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 The Time of Our Lives (EP). Tim Song (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Time of Our Lives (Miley Cyrus song)[edit]

The Time of Our Lives (Miley Cyrus 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)

Non-notable song. Charted at #51 in Canada but there just isn't enough third-party coverage to warrant an article at this time. –Chase (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Are you kidding me? Do you honestly expect there to be not enough coverage for a song by Miley Cyrus? Keep per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and more. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All of those articles pertain to the album of the same name. –Chase (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Blogcritics.org, The-trades.com, Commonsensemedia.org, and Sputnikmusic.com are not reliable sources. So that only leaves MTV, About.com, and The Guardian, hence why it is useless having an article for this song. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - per WP:NALBUM where the notability of Cyrus plus the officially released status meet its criteria. Plus, what he said. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NALBUM does not apply here. –Chase (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP) for now with no prejudice against recreation at the appropriate time. Miley Cyrus isn't Christ, and just because she released a single doesn't make it notable until it actually reaches a notable position on some country's chart. We don't have an article on The Temptations' "You've Got My Soul on Fire" for the same reason. At that time, reinstate the article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of coverage. CTJF83 chat 15:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you show me where? –Chase (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, article isn't bad, have charts, just that isn't international single. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've removed all original research and false charting information to show just how bare this article actually is on information. –Chase (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that information appeared referenced. [8] If any of those charts are notable, then they should be listed. Dream Focus 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song did not chart on Hot Digital Songs or Bubbling Under, the reference provided did not contain such information. –Chase (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If a sound charts well, then its notable. Simple as that. With so much music out there, you wouldn't get on the top 100 even if you were not notable. Dream Focus 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we ignore all rules and ponder the purpose of keeping a stub article just because it charted? –Chase (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The song has charted, making it "probably notable" (though not inherently notable) according to WP:NSONGS. With no significant coverage found for this song in independent reliable sources, I'm not opposed to a merge and redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP), as the sourced info from the song article can be stated in a single sentence (e.g., "The title track, written by X, Y and Z, reached number 51 on the Canadian Hot 100 in January 2010"). WP:NSONGS notes that an independent article is only warranted if it is "reasonably detailed", so depending on where that fine line is drawn, I'd be okay with keeping this too, preferably with additional verifiable material.  Gongshow ^Talk 05:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The song may have charted in two charts but it fails to have enough coverage for an actual article here in Wikipedia. With no track listings, no music video, no live performances, and barely anything on background and composition, the article will never pass "Start" class. There's no use in that. Everything mentioned here, which is about four sentences, can be mentioned in the article for The Time of Our Lives. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 17:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just because a song charted doesn't entitle it to have it's own article. Not near enough coverage to have stand alone article. No live performances, barely any composition and background. Doesnt seem to meet WP:NSONG ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 22:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article was created on the false pretense that it was "announced that it would be the third single by Miley" where no such claim was made. Now she's already releasing a new album. Fixer23 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP) and copy any relevant additional content to there. I am not opposed to separate song articles by any means, but this article doesn't have much to merit a separate article, and it makes organizational sense to include it as part of the article about the 6-song EP which is named after this very same song. In most cases, an EP version of a single is always part of the same article. Though this EP does not appear to be a normal maxi-single type thing, it still makes sense to follow the same convention absent more content requiring a split.--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Redirect per comments above by Milowent. Plus i state that WP:NSONGS clearly suggests that charting alone is not enough information to prove notability. There's not awards and no critical reception or independent coverage. Also per WP:NSONGS notability aside there is not enough information to warrant a detailed article and it is unlikely that the article will ever grow to a substantial size. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 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. Anyone interested in userfying can contact me Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right politics in the United States[edit]

Far-right politics in the United States (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)

First off, this has no sources at all, and no effort has been made to add them. Most of these may be far-right, but credible sources are required. Without them, this mostly serves as a place to add one's bias against a politician. The title is misleading as well; this is a list of supposed 'Far-right' parties. Also, there is not 'Far-left politics in the United States' article. TN05 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The information found on the page is not sourced at all and it seems to me to mostly be original research.--Steam Iron 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing's stopping you or any other editor from adding sources. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete It may be unsourced, but is there a way to save the article somehow (or at least move its information to another relevant page)? I know some things about far-left politics in the United States, and would be willing to contribute or start a page on that (though I would need some help, as I've never created a page or cited references before). 71.184.241.77 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userifying would work, and I've suggested it as an alternative; see below. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Appears to be a redundant page containing only a list of organisations. Perhaps we could re-direct the article to the United States section of Neo-fascism. -Reconsider! 04:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this either needs to be deleted, or renamed as "list of far right us political organizations". it mostly duplicates the category (with no content to justify it as an article), but thats ok for a list, as some people prefer list navigation to category navigation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. The subject is perhaps worthy of an encyclopedia article (and may well be covered elsewhere) but the "far right" label is too meta to be supported simply by an unreferenced list coupled with an unreferenced intro labelling certain belief systems like "nativism" to be "far right". The non-existence of Far-left politics in the United States is not a reason to delete this; if a good article can be made here, it can be made there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a list, not an article, and declares itself to be such in its opening sentence. It is highly NPOV, and does not fit its title at all--I would have never guessed that this was going to be a list of parties and groups (why are individuals and incidents excluded?). The inclusion of the Nazi Lowriders only underscores the NPOV aspect, and following that link to our article on them makes me wonder whether that also needs to be addressed--it simultaneously describes them as "white supremacist" and allied with several Mexican gangs. If they're allied with Mexican gangs, are they really white supremacist? Is a biker gang really political, and as such, worthy of inclusion here? So, delete, as inappropriate and unsalvageable. No prejudice against an actual article (rather than a list) being created in this space. Heather (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nazi Lowriders is another article. How is your disagreement with the way that article is written relevant to the discussion about this one? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, labeling individuals as far-right (as opposed to groups) runs into issue with WP: BLP. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, if you don't agree with the inclusion of Nazi Lowriders, just be bold and remove the mention of it from this page. It's no reason to go to AFD over! Stonemason89 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — This is a valid list. There is probably a POV issue with the title, which needs to be mitigated. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I initially created this article as a stub and an attempt to mirror Far-right politics in New Zealand; the reason why I never got around to expanding it was because I was busy with off-wiki tasks at the time. If the lack of prose/sources is an issue, there's nothing stopping Toa Nidhiki or any other editor from adding them. My vote is Keep. However, if this article doesn't pass the AFD discussion, I would be willing to have it userified to my name space, giving me the freedom to expand it and then re-add it in the future once it's been expanded. That would be an acceptable outcome too, if I end up getting outvoted. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and userify until reliable secondary sources can be found. SnottyWong talk 01:11, 20 May 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 Withdrawn. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian flags (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 article is a list of Canadian flags which contains no less than 73 non-free images, the most unfree page on the entire English Wikipedia (link). I could go through the article and remove them per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFLISTS, but then the article would become somewhat pointless as a list of flags really depends on the ability to view the images. Thus, this AfD is something of a test to see whether a page which horribly fails a core policy WP:NFCC, but would become pointless if it met that policy, should be retained. It will be interesting to see if Wikipedia's mission as a Free Content Encyclopedia is a reality or something that is of little interest to our contributors. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sections on municipal and corporate flags, but keep the royal, regal, provincial, military, ensign, and historical flags, these are very informative to the make-up of the Canadian monarchy and government. 117Avenue (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a great idea, because it would remove practically all of the non-free content. In fact, I'm quite tempted to do this right now and close the AfD, but will let it run for comments. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Even with just the provincial and royal flags, it's enough to fill out an article on the flags of Canada. I think when we start to be coalitionists, it becomes a mess due to NFC. I can envision a situation where a list article only contains NFC and would need to be outright deleted. I don't think this is the one. Just remove the non-free content.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but delete the non-required flags per comments above though i am a little on the fence about whether an article contain NFC can be justified.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but delete the municipal flags. We should not have non-free flags in this list, and including just the free flags makes an incomplete list. This page is far to long anyways.--Svgalbertian (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rework per 117Avenue's suggestion, and ensure there's no non-free content on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and explore properly the ACTUAL copyright status of these images, which there was no sign of on the ones I checked. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 14 May 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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Blair[edit]

Euan Blair (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 article was approved for deletion in October 2009; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euan Blair (2nd nomination).

