< 15 November	17 November >

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 as an obvious hoax, as was the other article this user created. —Soap— 00:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nagmen[edit]

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

Nothing can be found on this - at all. So it seems to be fake. Endofskull (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no information notable jsfouche ☽☾ talk 23:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator below. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stork (film)[edit]

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

Unless I am missing something, of the two refs provided, the IMDB link doesn't even mention this film, and the ISBN # of the book comes up empty. The Eskimo (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The IMDB source works for me and Australian Film Institute awards must make it notable, and can be better-sourced. "Best Feature", for example, is sourced on the AFI website. Rodhull andemu 23:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ideally, IMDB shouldn't be used as a source, but it is easily replaceable with this source for the award. This article asserts the film was "the first commercial success of the Australian film revival". Other sources include [1][2](a brief article from a branch of the Australian government on the significance to that country's heritage!)[3][4][5]. Redfarmer (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the book definitely exists. It's out of print, but found a used copy on Amazon.[6] Redfarmer (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What does "ISBN # of the book comes up empty" mean? Does the nom. know how this works? And how "the IMDB link doesn't even mention this film" if it is linked straight to the film's IMDB page. The article is sourced to show that the subject is notable and as such should be kept. feydey (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nom I withdraw the nomination for deletion. The added sources are good, as are the points made above. Still I opposed to IMDB being the only source in film articles, but the newly added refs address that concern. As for the ISBN # not working, that appears to have been either my work computer not loading the page, or the site being temporarily down, b/c I can now see it fine from my home PC. If someone else would like to close this as keep you would have my support. The Eskimo (talk) 03:32, 17 November 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 already speedily deleted by The Wordsmith. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liar & A Thief[edit]

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

It doesn't seems to meet WP:NM. Endofskull (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A9: An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist. Top Jim (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Corrupted Blood incident. Jujutacular ^talk 00:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual plague[edit]

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

Two disparate events. There isn't a unifying subject here worthy of note. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corrupted Blood incident. Rationale for keeping the redirect is that the term leaked into mainstream media like [7] (which cites authors of [8] in Lancet), the refs used in Corrupted Blood incident etc. East of Borschov 01:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Corrupted Blood incident is of considerable interest, surely we should make some mention of the lethal guinea pig, which has several similarities and several interesting differences. Maybe a "similar incidents" section on Corrupted Blood's article? --Kiz o r
Redirect per East of Borschov and suggest expanding Corrupted Blood incident to note other similar instances, per Kizor Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 08:02, 18 November 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. Wikiprojects do not get to make their own guidelines independant of community norms so in any case of dispute about exactly where the inclusion bar falls the closer should rely on the community consensus which is found at Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Association_football which states inter alia Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable. There is no dispute that the individuals do not have independant sources and are not meeting the community guideline so the close is obvious. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Dragojević[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following articles for deletion for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all except Nuhodžić

According to WP:FOOTYN players are demed notable if:

"They have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional."

Secondly, according to the WSC article (which we used to reference the claim that the Montenegrin First League is not fully professional at WP:FPL):

"According to official data, 98 per cent of the 5,304 registered players are amateurs, but almost all are paid, many being partly funded by agents, who make big profits by selling them on abroad. But there is only one big club in the new domestic league, Budućnost Podgorica, who were regular members of the old Yugoslav first division. Their annual budget is claimed to be around €300,000. The only other full-time professional clubs are Zeta Golubovci and Sutjeska Niksic."

Thirdly, all four of these players are under contract with Budućnost Podgorica as evidenced by their website. According to UEFA.com and the club's website Dragojević appeared in 4 Europa League matches and 10 league matches for the club in the current season. Đikanović appeared in 11 MFL matches this year and 4 Europa League fixtures. Cicmil didn't appear in a single league or European match this season, but has appeared for the club in 3 league matches earlier. I can't find any data on Nuhodžić's appearances (he certainly doesn't seem to have appeared in any competition for the club this season and I can't find any data on earlier seasons), while Mugoša played in 5 league matches and spent six minutes on the pitch in one Europa League game this season. Therefore only Nuhodžić deserves to be deleted as the other four players pass the notability criteria set by WP:FOOTY. Timbouctou 23:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, this goes for Nikač too as he appeared in 8 league matches this season. Timbouctou 23:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - playing for a professional club is not enough, WP:ATHLETE states that players are notable if they have played in a fully-professional league - which, as evidenced above, is not the case. Giant Snowman 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the tag on WP:FOOTYN (contents of which I cited above) says that "it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. It has not been accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article." Interestingly, it also says that "the player section of this notability guidance is currently being discussed and edited at WP:Notability (sports)"

