I'm asking for a discussion over whether it should. The parent project says yes, but I disagree. I've brought the article to another forum for a wider consensus on the issue. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, posted my message under the wrong person's comments... I was intending to reply to Rankiri. Bencherlite^Talk 22:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Marquette County, Michigan#State trunkline highways. There is nothing wrong with the list, but the parent article already contains most of its information and is well within the limits of WP:SIZE. I still have doubts about the necessity of this AfD discussion as it looks like an uncontroversial technical issue that has little to do with specific policy violations. — Rankiri (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The parent article didn't contain the information until earlier today. WP:USRD has said that these lists shouldn't exist, but if the community consensus here says they should, I can un-merge the information. Please note that the list went through a WP:FLRC already that came out against merging the list into the county article. I'm looking for a wider range of discussion to see if the overall community, not a single wikiproject or a single process (FLC/FLRC) says they should be merged. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marquette County, Michigan#State trunkline highways - Per above. ---Dough4872 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD can't enforce redirect/merges. It can only determine deletions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC) The Article has already been merged. The term would not be a valid search term, failing RfD, so shall the article be deleted? Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Such outcomes are perfectly acceptable. See WP:GD#Closure and the very first paragraph in WP:AFD. — Rankiri (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete list. The nominator is clearly committed to improving wikipedia, to the point that they are willing to see their own Featured List deleted, provided that there is consensus for the content itself to be contained in the county's article. I like the look of the Marquette County article, and therefore support deletion. As an aside, I imagine that this discussion will be the forerunner for mass merging, blanking and speedy deletion of these sorts of lists. It was very important to take at least one of them to AfD, to ensure there was wider consensus for the type of merge being carried out. WFCforLife (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect There are over 3000 counties in the United States. We don't want 3000 lists. --Rschen7754 09:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep would otherwise unbalance the country article. It is odd to still see arguments based on how many articles we would need, as if w3000 lists were something we could not accommodate. AS long as there are people to write them, what's the objection--such arguments contradict the policy of NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while I am rather ambivalent as to whether the list stays or is merged somewhere, I feel the county article is the wrong place to put it. A balanced county article would not under any circumstance contain a list of highways, although it might have a short mention in the prose. Consider if Marquette County was to be improved to GA standards—then clearly this list would have to go somewhere else. Is it suitable to create a list of highways in Michigan, or is that going to be too long a list? The problem is not so much that the US Highways WikiProject can't try to establish standards for what sorts of lists they want, but they have no "authority" over county articles. Quite the contrary: they will have a very biased view on what is important, since their interests will over-fucus on roads. I would like to see a more constructive solution to the problem than has been presented so far. For instance, an article such as road transport in Marquette County, Michigan might be able to comply to my objections, while being much broader than just state highways and could contain history, county routes etc. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it is now, the county article isn't dominated by the highway article. --Rschen7754 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was suggested at this article's previous FLRC that the list should contain the county roads, the only problem is that in Michigan, the state, the counties and cities are the only jurisdictions that maintain roads. This county is larger than Rhode Island, and it contains over a 1000 separate roads that aren't under state or city maintenance. Personally, I would prefer the list to remain as is and un-merge what has been added to the county article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a general principle for this type of article - Michigan as a state is a bit funny but here goes... if I understand correctly, the "List of state highways in..." articles are for the chop, but the "List of county routes in..." articles are for keeping. Whereas the "List of highways in..." articles are going to have the state/US/Interstate bits merged off into the article for the actual county, leaving just the county information, and hence the article will be renamed "List of county routes in...". I don't really understand the rationale behind the changes to the "List of highways in..." type articles because I think that the result of making those changes will be less useful for the reader, whilst not actually changing the number of articles on Wikipedia at all. And I'm not sure that the actual county articles should contain road information - some counties are very populous so there is already a lot to talk about - rst20xx (talk) 01:44, 27 January 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.