The article has subsequently been restored, without any substantive improvement; it remains the same farrago of trivia it was in the first place. The arguments that justified deletion in October 2009 continue to hold good; anything of merit should, as previously noted, properly be recorded in the articles for Tony Blair or Cherie Blair.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination). Incidentally, isn't there a CSD for recreations of deleted content? Heather (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possibly Speedy but I have no idea how similar this page is to the previous page. Anyway: WP:NOTINHERITED and Euan really is not notable except as the son of the former British Prime minister—a fact clearly borne out by the references e.g. "Blairs watch eldest son graduate", "Blair's son is to be deputy head boy", "What's Euan got that other boys haven't? Ask Daddy", "Blair's son Euan leaves hospital", "Inside Cherie's Bristol flats", "Ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair received into Catholic Church" etc, etc. Can the page be Create-Protected after deletion (if the consensus is to delete that is)? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My argument in the previous AfD still applies: Delete as a non-public figure. The only things that he is known for are that he behaved like a typical sixteen-year-old when he was sixteen, and that one of his mother's indiscretions involved his student accommodation. The subject has not sought publicity, or done anything that would have come anywhere near being notable if he wasn't his parents' child, so we should leave him in peace. The only bit of content that is at all encyclopedic is the sentence about the controversy over his student flat, and that is already covered in Cherie Blair's article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 15 May 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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Tipton[edit]

Kathleen Tipton (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)

Delete No evidence of notability. No reliable sources cited, and no significant coverage in independent sources found on searching. PROD and PROD2 were removed with edit summary "rm prod, notable actress", but no indication as to why she is considered notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ANYBIO. Does not get reliable sources other than Wikipedia, IMDb and their mirrors. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TOOSOON. If the actresses career grows the artcle might be considered in the future. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN person. CTJF83 chat 15:58, 14 May 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. Although many "keep" opinions are weakly argued, we have clearly no consensus to delete.  Sandstein  06:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wet floor sign[edit]

Wet floor sign (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)

Prior AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet floor signs

• Delete Pointless article. These signs are common, but there is nothing notable about them, by Wikipedia's standards. The one reference contains one brief section about signs, but no significant coverage of wet floor signs. The article is essentially about legal liability for accidents, and the connection with wet floor signs is minor, quite apart from the fact that giving such prominence to the legal situation in just one country is unjustifiable. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pointless and non-notable article - perhaps justifiable if there should ever be a Safetysignopedia. Agree that "Liability under United States common law" has got nothing to do with the sign itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article explains the existence of these signs, which is primarily legal and is interesting in that right. I see no problem except a lack of supporting sources. --Erik Garrison (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The point of the article is how silly the signs are. Or maybe how stupid U.S. law is. The article would be usefully expanded with history and legal cases which encourage their use. Also, a worldwide perspective on their absurdity would be a fine addition. I have little doubt there is plenty of case law, articles, and news items which directly relate to them, or due their missing from the premises. One brief search turns up these citations: Jury Sides With Movie Theater Chain in Suit Over 'Wet Floor' SignDUPUY v. PETSMART, INC.Georgia Supreme Court rules that a “wet floor” sign can itself be a hazard and expose a property owner to liabilityPersonal Injury Law (Accidents/Slip & Fall) - Slip and fallWarning: Beware of the Warning Sign and AMC v. Brown —EncMstr (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just as notable as windows or shoes, random nom. I don't see how it would benefit the project to delete this content. The rest per EncMstr (talk · contribs) Outback the koala (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not guide or a set of case studies. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies as well. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would think any standardized (defacto or dejure) warning signage would be encyclopedic. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the wet floor signs have been pretty important in litigation. Tisane (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This AFD is malformed because it does not cite the previous AFD in which the consensus was that the article be kept - please see WP:BEFORE. The topic is still notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joal Beal (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There appears to be plenty of reliable coverage, and this is plainly a notable topic. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but needs expansion to cover the history of the sign and its use around the world. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Slip and fall. That's what the sources are talking about, not the sign itself. Abductive (reasoning) 01:19, 21 May 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.

Charley Lynch[edit]

Result: Delete (non-admin closure), but the article was redirected to the Ultimate Fighter season eleven. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Lynch (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)

The page is pretty well written, but shows no notability. Lynch was beaten in the first round of the Ultimate Fighter and was sent home; never shown again. He has not fought in any well known promotions, nor has he fought any known fighters. RapidSpin33 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Pretty notable in TUF history by virtue of having a nasty injury. Not notable in the UFC, but definitely is in the TV show. Should be kept. There are certainly less notables out there as well. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we should keep this article because some people will remember an injury (not the fighter) on a reality show? "Not notable in the UFC", that is the most important part. If Lynch would have won his fight and actually been on the show, this discussion wouldn't be happening. Also, I'm working on getting rid of all the non-notable articles. RapidSpin33 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, it doesn't just have be notability just in the UFC, proper. It's if he's notable to MMA. He is, as a contestant to TUF, especially one involved in such a high profile incident as previously mentioned. Definitely should be a keep Paralympiakos (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You don't have to be in the UFC to be notable in MMA (though it helps). However, being in 1 episode of a reality show and getting hurt doesn't make you notable--that's more like WP:BLP1E. His busted nose seems to have gotten most of the coverage about him. He has no appearances in major events or against major opponents. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• His appearance on the show (a notable show in MMA) and then his loss, then his injury. I count three notable things. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Those were all the same event. I don't believe that appearing on TUF automatically makes one notable, but you seem to. I know actors aren't considered notable for appearing in a single episode and that boxers from The Contender have been deleted as nn. That's fine--we're both entitled to our opinions on that. Papaursa (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same event or not, there were still plenty of factors as I mentioned in my last reply. Also, this is fairly open to opinion, so I'm not claiming this as fact, but I'd say that TUF is far more well-known and notable than The Contender. Also, the actor argument wouldn't be too valid in my book. There are millions of actors out there, so we can't have pages for lesser-known actors, or we'd have about a million actor pages. Can you truly say the same for fighters? The inclusion criteria is far less harsh for MMA fighters, owing to their sheer lack of numbers. As such, getting onto TUF should be enough to warrant article inclusion. I'm not saying we should allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to have articles, but in my mind, The Ultimate Fighter participation makes one a candidate. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made me curious so I went searching for the viewership numbers for the two shows. From what I could find, when on NBC The Contender drew several times as many people as TUF. Even when it was switched to ESPN it outdrew TUF. The problem was those networks want far higher ratings to keep a show on. From what I read, getting on TUF is now more about generating ratings than proven fighting ability--especially when compared to the first year or two. At any rate, I've said my piece so whatever others decide is fine by me. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then. I wouldn't say we should follow the example of the Contender then. Just because there apparently arent pages for the boxers in that show, doesn't mean TUF should follow suit. As for the opinion that TUF fighters are selected for ratings, rather than ability; that's a little unfair. There are valid cases such as Kimbo Slice, but the majority aren't. Lynch is one picked on talent, as evidenced by his decent record against tough state opposition.

But yeah, I don't have much more to say on the matter, unless someone else asks me a question regarding Lynch. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still wanna know why you (Paralympiakos) think an injury on one episode of a reality show makes someone notable? RapidSpin33 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly this. He easily fits the description. As I've said; 3 factors, the TUF appearance, which is a highly notable show, his loss in said show, his notable injury in said show, which will be remembered for a long time. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one will remember Lynch's name, and hardly anyone will remember that injury after the season ends. His loss doesn't not make him notable, neither does appearing, for only a few minutes, in one episode of a reality T.V. show. Just quit arguing it, he is not notable. RapidSpin33 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They won't remember him? Says who? If in six months, you're right, THEN it would make sense to delete. For now, you're being far too reactionary. Let's be honest, he's got far more notability than Todd Murphey and Andy Ogle, that you created and it's a very well written article. Notability is there. If you want to relist this article in a few months, then go ahead, but for now, we should keep it. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He fails WP:GNG. Part of your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you don't like those other articles, put them up for AfD. Astudent0 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm fighting a losing battle here. I still believe he's notable, but since it's 3-1, I'm redirecting the article to the TUF 11 page as I believe that keeping the framework of the current article hidden will allow for easy recreation, should it require so. I trust everyone is fine with that. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I seen your reasoning for redirecting the article and you are being subjective saying the article is "well-written." I looked at the article and there was a lot of stuff that is not sourced such as "baddest man in Minnesota." Plus the stuff from Ultimate Fighter should be easily sourced, but that was failed to be done. If you wanted this other to be kept, then you should have continued to source it and add information to expand it. But you seemingly threw in the proverbial towel per se and conceded defeat. Finally, it's not about !votes. Whether the article is deleted or not is based on the discussion. Now as far as the discussion goes, if you are going to use WP:OTHERCRAP, then do something about it. Don't complain about lesser known fighters having articles if you are not doing anything about it. With that being said, I am closing this discussion as the article has been redirected to the current season of the Ultimate Fighter. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:03, 20 May 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. Needs cleanup, evidently.  Sandstein  07:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappear statues in tehran (2010)[edit]