If whatever WP:FOOTY's current criteria says isn't worth crap than why do we have that page there at all? Also, how can you delete articles based on criteria that are currently being discussed? Is this what passes for "good faith" nowadays? Timbouctou 07:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN is merely an essay that some members of the Football WikiProject wrote; WP:NFOOTY has been reached through discussion and consensus. Giant Snowman 20:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my questions and it seems you never bothered to actually read what the tag on top of WP:FOOTYN says. What is the purpose of having an essay on notability presumably endorsed by WP:FOOTY if whatever it says can be ignored in WP:FOOTY AfDs? How come some members of the project are so diligent in their efforts to delete articles, but are astonishingly passive about conflicting notability guidelines currently in existence, as evidenced by this AfD (Dragojević and Đikanović satisfy 2 out of 4 criteria listed by the essay, but none of the ones at WP:NFOOTY)? How come the nominator is so keen to delete articles using a criteria that is currently being discussed at WP:ATHLETE? And btw, what exactly makes a league "fully professional" by Wikipedia standards is beyond me. For instance, the pdf cited as "source" at WP:FPL for classifying the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina as not fully professional says that "Klubovima Premijer lige BiH, Prve lige NS/FS BiH i Prve lige FS RS mogu se ustupati igrači koji imaju profesionalni ugovor, kao i igrači amateri. (Eng: "First and second level clubs are allowed to use both professional and amateur players.") The 2006 WSC article cited for Montenegro says that "98 per cent of the 5,304 registered players are amateurs, but almost all are paid, many being partly funded by agents". So they are paid amateurs then? The Finnish Veikkausliiga has 93 percent of professionals in it, yet WP:FOOTY sees it as not fully professional citing a 2005 article which claims that "most players are part-timers" (which is factually incorrect because the same 2010 report says that back in 2005 64 percent of all players were pros). On the other hand, the Scottish Premier League sometimes features part-time players and even clubs and yet nobody bothered to list it as "not fully professional". Is it me or is there a theme emerging here? The problem with this is that the criteria at WP:NFOOTY works great for leagues where there's a clear distinction between all-professional and all-amateur leagues, but is obviously insufficient for smaller leagues which often use a mix of both. Not only is this unfair to begin with, it becomes downright insulting when - having absolutely no clue what's the proportion of professionals and amateurs in these semi-pro leagues - members of WP:FOOTY are so quick to label a country's top division as non-notable or at least less notable than England's FOURTH division. So we get a situation in which Anorthosis Famagusta FC is good enough to play in the group stage of the top continental competition, but a player who spent his career there is less notable than somebody who plies his trade at Oxford United F.C.. And how come certain WP:FOOTY editors are so keen to delete allegedly non-notable players claming that they blindly follow policies - while at the same time they are not nearly as keen to resolve blatantly obvious issues with the said policies? In Montenegro's case, most players are de facto professionals but are not legally registered as such to avoid having to pay percentages of transfer fees to their clubs. The Montenegrin Professional Players' Union was founded about a year ago specifically to tackle this problem and reduce the influence of players' agents on the game there. And even if we take the data from WSC's 2006 article as relevant, two percent of 5,304 players means that there are 106 fully licensed professionals in the country, which is nearly half of all the players appearing in the 12-team top division (and one can safely assume that the number of professionals has increased since the article's publication four years ago). I don't particularly follow Montenegrin football and I don't think the world would come to an end if these six players get deleted from Wikipedia, but that's exactly the reason why I'm so astonished by editors who seem to have ran out of better things to do around here and are deleting stuff wholesale while being oblivious to the questionable quality of the very guidelines they claim they are upholding. Sir Sputnik already tried a wholesale deletion of Finnish players, now it's Montenegrins. I assume Bosnians are there somewhere on his hitlist, even though the top league is classified as non-professional by Wikipedia just because an undetermined number of players at an undetermined number of clubs may or may not be playing top level football without professional contracts. Unless you can provide something more reliable than a four year old magazine article to prove that the Montenegrin First League is not fully professional, I don't see a reason to delete these articles. Timbouctou 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN is an essay, nothing more than personal opinion, and not an established guideline like WP:NFOOTY - therefore it is not revelant to AfD debates. The page itself states that it has "not been accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline." I don't know why it claims to be useful for such discussions, as it clearly isn't - I mean, I could write an essay stating "everyone is notable if they wear glasses", but that wouldn't make it real, would it? Also, a source states that the Montenegrin league is not fully-professional; it is up to you to provide another source which states it is - this is called verifiability and is an important Wikipedia policy. Giant Snowman 00:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there is truth just about everything you (Timbouctou) have just said, much of it is of little direct relevance to this afd and should be addressed in more appropriate forums (talk pages for WP:FOOTY, and WP:FPL would be my suggestion). It also does not change the fact that all of these players still fail the paramount criterium for notability: Significant coverage in reliable sources. Unless this criterium is met, I cannot see who the inclusion of these articles can be justified. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Dragojević and Đikanović - Games in European competition are considered sufficient if both teams are fully professional. The rest fail all the relevant guidelines. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unless sources are generated that explicitly demonstrate that they have actual appearances for the club in top level national club games or international games. Currently those sources are not present, and the information is not reflected in the infoboxes. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:21, 24 November 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 close. This can now be speedied, and even if speedy is not accepted, it is outside the scope of AfD now that it is a redirect. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Planet Writer's Room[edit]