List of 2010 Haiti earthquake aftershocks[edit]

The result was Result was to redirect to 2010 Haiti earthquake#Aftershocks (non-admin closure) -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 08:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2010 Haiti earthquake aftershocks (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)

Per the PROD-tag which was removed with no explanation given. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 13:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The explanation is in the edit summary of the removal. In any case, this is not really an AfD problem. Either we develop the article to avoid clutter of the main article, or we turn it into a redirect to the relevant section of the main article. Pichpich (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If "Not that I'm convinced we need this but a prod tag won't be of much use," is supposed to be the explanation, then it's extremely unclear! ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's best to close this AfD and start a talk page thread in Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake to discuss the issue. Pichpich (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Er—no? Why should the AfD be closed?! ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 14:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it will take five days to be processed and we don't want people to start building the article if it's ultimately deleted. More to the point: AfD is unsuited to solve editorial discussions and can't efficiently handle discussions about articles that change significantly between the start and end of the week-long AfD debate. Pichpich (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  btw, I started the talk page debate. I suggest that we handle it there, not here. Pichpich (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, I want the page to be deleted, which is why I nominated it for deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, it won't be deleted. I'm not saying this because it's my own personal preference, it's just a fact about the standard way to organize content on Wikipedia. It will either survive on its own or be redirected to the main article. Pichpich (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that a deletion is deserved for this article, but I am not convinced with the nom's rationale. My point is that why to create an article purely states a list of aftershocks of a major earthquake? It is almost impossible to list all of them, like what happened to this article is that it is only expected to be expanded whenever there is an aftershock, which is of course entirely impossible since not all aftershocks (reading major and minor quakes) are recorded and that scientific community is busy with the account of the earthquake. I reckon this has been separated from the main article, but the "List" size which is only composed of one line is not a justification that it came from a split decision from the main article. Perhaps we can make a worthy mention of this aftershock on the "Aftermath" section. Oh, by the way, the line contained in the "List" was mentioned in the geology section of the earthquake, so a delete is necessary.--JL 09 ^_q?c 15:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, List of 2008 Sichuan earthquake aftershocks... Pichpich (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I guess an existence of another earthquake aftershocks is not a fundamental and strong reason to have another article featuring list of aftershocks. I propose to delete the article as of this time, and wait for substantial expansion that requires split.--JL 09 ^_q?c 15:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since none of the sources are accessible for the Sichuan earthquake, it's difficult to verify it. However it's not at all clear that a list of earthquakes that runs for nine months after the original event is entirely composed of aftershocks. It seems to me that it's likely the information could be compressed and presented in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's easy to list all of the aftershocks. They're here. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those are aftershocks? How about in three months time? Seems like WP:OR to me unless there are reliable sources specifically listing "Aftershocks of the 16:53 12 January 2010 Haiti earthquake."--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a fair point WP:V-wise.Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a solid scientific definition of aftershock so that's not an issue. Pichpich (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an issue because the scientific definition is so broad that every seismic event of any size in Haiti is going to count for probably several decades; after a short while nobody outside the seismic community is going to notice. Acto the definition given in our article the page on New Madrid aftershocks ought to be still getting longer! Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but won't object to recreation if someone comes up with a reliably sourced list of definate aftershocks of this particular earthquake. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mention it in the earthquake article. This is a case of wanting to be first to write the article after watching the event reported on TV. Although it was a severe aftershock, there is no reason to separate this from the original quake. In addition, you don't have to seismologist to know that there are lots of aftershocks after an earthquake, hence the name, and there is no reason to list every single event. Mandsford (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2010 Haiti earthquake#Aftershocks (should the list become too large it can then be split off) and close the AFD. No need to waste 5 days here. Yomangani^talk 17:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per Yomangani's good idea. Warrah (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now as suggested. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested. Does not warrant a sep article. JBsupreme (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per Yomangani...Modernist (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect — as proposed. Gosox(55)(55) 01:36, 21 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Fareri[edit]

Francesco Fareri (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 musician. Three external links, one to his site, one to a commercial site selling lessons, and the third to a 7 year old review on a site that looks more like a blog/fanboard than a reliable source. MBisanz ^talk 13:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - insufficient reliable sourcing online to establish notability, and no evidence given of available offline sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I looked wide and deep, and could not find reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 21 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational search algorithm[edit]

Gravitational search algorithm (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)

References given all seem to be by the primary author and no secondary sources are given. This is a possible case of self-promotion. At the least, notability has not been established. RDBury (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to flag WP:Conflict of interest and a few other issues by the creator (and probable sole contributor) three times, but first creator and then an anonymous IP editor have removed them each time without resolving the problem. This isn't reason for deletion of itself of course, but worth noting. MuffledThud (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There seems to be one independent secondary source that actually contains non-trivial coverage on the topic: see [34], pages 183–186. However, I don't think this is enough. Something first introduced in 2009 is simply too recent; time will tell whether it was a notable invention. This article can be re-created if the concept turns out to be notable. — Miym (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of notability, but also WP:COI concerns as the sources and attribution in the text seem to be from the main contributor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Recent research referenced only from primary sources. Pcap ping 06:49, 24 January 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]