Disappear statues in tehran (2010) (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 guess this is about stolen statutes, but I don't see how, even cleaned up, this is an encyclopedia article. — e. ripley\^talk 22:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this adventure is in top of news in Iran and it have news in English & it article have history list and etc... in Persian wiki-ناپدید شدن مجسمه‌های تهران (۱۳۸۹)--Surena (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Weak Keep as per WP:NOTNEWS and no other apparent notability -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed my view in the light of the additional links found below -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes i know wiki is not news, but this article maybe have communication with 2009–2010_Iranian_election_protests ,because this communication this article is an encyclopedia article--Surena (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any references from reliable sources that suggests there is a connection between the two? (If not, it's just your own speculation, which is not relevant to this discussion) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, may qualify for speedy as it contains no assertion of notability. Otherwise, it's a single sentence asserting that something happened. An encyclopedia article it is not. Heather (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article have notability(13 statues has been stolen and vanishing going continuesly) but it's very stub and need more infromationAmir (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any reliable references from multiple independent sources to show that this is any more than a short-term crime spree (the reference given says it's only in the past month) and that it has any encylopedic value? If not, it's just one of the millions of news reports of crimes that happen all over the world every day (albeit an impressively brazen one), and they don't all get Wikipedia articles -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1-first reason is some refs. tell that it hadn't stolen for money and it's from prohibiting of statue in Islam Shari 2-I found some independent refs. but all of them is Persian:
  

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/arts/2010/05/100504_l41_statue_robbery_updated.shtml
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/arts/2010/04/100428_l41_statue_robbery_tehran_2.shtml
• http://www.shamimm.ir/?83000A27964F4B458C5AD1C35B3D2573
• http://www.khabaronline.ir/news-61289.aspx (stealing of sheep statue from paradise of university!!!!)
• http://tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=97798
• http://www.asriran.com/fa/news/112814/%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B8%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%82%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA-%D9%88-%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%87
• http://www.kaleme.com/1389/02/13/klm-18372
• http://www.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8902131422 (britaniphobia)
• http://isna.ir/ISNA/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1536983&Lang=P
• http://www.khabaronline.ir/news-59337.aspx
• http://aftabnews.ir/vdcawwno.49noe15kk4.html
• http://www.jamejamonline.ir/papertext.aspx?newsnum=100874779051
• http://www.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8902140980

Need more???Amir (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me - nice work -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It's always difficult to determine the longer-term notability of very recent events, but these events have attracted coverage around the world including in The Washington Post[9] and The Guardian,[10] which reports that Iranian officials have blamed "the secret hand of England" for the thefts, so maybe the statues will end up in the British Museum in the next room to the Elgin Marbles. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, we'll need something to fill the room should the Greeks ever get their stuff back ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Needs to be rendered into proper English, a valid list about a contemporary news event. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, see WP:NOT#NEWS. Abductive (reasoning) 01:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool University Boat Club[edit]

Liverpool University Boat Club (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 cannot find significant coverage for this club, it could easily be merged with the university's page. —fetch·comms 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Other university clubs have their own pages, despite similar lack of coverage in the press. I don;t see why this should be any different. Please see the page on University rowing (UK) for a full list of similar clubs that receive similar or less coverage than LUBC. Please reconsider...

user:Slide89 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here wanting to !vote "neutral, leaning towards merge", but this article consists of three sentences with no refs. Fails WP:RS as such. Further, when we've merged club articles into school articles in the past, it results in undue weight, as the club that formerly had an article becomes a section in the school article whereas other clubs lack sections. So, delete. Heather (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There certainly are a bucket load of other University Rowing Clubs listed on the page cited by Slide89. However, WP:ATHLETE has clear guidelines for amateur sports, which this club probably doesn't meet. Most of the other University clubs wouldn't meet them either, probably, but e.g. the Trevelyan College article (to pick one at random) was created back in 2007, probably before WP:ATHLETE reached its current form? Also, look at WP:OTHERSTUFF David V Houston (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no secondary sources treat the topic. Similar non-notable student clubs have always fared poorly at AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 01:24, 21 May 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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pridgen cipher[edit]

Pridgen cipher (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 see no sources that confirm the notability of this character that appears to have recently been made up. IP removed prod saying "This entry is currently incomplete and WILL be completed. Thank you for your message." If notability problems are addressed I will withdraw. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It says "created in 2010 by Michael J. Pridgen, who created it for his own usasge" [sic], so it doesn't even make a claim for notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:V (among other things). Deor (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. If it's a created cipher that then becomes notable, and if there were sources to show that, then we might have something - but I see no evidence of that being the case. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 17 May 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. Tim Song (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional legitimacy[edit]

Constitutional legitimacy (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 seems to be something that can be merged with Constitution. Tim1357 ^talk 21:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Basically an unsourced essay that doesn't seem to require its own article. —fetch·comms 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, when I saw that this already had been nominated, I was going to withdraw it, but some other users have convinced me to let it run it's course. Tim1357 ^talk 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Substantially the same content as Entrenchment and more US Specific Living Constitution.--Savonneux (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Like to add redirect would seem justified.--Savonneux (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the last comment in the previous AfD, "the subject is very notable, the article as it stands is useless". Needs a rewrite, and pretty soon - otherwise we would might indeed be better off without. The topic is notable though and the rest is just work. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it is so badly written as to require a complete re-write, and I have already done my share of that this week. Bearian'sBooties 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced essay, without prejudice to a sourced rewrite.  Sandstein  06:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per the above 2 commenters. David V Houston (talk) 13:34, 21 May 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. obvious nonsense; protected against re-creation DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nullo space[edit]

Nullo space (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)

Complete nonsense vandalism, though unfortunately another editor removed the speedy deletion tag to that effect so it's come here. Created and deleted at least once already today. I42 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as hoax. Ideally, immediately. Thparkth (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• tagged for speedy deletion as hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 23:11, 13 May 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 independently of this AfD nomination by User:AGK. Non admin closure. I42 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doxx[edit]

Doxx (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 rapper. All sources are primary; no references in reliable sources found; no notable releases. I42 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment article creator, Sperlmutar (talk · contribs), indicated at Talk:Let It Be... Famous that he is the manager of this artist. If this article is deleted, ListenClose Music Group, Let's Be Famous & Let It Be... Famous should probably be deleted, too. — Scientizzle 21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 14 May 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/No consensus. There is a consensus to keep Tom Cat, Jerry Mouse and Mammy Two Shoes. The possibility of merging all or some of the other articles should be discussed on the relevant talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cat[edit]

Tom Cat (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 am also nominating the following related pages:

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

Mammy Two Shoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Butch (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lightning (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Meathead (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quacker (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Topsy (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spike (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tyke (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are all Tom and Jerry cartoon characters, and all of these articles are filled with original research and personal reports. There's nothing that can't be said about most of these characters in a good one or two sentences in the main Tom and Jerry article. The only article that really contains anything more than original research is the Mammy Two Shoes article, which parrots the censorship/re-edit history of the cartoons themselves. There honestly isn't much to discuss about the character herself - in addition to or in further detail beyond the editing of the cartoons - in a separate article.