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

Not notable. No refs that I can find other than their websites, some blog postings, and social media stuff. The Eskimo (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a redirect to a deleted article, so surely it qualifies for speedy deletion? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's reliant on a deleted page. Endofskull (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redirect must have occurred at the same time (just after) I nom'd it for AFD. Probably should be a speedy delete now. The Eskimo (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have speedy tagged the redirect page. Mo ainm~Talk 22:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (WP:SK) as the nominator has withdrawn the AfD, and the article's subject is clearly notable. (Wikipedia:Non-admin closure) Johnsemlak (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romántico (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Though, it can be found on Google there is little information on the movie available online or on its Wikipedia article. Whenaxis (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below where the nominator has very recently and quite graciously reversed his decision. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the film's Rotten Tomatoes page has plenty of newspaper reviews to establish notability. The fact that the article doesn't contain much information is not a reason for deletion in itself. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I completely agree with the above. Endofskull (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close With respects, the nominator droped the ball. This documentary indeed has coverage, and the article is emminently expandable with what is so easily available. How could he possibly have missed finding the article about this film in The New York Times? [9] Or the article about the film in San Francisco Chronicle? [10] Or the one in La República? [11] Or the one in El Universal? Or the one in Village Voice? [12] [13] Or the one in Rebelion.org? [14] Or the one in La Jornada? [15] Or the article in Slant (magazine)? [16] Or the later DVD review in Slant (magazine)? [17] I suggest a quick close and let's get to work on improving the improvable stub article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Since opining above, I have spent a little time expanding and sourcing the article. Adding to the ones mentioned in my "keep" above, additional articles and reviews for continued work on this article are available at LA Weekly, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, New York Post, Boston Globe.Chicago Reader, Film Threat, Variety, and more. WP:HEYMANN anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Closing The article in question that I nominated for has been improved and there are many resources out there that I was not able to found at the beginning. I apologize for all the unnecessary effort to find information, though, it did improve the article. A special thank you to User:MichaelQSchmidt. Whenaxis (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes my google-foo kicks into high gear, :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:50, 19 November 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. Jujutacular ^talk 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Rehabilitation Center[edit]

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

WP:CORP: notability isn't inheritable solely from notable person involved in founding. DMacks (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Endofskull (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Abraham J. Twerski, its founder.--Pink Bull 14:54, 23 November 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 procedural close ; stale over 6 years. It appears the article was userfied. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Gaspirtz[edit]

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

Oliver Gaspirtz listed on WP:VFD July 12 to July 18 2004, consensus was to move to user page and delete redirect. Discussion:

This appears to be a vanity page of User:Gspz, talk contribs. Gaspirtz appears to be a copy of this, but has been removed for copyright reasons. There is also Bubble fun a computer game by him. The tricky thing is that he seems to be marginally significant, but atleast needs a POV edit and stuff. note this guy is also a newbie, so don't bite him. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Move to user page and delete - If he is significant then someone other than himself should create an article. Being new is not protection allowing vanity postings. Take all articles about him and his work and move to his user page. It is the appropriate place for self-described works and bio. - Tεx τ urε 15:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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. Jujutacular ^talk 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Dunsworth[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NACTOR, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator(s) of article. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pro tem. "She is most known for her starring role in Hobo With a Shotgun where she plays "Abby" along side Rutger Hauer". If/when this film comes out, yes she will probably fit the standards. If she's best known for something not yet finished, let alone released, she fairly obviously doesn't. The film is referenced - none of her other stuff is, and it doesn't look of great note. This is not belittling Molly - she's young and at the start of a career. Many of the greats started in parts they'd not have wanted to remember - or rather other people to remember. Time for the article is when the press outside the town where filming took place take note and start discussing it. I'll expect the article to come back then, and given good sources per WP:RS, we'll welcome it. (Please don't suggest keeping it until then - see WP:CRYSTAL as anything might happen. If references are produced to show her previous parts were indeed notable, that's a different kettle of fish.) Peridon (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball The Eskimo (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per simply being WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

``chrisjames14`` She "will" be most well known for Hobo With a Shotgun, globally, when it comes out, yes. Currently she is already well known in Atlantic Canada, specifically, as one of the strongest young female actors, and certainly the most well known. I'm not sure how many people in any given area, need to think she is notable, to be "notable enough" for Wikipedia's standards. In Atlantic Canada, she is certainly notable enough - is Atlantic Canada too small of an area? If it is required that she is known in a larger area; nationally (Canada), or internationally (Canada&USA), then yes, I agree that this article only be put up "after" Hobo With a Shotgun is released. If Atlantic Canada IS a large enough area for one to be notable and famous in, than I still disagree with the proposed deletion of this page, and suggest that it be kept.

She is notable is Atlantic Canada for a number of reasons - reasons that could be discussed and written about on her wiki page, however there currently aren't enough already published web sources to provide references for these facts. That is why all that is currently on her wiki page, is surrounding her work in Hobo With a Shotgun - not because this is all she is "known" for in Atlantic Canada, but because this is all that other media have actually written about. ``chrisjames14`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjames14 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've emboldened Chris's !vote above, and would recommend signing posts with four ~ things. Chris, have a look at those policies. It's not numbers of people - it's coverage to a large extent. If you can show that Molly - not just the film but her herself in person - has been covered by the press on a more than local basis, then please add refs and tell us. We're not anti-Molly. Schmidt above is notorious for spoiling people's fun at AfD by wading in and rescuing sinking articles. If he says 'too soon', you can bet he's been searching. You might have something up your sleeve - if you do (and it's not just your arm...) let us know. "there currently aren't enough already published web sources to provide references for these facts." - doesn't have to be web (although that's easier to check). Newspapers and magazines (bit too soon perhaps for books) also count. Otherwise, we'll welcome her when they are available (and you might find the article already there). Peridon (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the subject is best known for something that has not happened, that's a clear indication they are not notable. No prejudice against re-creation should the subject later become notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 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 soft redirect to wikt:Number cruncher. Jujutacular ^talk 01:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number cruncher[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Prod reasoning was that Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang or jargon. As another user noted on the talk page, this is a term not a topic. Article has been edited since then but still lacks even a single source. While sources can be found that use this term, it is doubtful there are sources that actually discuss the term itself. Wiktionary has an entry on this already, and since this is unsourced transwiki is not a good option anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes it's an unviable dicdef, but what to do with it? The two primary Wiktionary entries appear to be wikt:number-crunching and wikt:number cruncher, but they only have 1 definition each. Could some of the material here be transferred? Should we WP:Soft redirect from here to there? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, as this material is not verified by sources so transwiki is not a good option. We shouldn't dump our garbage in the neighbor's yard. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Make a soft direct. (As said above). Endofskull (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improve or Delete without prejudice against subsequent recreation. This is undoubtedly a crap article - it's just awful. I have no problem with removing it on grounds of being crap. However, I strongly believe that this is a perfectly good title/subject for an article - and Wikipedia definitely needs a decent article with this title. So if we do remove it, I want to be quite certain that we do not use that as a precedent for removing some future article of the same name. This is not (as some have asserted) a WP:NOTDICT issue.

The phrases "Number cruncher" and "Number crunching" are technical terms that are widely used in the computer industry and which have been around in common an frequent use over at least three decades. It is argued that the term is 'slang' or 'jargon' - but that's true of so many words and phrases used in this young industry that we can't just say "NO JARGON!" - if we did that then we'd have to delete byte, nibble, floppy disk, netbook and hundreds of other articles that take their title from a jargon word for some object or concept that has become mainstream. Nobody calls a "floppy disk" a "flexible media diskette" - they use the jargon word because it's easier. A number cruncher is a class of computer that's optimized for large-scale arithmetic processing - and we have no other word that describes such machines ("Supercomputer" comes close - but not all supercomputers are number crunchers...and vice-versa). We should have an article that describes notable number crunchers - what makes a number cruncher special - what attributes it needs. "Number cruncher" should be considered as a phrase of comparable significance to "Web server", "Netbook" or "Laptop" - who's articles are never likely to be nominated here.

Similarly, the phrase "Number crunching" describes what a computer program is doing when it's doing a lot of purely arithmetic work ("Steve, why has your program stopped running?" "It hasn't stopped, it's just doing a lot of number crunching.") The phrase is comparable to words like "sorting", "rendering" or "parsing" - which have articles about their root words. Once again, there is no other word or convenient phrase that precisely conveys the meaning of "number crunching" - and we could certainly write an article about the nature of this activity - why some applications are heavy number crunch processes, etc. As our article points out, the term is also used outside of the computing industry (as in "Let's go crunch the numbers before we present it to the CEO") - and in that case, it probably should be considered slang. But the phrase has a precise meaning in computer science and it's a part of the mainstream vocabulary of that industry. SteveBaker (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floppy disk has 35 references cited. Netbook has 93. This article has zero. Therein lies the difference. Honestly I was only aware of this term as slang for an accountant, similar to bean counter, but if it is as widely used as you say for a specifically modified computer then sources verifying that should be available and the article can be fixed through editing it to reflect the information in the sources. I never mind being proved wrong at AFD and seeing a crappy article turned in to a good one, but some actual proof is going to be needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the article sucks and should probably be removed/redirected/whatever'ed. As I !voted, I'm not averse to removing it on grounds of general crappitude - so long as it is not done on WP:NOTDICT grounds which would mitigate against future recreation of a much better article. SteveBaker (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons to byte and the like fall flat because those are literally jargon and incomprehensible to outsiders. "Number cruncher" is trivially worked out through its axioms, and is used in so many different contexts that it does little more than connote heavy calculation work. Figures of speech which are not examined in detail by multiple independent reliable sources don't need their own articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 06:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine an article that described specific computers that were designed to be good number crunchers and listed the properties they collectively have. Such an article (which I wish we had) would be as appropriate as (say) netbook or web server. The present article isn't that - and should probably 'go away' - but that doesn't mean that a perfectly reasonable article on this topic couldn't be written in the future. SteveBaker (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. "Number cruncher" is a fairly genericised label applied to a disparate collection of things to carry a general connotation. "Web server" and "netbook" are specific categories of actual products, and indeed are the primary names for their respective subjects. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We already have an article on the class of computers used for number crunching. It's called a supercomputer. However, the appellation of "number cruncher" to this class of machine is unsubstantiated. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I like an idea of soft redirect to wiktionary (but without moving any unverified material there). Ipsign (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki has been requested: I'd be happy with replacing the current page with a ((wi)) once that's done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that is probably not appropriate. I'm not real familiar the the policies over there but I assume they require some form of verification, which this article is entirely lacking having never had a single source. I don't object to deleting the article and immediately recreating it as a soft redirect, but I don't think we should look at Wikitionary as a dumping ground for unsourced material. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by all means if Wiktionary rejects the transwiki then deletion is fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. the whole thing is a mixed bag of uses. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 17 November 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 and move to Jeseri language, per sources found. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasri language[edit]