I'd suggest all of these except Spike (Tom and Jerry) and Tyke (Tom and Jerry) be redirected back to Tom and Jerry, with no merge (in fact, Tom and Jerry could stand to be pared down significantly to cut through a lot of muck and mire added by an obviously passionate fan. Spike (Tom and Jerry) and Tyke (Tom and Jerry) could be redirect to Spike and Tyke, an article on their short-lived cartoon series. FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- PleaseStand ^(talk) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- PleaseStand ^(talk) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close (is that possible?) and start over. I agree with FuriousFreddy on Spike and Tyke, and I would argue that Mammy Two-Shoes deserves to remain because of the controversial elements surrounding the character. Jerry Mouse could possibly have his own article because he was also used as a solo character in a Gene Kelly movie (his article doesn't mention that). The others could be merged into the main Tom and Jerry article. Joal Beal (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does there need to be a procedural close? I followed the guidelines for nominating articles for deletion as a group (really this is a nomination for redirect, but we don't have such a setup). I wanted consensus before I did this and got into some edit war with a Tom & Jerry fan. There should already be mention of Jerry Mouse appearing in Anchors Aweigh as a solo character. I don't see what would need to be covered in a separate Jerry Mouse article that wouldn't already be covered in the Anchors Aweigh article, since I'm fairly certain that's the only place he's ever appeared "without" Tom (Tom does has a cameo in the film). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• , No, you do not seem to have followed the process described at WP:BEFORE. For example, all you've done at the Tom Cat article is nominate it for deletion. There seems to have been no discussion at its talk page, attempts to improve the article or contemplate alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: At very least merge the less significant characters, even redirecting some back to Tom and Jerry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Garrison (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the idea of a Procedural close has merit - in this case, it would be because this sounds essentially like a Merge discussion, which does not require an AFD. I can find no evidence of a previous merge discussion at Tom and Jerry, nor do I see one at any of the character articles, and - per WP:BEFORE, we really should have gone that route first. I agree that there's a lot of uncited material here, and much of it is probably original research. But before we go and delete these articles, including several (like Tom himself) that have obvious notability, I think we need to have a proper merge discussion that has no seven-day time frame, and that does not include the threat of deletion. A procedural close would not bias consensus on individual articles, if they came to AFD later on. It looks like the nomination is in order, so far as adding so many other articles goes, but the articles differ wildly in notability - and it's hard to say that they all should be kept, deleted, or what have you. It would be easier to discuss and evaluate if the nominations were separate, or at least more separate (two or three at a time, for example). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 23:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  First, like I said in the intro, there's nothing to merge: all the content is original research with no encyclopedic merit, and anything that could be merged is already in the Tom and Jerry article (and much of that is going to be deleted out of that article when I get the chance to revise it). What is there to merge? That's why I did the afds. Second, with these sorts of articles, I know from experience; there's not going to be any decent discussion of keep/merge. They'll sit there until someone does something. I mean, these sat here in this state for years as it was anyway. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem here is that I can definitely see myself going Delete on some of these, and Strong Keep on others - which is an indication that this particular debate is overly broad. If you call the question at Talk:Tom and Jerry, notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation and maybe some others, and get a proper discussion going, then you'll have a clear consensus one way or the other. You might also find that you suddenly have other editors who are engaged in the process and willing to help. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per UltraExactZZ's observation that these cartoon characters are inherently notable meaning all subjects within the category are surely notable. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You just linked an essay, not a policy. Just wanted to point that out. So is the house that Tom & Jerry live in also inherently notable? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As a nominator, you should be aware of Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. This is perfectly acceptable in WP:AfD. And, I referenced UltraExactZZ's cite of WP:BEFORE which is policy. Another handy item to read before nominating. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I read all of that (I'd appreciate it if you took the condescending tone out of your voice). And yes, I still made the afd. Why? Because the articles need to be done away with, not improved, tagged for cleanup, referenced. Read them. It's full of personal reports from some child watching cartoons. There's actual encyclopedic coverage that can be afforded a subject like Tom and Jerry, but this isn't it. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Massive sources exist for this historically significant cartoon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't an afd for Tom and Jerry. This is an afd for individual characters from the cartoon series, the same way someone once created individual articles for every character from Glitter. And I own or have immediate access to all of those "massive sources", and there's nothing in any of them that can be used for most of these articles. There is no verifiable third party coverage of any characters named "Meathead", "Topsy", "Butch", or "Toodles Galore" from Tom and Jerry cartoons. If you can prove me wrong and find anything, I'll shut up. They're all just personal reports. I honestly want to know: did you actually read any of these articles? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: After doing some research, I have no verifiable sources for the existence of the names "Meathead", "Topsy", and "Toodles Galore" for the characters identified under them. Unless someone can provide otherwise, I would like to modify my vote for those three to delete. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's a cartoon where Toodles is identified as Toodles (see 3:11): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1rb84_tom-jerry-springtime-for-thomas_fun

  And here's another (several textual references from 0:45 to 0:50): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmfnVxu2iXU I'm certain that the surname Galore is canon too, but haven't had a chance to track it down (yet). Ramapith (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all into List of Tom and Jerry characters (yes, I know that's a red link), and cleanup. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 06:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A List of Tom and Jerry characters article is not a bad idea at all. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all There are plenty of news reviews talking about the series, and mentioning the characters in detail. Mammy Two Shoes gets plenty of mention in books. [[11]] Dream Focus 08:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect the recurring characters, neutral on Jerry and Tom because there may be enough notability independent on the current state of their articles. The articles on the recurring characters consist mostly of either unsourced material or original research, and the long Appearances sections are just WP:TRIVIA and shouldn't be there anyway. There already is adequate coverage in Tom_and_Jerry_(MGM)#Characters for them, but I wouldn't mind a spinout List of Tom and Jerry characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tom Cat, Jerry Mouse, Mammy Two Shoes and Spike (Tom and Jerry) as these are major characters in this historically and culturally significant cartoon; good sources exist for these subjects even if they aren't currently being referenced. Mammy Two Shoes is a Strong Keep due to the controversy surrounding this character and the good quality of the article. Merge Tyke (Tom and Jerry) into Spike (Tom and Jerry). Redact and merge the rest into List of Tom and Jerry characters as per user:TorriTorri's suggestion. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed that we should Keep Tom, Jerry, Mammy, and Spike on their own and Merge the others into List of Tom and Jerry characters. They will still take some editing: Meathead is a mess and contains some inaccurate information. But that's not cause for deletion by itself. I'm not as passionate a fan as the junkie who wrote most of the articles, but as a moderately interested MGM animation scholar I still find them helpful to have around. Ramapith (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've dug up copies of Hanna's and Barbera's autobiographies, and I should have enough reference material now to write verified separate articles on at least Tom, Jerry, and Mammy Two-Shoes as characters that won't overlap with the scope of the article on the series. I've laready started revising Jerry Mouse. Can I withdraw those three articles by themselves, while we vote on what to do with the others, or should I procedurally close and start over with the more troublesome entries? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and rewrite). Tom Cat and Jerry Mouse are iconic cartoon characters. The Tom Cat article has potential for development and I would suggest that, while it should be flagged as needing urgent improvement, it should not be considered an appropriate candidate for AfD. DiverScout (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Notable topics for which there are many sources. The nomination seems overbold contrary to our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a consensus: Keep Tom Cat, Jerry Mouse, Mammy Two Shoes and the rest go in to List of Tom and Jerry characters. The only non-consensus is whether we keep Spike (Tom and Jerry) or push that into List of Tom and Jerry characters too; I'm not particularly fussed since although Spike & Tyke have had their own outings, these are rare; Spike & Tyke are generally considered to be Tom & Jerry characters. Can we call it and create List of Tom and Jerry characters now please? We can leave Spike's page alone and worry about it later once the list page is done. If there are no objections within 24 hours, I'll create List of Tom and Jerry characters and move edited versions of Butch, Lightning, Meathead, Toodles, Topsy and Tyke into that, then redirect those articles to their sections in that list. The major characters (Tom, Jerry, Mammy) will have Main Article: links from the list page, as will Spike until we form consensus on his article. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of what List of Tom and Jerry characters should look like, I cite: List of characters in Heroes, List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a plan to me. DiverScout (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but when coming up with List of Tom and Jerry characters let's not leave out Quacker, who seems to have dropped through the cracks (quacks?). Also curious about Tuffy, whom we haven't mentioned but is arguably next most important behind Tom, Jerry, and Mammy—he was created for comics before he appeared in cartoons, and has been in literally thousands of them. Tuffy presently has a Main Article and I think he should keep it. Ramapith (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sorry, missed that one. I suggest that Quacker's main article is linked from List of Tom and Jerry characters since there isn't currently a consensus on the fate of his article. If a consensus later emerges on integrating his main article into the list article, then that can be done at a later date. Let's focus today on what we do agree on; tidying up the content-thin Butch, Lightning, Meathead, Toodles, Topsy and Tyke articles into List of Tom and Jerry characters and linking the remaining major characters' main articles from that. Andrew Oakley (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tyke should be incorporated with Spike, not List of Tom and Jerry characters.Ramapith (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good night... I've just spent a little time trying to fix up the Butch, Lightning, and Meathead pages to scrub some glitches (in particular, the strange and erroneous idea that Meathead evolved into Lightning). Then I went back to the Tom and Jerry main page and took a look at the shorter character bios there. Holy crap—these bios have the same errors and more (I didn't think more was possible!); a few truly odd choices (Butch and Toodles share a bio... why?), and I don't have time to fix them. So—not only does List of Tom and Jerry characters need to incorporate the present main articles for Butch, Lightning, Meathead, Toodles, and Topsy—it needs to replace the Butch, Lightning, Meathead, Toodles, and Topsy bios on the main Tom and Jerry page.Ramapith (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All without prejudice to individual relistings of the minor characters.--Milowent (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tom Cat, Jerry Mouse, weak keep to Spike (Tom and Jerry) and Merge the rest to a List of Tom and Jerry characters The notability of the first two has been established, has significant coverage, not sure about the third one and the recurring characters should instead be merged. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and discuss merge: there was a better way to handle this nomination. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge most, keep the few, per Andrew Oakley above. David V Houston (talk) 13:37, 21 May 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 all to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. To the extent there is anything to merge, it can be done from the page history as necessary. Tim Song (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make Your Mark[edit]

Make Your Mark (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)

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because enough precedent has been set with the other 37 AFDs for related pricing game articles that none of these are notable enough on their own to warrant individual articles. All pertinent information, sans most of the trivia, is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games.