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

Possible hoax. A simple search for "jasri" and "lakshadweep" (the place this language is apparently spoken) results in eight Ghits, and of those, the only hit with slight merit is this, but it's a travel blog that mentions it in the comment section (where it is described as a "cocktail language", whatever that is). A subsequent search for "jasri" and "creole" results in slightly more hits but they never use both words in the same context. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after searching several times for sources, very little has turned up to even substantiate that this may be the local name for a dialect. It seems doubtful that this is a distinct language. With a lack of sources I cannot recommend a merge as an alternative to deletion. Fæ (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of verifiable sources. —Angr (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable at best, very likely a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not sure~~. Keep. Until recently, the article Lakshadweep called this language "Jeseri". I can't find anything related at Ethnologue, but the name "Jeseri" is mentioned at india.gov.in, in a context that seems relevant. So maybe this is not really a hoax, but just a poorly referenced stub. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Jeseri language as that appears to be the most common form. It is generally difficult to find online sources (beyond directory listings) for these ultra small languages as the books generally tend to be obscure. It's also known as "Dweep Bhasha" and happens to be one of the two/three principal languages of Lakshadweep depending on the source. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. —SpacemanSpiff 07:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved and changed my !vote to "Keep". It's not much, but it's more than enough to show that this is not a hoax. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax, maybe. Not notable, surely. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Lakshadweep. The sources presented by SpacemanSpiff show that it's a real language, but right there doesn't seem to be enough material for more than a couple of sentences. If more sources pop up the article could be restarted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:00, 24 November 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 close. The AFD notice was never added to the article, and the nominator created the per-article AFD discussion page only to then rescue the article xyrself. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal optimization[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are many problems with this stub. The name is appropriate for a broad article on combinatorial optimization on partially ordered sets or semilattices. The existing stub describes only some engineering professor's heuristic, giving a vague account that does not even claim notability and does not distinguish the content from numerous approaches to similar problems (e.g., Olkin, Gibbons, et alia on Selecting and Ordering Populations, etc.) Thanks. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW NOMINATION: I tried to save the article by adding context, a lead, references to reliable sources, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 16 November 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 SNOW KEEP This article is obviously going to be kept. We do not engage in needless process. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Shanghai fire[edit]

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

I fail to see how this is a notable event in any sense of the word. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news archive, and this is purely news. The fact that it has had international coverage is great and all, but in the end, it is simply not encyclopedic material. In a few months this is not going to be remembered at all, and thus it has no enduring notability at all. This was just yet another fire that for some reason caught the attention of today's media. That last half does not contribute anything to notability (and our policies only mention that it might indicate notability, not that it does). Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Are there any specific policies on the notability of disasters? I'm fairly certain that it's pretty common practice to keep articles on catastrophes of this scale. That's 50+ deaths in on incident. Anyway, there's tones of articles of accidents of a similar nature, see CATEGORY:2010 fires for just a few. In that light, not only do I vote Keep, but I propose that this AfD be dropped as per WP:SNOW.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disasters? It's a fire. I looked at the category; surely you can agree with me when I argue that there's a little bit of a difference between a power plant explosion or a church burning and an apartment fire. One of them happens every day, one of them does not. What the media happens to decide is relevant is not only something a coin flip might be able to tell you, but also something that should not impact what Wikipedia is. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. See Category:2010 fires. eg. 2010 Connecticut power plant explosion: 5 dead, 27 injured; 2010 Shanghai fire: at least 53 dead, at least 100 injured so far. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply cannot advocate any argument for keep based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In fact, I am fully aware of the fact that this is a much bigger issue than this one article (at least in my mind), but I can't come here with 200 pages to delete. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In a few months this is not going to be remembered at all" seems to meet WP:BIAS and WP:CRYSTAL. Try to search "上海大火" -wikipedia. You're not sure whether Chinese and Hongkongese media will remember it. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Deletion of articles, my "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" may be valid because it can be demonstrated in the same way as I might demonstrate justification for the article's creation. It'd be WP:BIAS and not fair if deleted. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's just as much crystal-balling to say that "In a few months this is not going to be remembered at all" as it is to say that it will be remembered. I'd argue for the latter, however, based on the observation that skyscraper fires get written about more than most fires, in large part because of the difficulty in fighting them and in rescuing people from them. [23]. The lessons learned over the years from this type of fire have been part of the evolution of fire prevention and firefighting. Mandsford 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no specific WP guidelines on what constitutes a "disaster" in the encyclopedic sense, such as a minimum death toll, the article should remain along with the many other similar articles on incidents of relatively minor note.--Tbmurray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. It has the references, and therefore appears to pass WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fires of this scale with such a high death toll is rare. I'm also asking for a speedy decsion on this, since it has consensus for going on ITN at the main page. --Kslotte (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate that this be closed and the AfD tag be removed immediately. Not one editor has supported deletion.WP:SNOW clearly applies here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this has become a pile-on of "keep" !votes. There is no other way that this can go besides keep as long as one is going based on consensus. I think we can safely put this AFD out of its misery. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford. Fires of this type have staying power of interest beyond merely news. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per various of the above. I'm hearing potentially 60+ deaths; this is a large-scale disaster, and as such has interest merely beyond the ephemeral. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was considered notable enough for the front page. So its fairly clearly notable enough for an article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that rationale. IT was only "considered notable enough for the front page" by two people and an administrator who decided not to wait for consensus before posting on ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. There is consensus to post on ITN. I agree with someone said at WP:ITN/C#Shanghai_fire, respecting the intention of WP:SK#Procedural closure, "considered notable enough for the front page" means "considered notable enough to be an article, at least before they've cycled off the Main Page". --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as has been established above, this event is notable and has significant impact in China. Let's not turn this into another argument about systemic bias, please. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Fires and other incidents involving public buildings in China resulting in more than 50 deaths are quite uncommon, and do not occur every year, yet an image for this article would be helpful. For example, though not a fire, the collapse of a building in Shijiazhuang last year claimed 17 lives. The fire in Shanghai occurred in a very high-population density residential metropolitan area in China's largest city, comparable to the Beijing Television Cultural Center fire last year which killed one person yet has quite an extensive article. ~A H1^(TCU) 01:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It is very rare that a fire results in this much damage and so many deaths; it is also prompting Chinese authorities to implement stricter fire safety regulations. This is a significant event, much more than NOTNEWS-level, and has received enough coverage to justify an article. It is not fair to say this fire will be forgotten in a few months because, well, it has not yet been a few months. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a significant if not historic event, also 53+ people are dead let alone this was a rare fire that occurred in a skyscraper. You remove this article and this event will be forgotten. I also hate how and event in a second or third world country killing this many people is less important than an event killing a few or no people in Western Countries! How is it the Connecticut Power plant explosion should be able to have an article when it had 5 death compared to 53 deaths in this fire! Strongly reconsider this proposed deletion. --Stormchaser89 (talk) 10:02pm, 16 November 2010 (US central standard time)
Keep. Major disaster. Compare this item with the minor news item being debated at WP:Articles for deletion/Datalink Computer Services incident. Abductive (reasoning) 06:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fires of a deadly nature which killed many people, in this case should be recorded. It is notable enough for the world's media to put the spotlight on it otherwise they would not have reported it. The significance of this incident is not the just fire itself but the cause, alleged improper conduct by workers or poor occupational health and safety. checked out 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion. The casualties were 8 and this incident had 53+. So this should be included. Takamaxa (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete per not notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Wikinews would be better. Per Takamaxa it has got attention in the global media hence the case being that wikinews is perfect for it. Also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to include it (and god knows that should go too)(Lihaas (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Plz read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: "However such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point." But in WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, I found an example not encouraged and comparable to the reason of our AfD here: "This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year." --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I may use the nominator's wording, I fail to see how this is a non-notable event in any sense of the word. ----Divebomb is not British 13:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its rare that I disagree with WP:NOTNEWS Arguments, but it meets the criteria of WP:NEWSEVENT in my book. I also have a strong feeling that had this been a 28 floor building in downtown Chicago, New York City or LA We would not being having this discussion The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally with you on that. Mandsford 16:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS doesn't say that every news event should be excluded. WP:Notability (events) shall be respected. As of now there have been 79 dead , 36 missing and hundreds injured. The China's State Council named it "上海“11·15”特别重大火灾" (literally "Shanghai '11·15' particularly serious fire" or "Shanghai '11·15' particularly important fire"), it is thus officially tagged as "notable" now, and it also meets WP:GEOSCOPE: "events that have a demonstrable long term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only one question needs to be asked - would this be deleted if it had happened in America? Oh look, there's a flying pig. WP:CSB. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then they probably would say: "No, you can't mention the other articles, you go against WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I can't come here with 200 pages to delete. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason..." It's quite funny. A comparison to other articles of the same kind should be very reasonable here. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep or Speedy keep: This article was on WP:ITN. User:Shirik as an admin pulled it from ITN and started the AfD. Here I request a WP:SNOW Keep, or a WP:Speedy keep due to the lack of discussion at WP:Main Page/Errors which goes against WP:SK#Applicability: "5. The article is currently linked from the Main Page. In such a case, please use Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to have the link removed before nominating the article." then re-add it to the ITN. It is quite annoying and a waste of time for the AfD. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desphilic[edit]

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

Contested Prod. original research, no mention outside the associated website, Wikipedia and mirrors Nuttah (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ths article, It is the most logical and easy to use among all persian romanization schemes. (manoochehr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.89.236 (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, Here are some rankings in google for wwww.desphilic.com
Topic: Persian Tenses: Rank=9 in Google ---- Topic: Persian Romanization: Rank=9 in Google
Topic: Persian English Alphabet: Rank=9 in Google ----- Topic: Persian conjugation pronouns: Rank=4 in Google
Topic: Persian Roman Alphabet: Rank=11 in Google ------Topic: Persian Extended keyboard: Rank=9 in Google
Topic: fargelisi: Rank=3 in Google --------- Topic: Penglish standard: Rank=2 in Google
Persian Unipers-Keyboard , Rank=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by I masoomi (talk • contribs) 07:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — I masoomi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This article please, I found many references to this article in google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.6.58.203 (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — 212.6.58.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - There is absolutely no indication that this proposal has been accepted as a standard for Romanisation of Persian. In particular, it is very telling that Google Books finds absolutely no results. Contrast this with pinyin. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I had to remove a large chunk of content from the article as it was copied from teh website. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Whpq Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

1- Dear Mr/Mrs. Whpq, I have the permission to add that contents to Wikipedia, and They are not copyrighted material without permission.I can provide Wikipedia with all kinds of evidence from www.desphilic.com. Please do not edit pages without concern at least such a major destruction! or you will be blocked from editing.

2- Desphilic is almost the only Persian Romanization site which is still alive. It definitely deserves a separate page in Wikipedia.

3- If this census has a primary leader or judge or jurry, plz that leader be responsible to look for consultancy about the topic from an expert. The contents should not be judged without comments from an expert.