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

On the Nose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The Phone Home Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Split Decision (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Super Ball!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

$uper $aver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Time Is Money (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Walk of Fame (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Merge all into List of The Price Is Right pricing games, removing links from that page per WP:NOR and WP:N. Perhaps consider adding many other articles located on the list that have separate articles. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per Fiftytwo thirty's observations. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - mostly on the redundancy and trivia bases. (Although the episodes themselves do provide sources for some of the content, that content is already present in the main list, which we can split for size alphabetically if needed. We don't need separate articles for every single game.) RJaguar3 | u | t 03:10, 19 May 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. Merging with List of Tom and Jerry cartoons to include the animator data was decided against due to the lack of any presented source for the information. Merging based on formatting issues at List of Tom and Jerry cartoons was rejected as Talk:List of Tom and Jerry cartoons would be the best place to determine any format improvements. A redirect doesn't seem necessary. — Scientizzle 18:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tom and Jerry cartoons in production order[edit]

List of Tom and Jerry cartoons in production order (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)

There's already a List of Tom and Jerry cartoons. Why is this here? FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Joal Beal (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Pit-yacker (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The only thing this article seems to have that the other does, is the names of the animators. Is this information notable? If so, merge it over. If not, just replace this article with a redirect. Dream Focus 02:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I really don't care much for the layout of List of Tom and Jerry cartoons, a dozen mini-tables by year. This other article has the better idea. Merge the best of both into one article. Once done I see little need of retaining a redirect though. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 14 May 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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Mariners[edit]

Greenwich Mariners (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. University teams for mainstream British sports such as Soccer, rowing and cricket are rarely notable. They usually hold little interest even in their own institution. American Football in the UK is niche interest. Article has no references, largely because there aren't any. Googling Greenwich Mariners returns only websites related to the team and their rivals. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. British university sports teams are not generally notable. This team does not appear to be an exception. Pfainuk talk 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the reasons expressed in all the other UK uni American football articles. There seems to have been a big drive by one or more editors to add extensive coverage of UK uni American football to WP back in 2008, when standards maybe weren't quite so exacting. The articles have pretty much not been touched since (this one certainly hasn't, and is now two years out of date), and as has been repeatedly pointed out, these teams simply aren't notable even within their own institutions, never mind in the wider world..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG with one google news hit. Article is concerned with an amateur unversity sports team, which has no claims to notability. The team plays a sport which is only of minimal notability within the UK and would not be considered even remotely notable within the wider American Football frame either. UK American football teams are nothing like US college teams, they seem essentially little more than social clubs. Although the deletion of other university UK American football teams should not be taken as a suitable reason for deleting this article, there seems to be nothing distinguishing Worcester from any other UK university team. Fenix down (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your analysis of UK university sport is spot on. I think probably everything that a non-UK reader needs to know about UK university sport can be summed up by the fact that, when I was a first-year student, one of my flatmates made it onto the university's American football team, but had to drop out because, with sports teams receiving pretty much no money from the university, the players had to provide their own equipment and he couldn't afford to buy a set of pads. It's hard to imagine Mark Ingram, Jr. having to scrape together the money to buy his own helmet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no reason to make an exception for this subject at this time. Perhaps in the future should more independent sources arise, this would be a better candidate. Try another Wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:26, 15 May 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 Withdrawn. — Timneu22 · talk 21:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrows Of Stephen[edit]

Sorrows Of Stephen (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 article does nothing to convey the importance of the material, it simply details the synopsis of the play. Suggest that this page be userfied until it can be fixed. I'm not exactly sure if I can find reviews on this play. It appears that I cannot. In any case, as written it is not encyclopedic. Would love to see this userfied and then brought back from the dead. This is a weak AFD; I apologize. — Timneu22 · talk 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of reviews available in Google News Archive [12] [13] [14][15] for starters. Notability is established. Should be easy enough to fix up the article, no need to delete. Thparkth (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I said it was a weak delete. I still am hesitant. What about reviews of the play in general? Not just one screening of it. I'm thinking about Shear Madness as a guide, here. — Timneu22 · talk 20:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reviews found show notability. To User:Timneu22 who asked "what about reviews of the play in general", I'm not sure what you're looking for. The various reviews cited all refer to different stagings of the play across several years and venues. If you're looking for a literary analysis of the play itself, that would be nice, but hardly necessary to confer notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw; since no one says "delete", we'll just keep it. I need to search google better... I found nothing. Oh well.

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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Tarantula Society[edit]

Malaysian Tarantula Society (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)

Unnotable. The Cobwebs and the Sorrow (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Much as I wish it were (being a member of both the British Tarantula Society and the British Arachnological Society myself), I really don't think this undoubtedly worthy organisation is sufficiently notable for an article in Wikipedia -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. [16] and [17] provide some passing coverage that goes a little beyond just being mentioned, but the coverage is still incidental, and not significant enough for me to be swayed to keep. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 14 May 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 Per A7 (Non-Admin Closure) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia malamanteau controversy[edit]

Wikipedia malamanteau controversy (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)

No evidence of a real "controversy", no references to reliable sources. The only references cited are to discussions on internet forums, and Wikipedia itself. The whole idea that this is a "controversy" is something that was dreamed up by a bunch of xkcd fans. It's not like Wikipedia itself is in any sort of uproar about this; the only people in an uproar are the hordes of IPs and SPAs showing up here and complaining. The fact that something gets discussed on internet forums by random nobodies is in no way notable; Wikipedia edit disputes and internet forum discussions are not notable unless they become the subject of coverage in independent, reliable sources (see, for instance, Essjay controversy). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. There is no controversy. Just a bunch of webcomic fans angry that their article will be deleted. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:06, 13 May 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 Per A3 (Non-Admin Closure) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to Post an Ad on Craig's List[edit]

How to Post an Ad on Craig's List (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)

How-to articles are not encyclopedic; this article consists of pure OR. If you'd like to see a CSD for this type of article, see Wikipedia talk:CSD. — Timneu22 · talk 18:46, 13 May 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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal Solutions Group[edit]

Optimal Solutions Group (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 organization; spam; twice before speedy deleted, needs deletion and salt. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Right, why no speedy a third time? Salt it is... — Timneu22 · talk 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted this way, even if no salt allowed can use CSD G4 from this point on and cut out the drama. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:CORP. Joal Beal (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - per nom. Fails WP:COMPANY. ----moreno oso (Growl here) 21:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 13 May 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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PR-101: Use Trade Shows to Attract Media[edit]

PR-101: Use Trade Shows to Attract Media (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 is a how-to article and/or an essay. It is purely original research, with a title that does not conform to WP standards. See Wikipedia talk:CSD for possible CSD criteria for essay and how-to articles. — Timneu22 · talk 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - no encyclopaedic content, a how to guide, an essay and from reading it likely a copyvio of an article from some magazine. Canterbury Tail talk 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no speedy criterion for this. :( — Timneu22 · talk 19:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Darn, there should be. Canterbury Tail talk 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Join the conversation!! Some of us agree this warrants a speedy reason, others do not. — Timneu22 · talk 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Utter WP:NOTHOWTO.--Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An essay of OR and unreadable gush. Used correctly, conferences can be a free ticket to media coverage of your company. Be sure to leverage your hard work and noteworthy participation to keep yourself in front of your target audience by making a serious commitment to doing some public relations outreach before, during, and after these events to maximize your return on investment -- it's not hard and it's not expensive. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 14 May 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. Tim Song (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stratton Rawson[edit]

Stratton Rawson (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)