4- The contents, if compared to Chinese Romanization should be considered with the following issues taken in mind:

41- Chinese have more than 3000 alphabet letters, while Perso-Arabic has only 32 which amongst them 10 are repetitions.

42- Chinese have 1/4 of the world population, Perso-Arabic Persian users are only 70 Million.

43- Desphilic is a new and under-development standard. however currently there are 1000 results in Google.

It is obvious that you must find more results for pinyin. and of course its wiki page is larger.

5- The issues that criticizers have talked about all are about quantitative matters. none of them have had a qualitative and content based analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I masoomi (talk • contribs) 10:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - [1] Copyrighted material cannot be added to Wikipedia without confirmation of permission. If you do have permission, then you need to follow the instructions for donating copyrighted material.
- [2] - Being nearly the only Persian Romanization website around is not a reason for keeping this article unless it can be shown that this fact makes the site notable through coverage in reliable sources.
- [3] - This discussion does not have a specific leader. It is a community discussion, although an uninvolved administrator will make a decision at the end based on this discussion. As for judgment from an expert, if anybody can out forth evidence from experts that Desphilic is a notable Persian romanisation, then that would be a strong argument for keeping the article.
- [4] - Pointing to the Chinese language was not to compare the details of the language, but rather show that coverage about Chinese Romanisation exists in reliable sources. A search in Google Books for pinyin or Wade-Giles shows plenty of sources that write about these systems of Romansiation.. whereas there is absolutely no results for Desphilic. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPFX Realty Group[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY -- Googling "SPFX Realty" pulls up only one non-Wikipedia site, a venture capital fund raising site. The article itself looks rather spammy. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, spam/db-corp. Hairhorn (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spammy, and coverage about this company is almost non-existent. It's pretty grim when even unreliable sources don't turn up. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Hardly any evidence that this is real, much less notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:26, 17 November 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. Favonian (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Edwards (Tracy Beaker)[edit]

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

The article fails to address WP:NACTOR and extended searches for reliable sources has revealed nothing of significant impact. The article was previously created and merged to The Story of Tracy Beaker (TV series) (via PROD) as Jack Edwards (actor) and current version has PROD and BLPPROD removed so moving to AfD for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the disambiguation on this article is telling... this person has only been involved in one notable work so far, and hasn't drawn any secondary source coverage on his own. Gigs (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced BLP, IMDB is not a reliable source. WuhWuzDat 17:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the upcoming role in Casualty (TV series) is going to be significant. An appearance in a major children's TV series is worth at least a redirect, but we already have that from the more appropriate Jack Edwards (actor). (Might also be worth an entry on the Jack Edwards disambiguation page. However, WP:NACTOR requires significant multiple roles, and so far, we only have one. Personally, I don't like having articles on child actors unless they are unequivocally notable, because they are easy targets for attack edits, but in this case I'd give the same verdict for an adult actor. He may well become notable later, in which case the article can return. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Lippmann[edit]

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

Non-notable "celebrity manicurist" lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete - laughably non-notable, completely lacking any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the subject of nail polish US magazine is an excellent source. futurebird (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY, and WP:BARE. There is one single story on a reliable source, the New York Times that was found and added after the discussion started. Sorry, but US magazine is not a reliable source, and is written by a bunch of dunces who don't know the English language. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Her work in fashion, her influence in make-up and her line of nail polishes are well documented, well known and deserve an article. futurebird (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obvious coverage in reliable sources. Systemic bias is not an argument for deletion. Rebecca (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She had a 2-page 1995 profile in the New York Times [24]. Novickas (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than meets the two-source requirement. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Colour me surprised. But the subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including some where she is the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 132 G news items. Some with her as the main subject. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable and verifiable through reliable sources, which says a bit about our media, but there you have it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced for a such a narrow topic of contemporary interest. She's a businesswoman and entrepreneur who creates new products in addition to being a beauty professional. Any kind of biographical data (date of birth, birthplace, schooling) would be good additions, however. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010#District_6*. Agreeing with the adminw ho reverted their own close as they forgot they voted Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lowe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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)).

Generally, failed candidates for office should be deemed non-notable in terms of having their own Wikipedia article. There are exceptions...notable businessmen prior to the electoral events, former officeholders at the state level, or those who have otherwise garnered significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. Alvin Greene, Christine O'Donnell, Stephene Moore. But this person simply ran for office and failed. Scant coverage from some local and religious sites about his early life as an outreach director for a Christian organization and a book published, some routine electoral coverage and a bizarre episode of a racial profiling claim that hit a blurb in HuffPo and the Chicago Sun-Times. As I more or less noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee (2nd nomination) recently, WP:ONEEVENT + WP:ONEEVENT shouldn't be an automatic qualifier for notability. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - This article has been the target of a long-running campaign of harassment and sock-puppeteering by Joehazelton (talk · contribs) who has wanted it deleted by any means as an attack on Lowe himself. Participation in this discussion by SPAs calling to delete need to be scrutinized closely. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010#District_6*. I didn't find significant coverage in secondary sources sufficient to pass WP:BIO, his book is unremarkable and he thus fails WP:AUTH, and he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 18:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge, or redirect BLP of person not notable except for candidacy, and did not win election. →Stani Stani 21:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010#District_6* per Ray's reasoning. There has been some scattered debate as to whether it is best to "delete and redirect" or just plain "redirect". If there are no BLP concerns, I favor saving the edit history just in case. Location (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or redirect~~, per nom. Much water's gone under the bridge since the last AfD & failed candidates aren't really that notable in themselves - Alison ^❤ 06:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to 'delete' per Andrew Lenahan's commentary below - Alison ^❤ 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's not notable for the campaign, but he's a published author and therefore likely notable enough for his environmental work. According to WorldCat: "1 edition published in 2009 in English and held by 108 libraries worldwide." Note: I generally check to see if someone's book is, perhaps, held by one library which just happens to be in their hometown. ;-) The article should of course be rewritten to emphasize the latter rather than the former. If no one's interested in updating the article, then redirect to save the history of the article. I looked at Shane Claiborne because he was referenced in the article, and some of the Categories for him would apply to this guy as well. If redirecting, I would suggest redirecting to Christianity and environmentalism or something similar. Flatterworld (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced about the redirect, simply because in most cases it doesn't seem like a good idea to redirect failed candidates to the race they lost, that would set a bad precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...that would set a bad precedent