Film producer who does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Although the station WNED-FM does meet notability guidelines, notability is not inherited. Claritas (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you consider Buffalo News an RS?[18] Or the book references here?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that the Buffalo News is a local newspaper, and thus may not meet the WP:RS guidelines. He's mentioned in some publications, but hasn't recieved any significant coverage.Claritas (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes!! That is a rather incorrect "presumption" to share. Had you thought to first look at the Wikipedia artricle about that publication, you would have learned that the Buffalo News was founded in 1873 and that it is both the primary newspaper of the Buffalo – Niagara Falls metropolitan area, and the area's only daily newspaper. You would have learned that Buffalo News founded and formerly owned the WBEN television and radio stations, which are now WIVB (Channel 4), WBEN (930), WYRK (106.5) and WTSS (102.5), respectively. You would have learned that journalists from the Buffalo News have won three Pulitzer Prizes. And you would have learned that in 2009 Buffalo News was listed 52nd among the 100 top newspapers in the entire US by circulation... and that it has consistantly held that ranking for many years.[19] Nope. Not exactly a neighborhood gazette. The Buffalo News amply meets Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. And if Rawson gets continued coverage in that honored publication for over 10 years... and other sources as well.. and is written of in multiple books....? Yup. He's notable... even if we may never have heard of him before this AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt has a good point. I would suggest to nom that he do a better job of following the requirements of wp:before. I note that he said he could not find significant coverage in reliable sources, but given the above -- which one can find with just a few clicks of a mouse -- I'm not sure how he is conducting his search.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If not the nom, at least I myself recognize Buffalo News as WP:RS. Award-winning radio personality[20] and classical musician with coverage since at least 1990, with coverage in such as Los Angeles Times, along with American Record Guide and the numerous books, seems to indicate notability. The article has a few minor issues, but is well sourced and notability is shown. Time for cleanup, but not for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not established, and apparently cannot be. The cited NYT article does not mention him. After the end of that article, there is some extra junk that simply lists data of a few movies - that where his name appears. The Buffalo News external link leads to a page on which Rawson's name does not appear. As far as I can tell, he IS a person who works in film and broadcast media, but that in itself is not notable. ike9898 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to look at the news and book links in the above "findsources". Sources toward notability do not have to at this very minute be IN the article for a reasonable presumption of notability to be made. That's why the "findsearches" link is offered above.... so editors can look toward potential and beyond an article's current condition. His notability is WELL established per available sources, and the article can easily be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Schimdt.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Schimdt. Evalpor (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It's certainly not an obvious case, but the Buffalo News coverage pushes him over the notability fence from my point of view. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fairly significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so it passes WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Myers[edit]

Donny Myers (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 U.S. theatrical actor. Does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Joal Beal (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Non-notable actor with no credible claim of notability in the article. All theatre credits are from community theatre troupes. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I counted a total of four roles performed in two Chicago-area community theater groups. The possibility of any actor with this resume making any significant cultural impact seems nil. A reasonable Google search turned up nothing. The article is inappropriate and should be removed. Rudybowwow (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Evalpor (talk) 02:53, 19 May 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 CSD A7 Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Nomura[edit]

Yusuke Nomura (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)

Repeatedly recreated article, speedily deleted 3 times under G2 (2x) and G3. No changes in article. Should be deleted and salted. GregJackP (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: No need for AFD. No notability asserted. Deleted and Salted. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Kelly[edit]

Ariana Kelly (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)

Looks like this article is being used to give this person coverage. Running for a state's congress doesn't make the person notable. NOTYET seems to apply here; there's no notability at this time. — Timneu22 · talk 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not appear to meet notability guidelines at present WP:BIO and living person concerns; I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources (notability guideline)  Chzz  ►  13:26, 15 May 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. Editorially redirecting to private property.  Sandstein  07:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private property sign[edit]

Private property sign (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)

Nonsense / vandalism. I've tried both speedying and redirecting but other editors keep reverting. No doubt they think it's funny. andy (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though we may choose to not keep the article in its current condition, the subject is worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, why would Wet floor sign exist, for instance. Just for the record, nominator, I didn't revert because I thought it was funny (what's makes you think it's funny?), I reverted because either you or another editor added a speedy tag after an editor who didn't create the page had contested speedy deletion. Once the speedy deletion tag is contested by an editor who didn't create the page, with the exception of extreme cases, which this is not, the only way to get it deleted if you think so fit is to take it to Afd, which is what you should've done first instead of redirecting, which could be seen as a bold move, but considering the conflicting of ideas, trying to a reach a concensus or settlement, or at least asking either me or the other editor that reverted to justify our reverts or discuss the issues at hand would've been much better, and there may not have even been need to even drag this to Afd in the first place.--Once-An-IP (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the broadness of the subject allows opportunity to build the page into a well-developed article.--IslandAtSea (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, if you do the search properly there are only 388 hits, most of them utterly irrelevant and none of them indicating notability. Anyway the article is vandalism and could never amount to more than a dicdef. andy (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per IslandAtSea.--John Chestpack (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete No content here other than pure hoax and vandalism. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. If someone wants to create a similar article in the future referenced to reliable sources, there is nothing to stop them. Thee is no encyclopedic content at present. Edison (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, dicdef entry filled out with junk content, no sign of any potential to be anything more than that. Hairhorn (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I agree with the nominator that the article is a lame attempt at humor, and that it qualifies as vandalism. For those who find this long after it was deleted, it began with an idiotic story about an "old witch" who magically created a sign, and became more juvenile as it went along. I'm gathering that it was inspired by another debate over whether to keep the article wet paint sign. Regardless of the motivation, a stupid and not at all funny contribution. Mandsford 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Poor attempt at humour. Not even remotely accurate. There is nothing of value to salvage. If the subject is worthy of an article, which I doubt (this sort of article is probably better covered by something such as Trespass to property), then it would be best started from scratch. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:PERMA It's covered in Trespass, I could see covering it in something that covers all warning signs too but I don't think it'll ever have "The complete history of Private Property Signs" from the dawn of civilization until modern day. --Savonneux (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Trespass#Prevention. I had my laugh, it passed. Someone should dig into the past and find out if Diogenes of Sinope had a sign in front of his tub. Really nothing to salvage here. East of Borschov (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rhubarb. Not even fake sources given. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources. No evidence of notability. Probably meant as a joke, but not even a funny one. Reading the above comments I see that the only reasons given for keeping are (1) "the subject is worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, why would Wet floor sign exist, for instance" and (2) "per the broadness of the subject". "Other stuff exists" is never a good reason for keeping, while "per the broadness of the subject" is very vague, and does not relate in any way to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's common sense that private property signs exist. You can find millions of pictures of private property signs on Google images. The sheer number of such images suggests that this class of signage is notable in its own right. Should we remove all articles on WP about common types of signs? The correct solution is to clean up the article and provide some images demonstrating what such a sign is. --Erik Garrison (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course they exist, nobody denies that. However, is there anything notable about them? I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like a dictionary entry followed by a gallery. Neither of which counts as an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What about signs that say "No Trespassing"? "Keep Out"? "No Admittance"? Should they all have articles even though they all refer specifically to a tort called "Trespass against land"? Or just keep this one because it was the first made for this type of sign? It's just clearer to put it in the Trespassing article.--Savonneux (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure if you've actually looked at the article, but it was never intended to be taken seriously in the first place. The part about the old witch who "cast a magic spell to create a private property sign"? The author was joking. It didn't really happen. And the stuff about the lumberjack who "had a secret house for hiding his extra wood"? Again, it was a joke. There was no lumberjack. There was no secret house. There wasn't even extra wood. He made the whole thing up. I think it was a test to see people's reactions, and it's gotten some surprising results, that's for sure. I can't think of a greater reward for his efforts then if he convinces someone to actually spend their spare time rewriting this to be a serious article. In that event, I'm going to be laughing with him. Mandsford 01:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect How about we just redirect the page to private property or an alternative appropiate page?--John Chestpack (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried that - check the page history. andy (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article creator's only other contribution to Wikipedia seems to be this. Enough said. Peridon (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You missed this one [21]. andy (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, ta. Just wondering if this stuff should be transferred to Uncyclopedia or isn't that done/possible? Peridon (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be to give it a recognition it doesn't deserve. It's not actually even funny, just schoolboyish and desperately trivial. andy (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for bringing up those instances. I think that the edits described above come right under the definition in WP:VANDALISM "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." I've gone ahead and requested administrator intervention concerning the creation of the page and the frustration of attempts to give fair warning and of attempts to make good faith efforts to cure the vandalism. Mandsford 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Go to the Uncyclopedia. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that this can now be speedied under G3. The article's creator has been temporarily blocked for creating nonsense pages. Absent a finding that this was not, in fact, one of those pages, I think that this discussion may now be closed. Mandsford 00:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Private property.--Headhold (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect No point in actually physically deleting the page, if someone can find encyclopedic information about the sign, they can add it to Private property.--_Gordon41 17:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK. The b.s. can then be administratively deleted from the history. Mandsford 20:21, 18 May 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. — Scientizzle 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bintmance[edit]

Bintmance (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 is clearly WP:NEO, and I really think it is WP:MADEUP. I skipped CSD for AFD this time. — Timneu22 · talk 16:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This term is in common usage in the NE of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bintmance (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Prove it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as WP:NN neologism. Toddst1 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No Google hits at all. Has to be WP:MADEUP. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 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) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Simpson (politician)[edit]

Andrew Simpson (politician) (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. Fails GNG and POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Kittybrewster ☎ 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; admittedly a lovely chap IRL. Owes me a gin and tonic. Ironholds (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What does that mean in English? Bumcheekcity (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oh dear, "Northampton North is an important seat for the Liberal Democrats, needing only a 5.86% swing to win the seat," is not very subtle. Definite fail of WP:POLITICIAN Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of the millions of people in human history who have never been elected to their nation's legislature. I'm afraid that only the winners get the dubious honor of of having their very own Wikipedia article. Mandsford 19:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as one of many dozen promotional articles for nn people which should have been vamoosed before the election --Saalstin (talk) 14:42, 16 May 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) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weppons house wiston[edit]

Weppons house wiston (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 page appears to be patent nonsense or vandalism, but it was not CSD'd. I don't know what to say. This should be deleted, and Weapon house weston along with it. This appears to be pure nonsense. — Timneu22 · talk 16:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I disagree with the nominator's reasons (the article is not nonsense, nor is it blatant misinformation), since none of the information in the article can be verified, including the fact that Philip Henry George Gosse (grandson of Philip Henry Gosse) ever mentioned this house in his Memoirs of a Camp Follower, and since the primary author's contributions to Wikipedia seem to be entirely vandalism, the article should be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It was "nonsense" to me in the fact that I had no idea what it was talking about. Was that English? Truly, I couldn't tell what was trying to be conveyed. — Timneu22 · talk 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources found. (I didn't.) If Philip Henry George Gosse turns out to be notable, a redirect can be created to that article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:39, 13 May 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 withdrawn by nominator. Someone rescued it; it does not resemble the original bad state. — Timneu22 · talk 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Waked[edit]

Amr Waked (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)

No real third-party indication of notability. Looks like this article is designed to give notice to the topic, not to cover it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yup. Another new article from someone who does not understand WP:MOS. However, the subject seems to meet WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO... and since surmountable issues are no reason to delete, I'll have a go at fixing it up and report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep After doing some work on the article, I'm back. With respects to User:Timneu22, his nomination seems to be based upon the then-current state of a 7-minute-old article without having addressed its potential for improvement... and I am reminded that AFD is not intended to "force cleanup". Tagging it for his concerns might have been better than imediately prodding it for speedy and then sending in to AFD 4 hours after the tag was declined without an actual discussion with the author and giving him a chance to address those concerns. And yes, a bot did notify the newbie author of the article being tagged for speedy deletion, and the newbie then responded on his own talk page. Nominating it for deletion 4 hours after the prod was declined is not quite what I mean by "discussion" of a notable subject... specially as an easily found article in Bloomberg [22] acts as an example of how this Egyptian actor's career is finally getting coverage in the West, while other search results show him as being an award-winning and decently notable actor in Egypt.... and notable in Egypt is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. And even without the growing coverage that leaks over to the U.S., the article is assuredly a keeper. I ask that the nom consider a withdrawal... as what started as this has so far become THIS and is being improved even further through the use of numerous reliable sources available. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}. It's amazing what a little bit of effort can accomplish in here. The subject is notable, even important. Evalpor (talk) 01:59, 15 May 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. Even discounting the SPAs there isn't a consensus here. There may be a case for a merge discussion though, as pointed out by the final comment in the AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Skibiski[edit]

Greg Skibiski (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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The article has a number of references, but they are about the company and only briefly quote the subject of the article. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - Methinks the lady doth protest too much.....it is obvious the author is the man himself, and this forum too important a source to allow self promotion - delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.12.46 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — 24.239.12.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - Agreed. I am familiar with the company and the bio is exaggerated, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.246.209.213 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — 75.246.209.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - Would you mind pointing out specifically which statements and references are exaggerated, with a reference to back you up that contradicts the references listed? Otherwise these kind of comments above have no value.Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agreed. No notable achievements, referencing an Israeli start up for an American entrepreneur? Seems a very obvious attempt to use Wikipedia for self promotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telavivtalker (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — Telavivtalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - I do not see what is exaggerated about it, since every fact is backed by airtight reference. Recommend to keep the page and add more about Skibiski's innovations. Seems the references were all done incorrectly at first, now fixed. 450zuck (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - New references added in response to above comments Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Also familiar with the company and the bio is completely exaggerated. Most of the notoriety at Sense Networks is due to Tony Jebara (Director of Machine Learning at Columbia University) and Sandy Pentland (Head of Human Dynamics at MIT Media Lab). The PR is primarily fluff pieces, at best. I thought Linkedin was for resumes, not Wikipedia. Furthermore, the author didn't even bother to fact check the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - May I ask what references you are basing that statement on? In MIT Technology Insider (August 2008) from Pentland's own university stated that "The idea for CitySense started back in 2002, when Skibiski, a software developer who has run a global hedge-fund conference for several years, approached Pentland with the idea that data being collected by mobile phones and GPS devices could be useful to economists." Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article you've mentioned appears to have at least one factual error...per the other references that cite 2006 as the founding of the company, not 2002.Groundtruth 1 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You continue to make claims, but you have not yet provided a single reference to back up your positions. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Also, I don't understand why you changed his title to co-founder, when the company's most recent press release bearing Skibiski's name (June 30, 2009, as has been cited in the references) refers to him as "Founder and CEO", not co-founder. I propose that this would be the authoritative source on this matter, it being the last official release before he left the company. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Criteria: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.", Skibiski was principal creator of the idea that there is value created by analyzing large amounts of location (lat, long) data from mobile phones, and built the first large scale system to do so (proving the idea), and the first consumer app to make that data available to the public, Citysense. He is lead inventor on those patent apps. Citysense has been praised as such in many first tier news sources, NYT, BusinessWeek, Newsweek, MIT Tech Review. There was no notable prior art in the space before his patent apps and concepts were made public. Archived GNEWS on Citysense and Skibiski is more relevant, as he left the company in November '09. Appears to pass WP:BIO with recent edits. 450zuck (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - http://www.technologyreview.com/infotech/19968/?a=f - clearly states that the idea was prior to 2007 (90's) and belongs to Sandy Pentland— Preceding unsigned comment added by Telavivtalker (talk • contribs) — Telavivtalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment - There is nothing in here about prior art involving big data, which it seems is the point. Also, if it were Pentland's existing ideas being used to start the company, the company would be listed as assignee on his patents. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was the original author, thank you Ttonyb1 for your assistance is making this conform to standards. I have never authored a Wikipedia page before. In updating this page, I hope it now conforms to the notable person standard, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It also said I needed to add one quality reference to have the page taken off the delete list, and I added several from sources of the highest reputability.

In the references I cited, which are independent global news sources, Mr. Skibiski is indisputably presented as a world renown thought leader and innovator. He has been featured New York Times many times for his notable innovations and patent pending technologies (he is lead inventor as mentioned above, which is referenced to the US Patent Office). The NYT published a photograph of him in the Sunday New York Times Business Section alongside a major article on his work and how it has changed the world's perceptions of large data analytics, among the many other times he has been quoted by New York Times on such subjects at Google's business strategy.

He is also featured as a revolutionary innovator in BusinessWeek magazine, where he has had his picture printed twice in the print edition, and has had a major feature article on his work, among several other print citations and quotes. Newsweek has also published a five page story on his novel techniques to analyzing data from mobile phones that was featured on the cover of the international print edition of that magazine. He lead a company that counts as employees the Academic Head of the MIT Media Lab, and the Head of Machine Learning at Columbia University.

Further, I have cited him as published in the recent Aspen Institute book "The Promise and Peril of Big Data" (the book is a reference recently deleted?). The Aspen Institute is one of the world's most prestigious think tanks. Generally only global political and industry leaders are invited to speak at the Institute (http://www.aspeninstitute.org/). His peers in creating this publication are Esther Dyson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Dyson), Hal Varian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Varian), John Seely Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seely_Brown), Joi Ito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joi_Ito) and Bill Coleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._Coleman_III).

I believe this complies with your sensible mandate that he must have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent". I also feel I have conformed with precedents set by similar Wikipedia pages at this stage of development. Thank you again. Petersongl3 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Unfortunately, none of the articles amount to "non-trivial" coverage of the subject of the article. ttonyb (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ttonyb1, thank you I will add further references later today. However, if Skibiski is lead inventor of these technologies (and it appears that according to the US Patent & Trademark Office, as referenced, he is), then these major feature articles in BusinessWeek, Newsweek, New York Times, indeed would amount to "non-trivial" coverage of Mr. Skibiski's original accomplishments. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The New York Times and BusinessWeek print editions both featured prominent color photos of Mr. Skibiski, which seems also to confirm the fact that "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.", which is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is a significant new concept, because it is the subject of major articles in NYT and BusinessWeek. The person is known for originating it, because Mr. Skibiski's photo is featured, in the case of BusinessWeek print edition, twice in the same issue. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith requires me to assume that you are not connected with either the subject of the article or the company referred to. Peridon (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC) (This comment refers to Petersongl3 not Ttonyb1)[reply]
• Comment - I do not know Skibiski but many people would consider me an expert in the space. I am working on a series of Wikipedia pages. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC) *— 71.232.77.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong Keep - Like a typical entrepreneur, he is working on a stealth project right now and doesn't want any press during this period. As for originating a new concept and being widely appreciated for such, he spoke at Web 2.0 Summit in 2008, two people before Al Gore on the main stage, talking about his techniques for analyzing GPS data, showing graphs (theres one amazing graph on slideshare), people were wowed. 71.232.77.86 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The project might be in stealth mode, but the article is about an individual. Without verifiability there is nothing to support the article. How does speaking at Web 2.0 Summit in 2008 meet the requirements of WP:BIO? ttonyb (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The New York Times, Business Week, Forbes, Newsweek, etc. references to Mr. Skibiski appear to be reliable and independent enough for me. Mandsford 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – None of the references meet the criteria in WP:RS. ttonyb (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Are you really saying that those publications are not reliable sources for subjects in the field of business? There may be a discussion to be had about whether the sources have the significant coverage required for notability, but they indubitably meet the requirements of WP:RS. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I don't think a few sporadic articles are that compelling. The company's website doesn't even list him any longer [23]. And, all the articles are about the company, not the person. Googsearch (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) — googsearch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I agree that if this person were a VP at the company, there would be no argument. However, he was the sole founder of the company in the beginning, and the original ideas are attributed to him. This is confirmed because he is lead inventor on the company's three patent applications (referenced). 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why would he be listed on the company's executive bios page if he didn't work there anymore? 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - When the top of the charts ghits for a 'leader of world' whatever are LinkedIn, crunchbase and the company site, I start to wonder. There's a lot of facebook, 123people, flickr and such self-edited stuff following on closely. Good PR work, but makes me wonder, as I said. Not got time at the moment to go wading amongst this dross (from the Wikipedia point of view) but should get back to it on Saturday if work permits. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This appears to be a self-promoting article. Regardless, useful to compare the google search results with people in the article. Google search "Joi Ito", 184,000 search results; "Esther Dyson", 146,000 results, "Greg Skibiski", 13,000. This is a simple gut check that this article is not notable.Googsearch (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) — googsearch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I can do even better than that. Before 2008, Greg Sibiski NONE [24], Esther Dyson and Joi Ito lots and lots [25] [26]. I don't know why he gets coverage now. Mandsford 01:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BIO specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking). 71.192.46.7 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — 71.192.46.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• WP:BIO also specifically states that the person must be the subject of published secondary material. The person is not the subject of the articles referenced, the company is. They must have had a killer PR rep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs)

• Agreed, however, check out general notability guidelines which states that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Also, WP:SBST states that "it does not need to have ongoing coverage". 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Using Wikipedia itself as a precedent, compared to Dennis Crowley Skibiski's page is much better referenced. I feel minimum standard has been met. 71.192.46.7 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – your assumption is incorrect, each article must stand on it's own merits and this article appears to fail to meet WP:BIO. See WP:WAX. ttonyb (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I have made some modifications, and added on regarding Skibiski's initial theories and analysis techniques that lead to the founding of the company. 450zuck (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails general notability guidelines. References include many primary sources, press releases, and articles about the company that either briefly mention the subject, or do not mention them at all.  Chzz  ►  10:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I agree that Skibiski himself is not the main topic of much of the source material, but the material is on the topic of his ideas as founder of the company. General notability guidelines states that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Several sources presented are reliable, independent sources, and in a number of them his ideas, as founder and lead inventor on the patents, are discussed in more than a "trivial mention". These ideas are notable and consistent across the sources. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – You stated that some of the articles do not mention him at all, could you give more specifics? I found two that don't, however they refer to specific awards the company received. It seems all the rest do, including several secondary sources listed in Current Science and Technology Sources. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This article is beyond correction at this point. It's now officially a self-promoting fluff piece with several untrue statements that I'm too lazy to fix since this should be deleted anyway (e.g. according to the company's website, it wasn't even around until 2006). Relying on non fact-checked press and self-provided "facts" is dangerous (the company "trading" on the data). Dennis Crowley is far more notable and his Wikipedia page is a quarter of this one. It's clear that either the subject himself, or someone close to the subject is responsible for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment – Groundtruth 1, and Telavivtalker, I have changed back several of your recent edits. You made changes to properly referenced material (that was nearly verbatim from the secondary source), and you did not supply any reference to support your changes, once again. Further, your unsubstantiated negative comments put the subject of this article in a bad light. If you continue to make negative changes without listing a source, I will report you. This talk page as well is a public document and appropriate comments should be referenced, especially in alleging negative things about a living person. This is very much in bad faith. Your opinion and experience doesn't matter. If it's not from a secondary source, it means nothing in this forum. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Groundtruth 1, and Telavivtalker, consider this approach to contributing: WP:1XL, "if the page does not appear to be notable, and you believe it should be deleted, the best way to get the page deleted is to prove that. Simply having no references on the page may not be grounds for deletion; you will have to demonstrate that none can ever likely be found. As for articles with a single external link to the subject's own site or MySpace page, this may very well be self-promotion (as in the case of the garage band)." 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I also removed your comment "now defunct". Again you provided no source of any kind for your negative comment, and I couldn't find one to support that. In fact, Citysense is on my iPhone right now. Also, refer to the Sense Networks website, prominently featuring Citysense. Admins, can we do something about this? This is a waste of time and it is becoming apparent there is bad faith involved. 450zuck (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on grounds of dubious notability and probable (self?) promotion. If he doesn't want publicity at the moment because of a secret project, I'll go with that too. Personally, I can't see how this thingy works anyway - how does the lat and long of a mobile tell anyone what and where people are buying stuff? I frequently have to pass through shopping areas (and industrial areas) without making a single purchase. Or is it that 'app' for finding which bar everyone's going to? (I don't have apps of any sort and don't want them - but can usually find a quiet bar for myself.) There are a few different things going about under the name 'CitySense', the top ghit I find being "An Open, Urban-Scale Sensor Network Testbed" from Harvard. Don't ask me to explain it... Peridon (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I met this guy at a summit, and he is definitely the type to write a wiki bio about himself - especially now that he is unemployed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokia22 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Amazing how many people here seem to know him, and yet he appears non-notable... Peridon (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - some of which have not edited in years, but have decided to join this debate - 71.232.77.86 (talk · contribs).  Chzz  ►  04:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - agree that for a non-notable person there are a lot of strong opinions. anyway, skibiski's notability is debatable outside specialized tech realms but seems there is potential; "deletion of an article should be a last resort in the event that the article's topic is not notable AND has no potential for its own encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia" 87.221.113.74 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC) — 87.221.113.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment – Just because there are opposite opinions about his notability does not mean he is notable. I have yet to see anyone pose a good argument that supports his meeting Wikipedia criteria. I cannot presume to know if there is potential for this article to meet the criteria; however, I can focus on the fact that in spite of all the SPA (and apparent COI) "vote" activity, no one has contributed to the article to bring it up to Wikipedia criteria. ttonyb (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources seem to check out: a fair proportion, although by no means all, of the 26 sources in the article cover the guy in detail, and most seem independent and reliable. As such I can only conclude that he passes WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect to Sense Networks. The articles are largely the same and though there are a number of WP:RS-appropriate citations here, tey almost all deal with the company/product and few deal with the person beyond a few quotes. — Scientizzle 18:44, 21 May 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) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brantford's Own Annual Ribfest[edit]

Brantford's Own Annual Ribfest (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)

Article fails to state why the subject is notable and is fundamentally promotional in nature for an event that will not occur until August, supported by references solely consisting of other advertisements. Deconstructhis (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ribfests abound. There is no indication as to why this one is notable. In particular, this "annual" event has yet to hold its first one, and I can find no coverage in reliable sources writing about it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete nothing in gnews [27]. overly promotional. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 16 May 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.