How so? — goethean ॐ 21:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a bad precedent here. When an article about a candidate comes up for deletion after an election, it's not because the subject went from notable to non-notable; it's because the subject was already non-notable by Wikipedia standards (biography of someone who has never won major office, etc.) and shouldn't have been created, but editors hold off on the deletion requests for a bit so that an already-existing article's work won't be lost if the election made the subject imminently notable. If the failed race has become the subject's WP:ONEEVENT, it's probably appropriate to redirect. If they are not particularly known for any specific event, then perhaps the article shouldn't be redirected, just deleted. --Closeapple (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say defeated political candidates are generally not notable and I do not think this is an exception. Captain panda 21:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The frisking incident? People do not achieve notability be being frisked. Congressional candidacy? Failed congressional candidates do not generally rate an an article, in my view. The fact that he was soundly thumped does doesn't help the case for keeping the article. Published author? That is the only thing on which to hang any argumement for notability. But he only wrote one book. And there's no indication that its an especially notable book. So that's not enough. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Flatterworld - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ditto Flatterworld and Ret.Prof; Lowe is a rising star in the environmentalist movement who wrote a notable book and got quoted in Good Morning America. Check it out here People don't loose notability just because they lost an election. Keep. Wikibojopayne (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of fanboyism is this? You can't lose something you never had to begin with; there is no evidence or sources to support a "rising star" assertion, the book was put out by a minor evangelical publisher, and he was quoted as a random student for a GMA piece years ago. A handful of piddling, minor events does not add up to notability. Tarc (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Figure who has received plenty of coverage by reliable sources. — goethean ॐ 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm A number of the sources on the page are the same article, different urls, and at least two others are 404ing IOW the reliable sources are already labelling him as yesterday's news. This article is going to have a major job keeping any semblance of references John lilburne (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Flatterworld. Hmm, I am Very sure some In the CommuniTIy May hOpe For CErtaiN thingS tO be Removed, but thiS sHould be retaIned, so I !vote keeP.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cute, but as one can see by the notices plastered up top, this has nothing to do with advancing Joe Hazleton's repugnant agenda. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, as they say. Tarc (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and as sacrificial lamb candidate, fails WP:BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a politician and I can't find enough coverage or anything else to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The words "a rising star" by one of the keeps is in and of itself an indication that this fails notability. Come back when this person is notable. If a person could be notable in the future, it isn't enough. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I see no need for separate article per Abductive. However a redirect to the election results page and section works better and is used in other cases (Scotland Politicians for example, works fine and allows for easy recreation later if need be). Outback the koala (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Figure is notable as having a large contribution to environmentalism within the american evangelical movement. He has been covered greatly within the american evangelical media establishment and so his entry would prove useful to the members of this large minority as well as those interested in studying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.128.200 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — 92.41.128.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete This guy is only notable to someone that has never done anything. His non-notablity is demonstrated by the frisking section which is the largest section in the article. Come on we've all been frisked, some of us have spent a night in the cells for having longhair and wearing blue jeans. If that is the major part of his notability sheesh - I doubt that Bob Dylan will be writing another Hurrican song over this fellow. John lilburne (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — John lilburne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment My apologies. I closed this AfD as "redirect". When I placed the "old AfD" tag on the article's talk page I realised I had participated in an earlier AfD on this article (and !voted to redirect!). So I have reverted my close. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 24 November 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 WP:SNOW Keep. The event is highly likely to happen, and all agree will be notable. If for some reason the wedding is called off, the article could be renominated. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton[edit]

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

Classic WP:CRYSTAL the event will most likley happen this can be covered in their resprective BLPs with out having this because anything and everything here is speculative and likley be months before we have any details forthcoming The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the WP:CRYSTAL argument. Point 1 of CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The event is notable and almost certain to take place. While I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument, we should at least look at general practice with regards to, say, future elections (see United States presidential election, 2012) or future sporting events (see 2016 Summer Olympics). Royal weddings may be rarer and more randomly spaced than elections and sporting events, but surely similar considerations should apply. Physchim62 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The election or Olympics are more certain to take place over a wedding. What if one of them passes away, or they break up due to a possible scandal? The U.S. will not skip its election, but weddings are not for certain. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - of course. Will be a major event, we have an article about the 2012 Olympics which take place in the same country, one year later. Hektor (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Illogical comparison. We know significant details about the Olympics, and the article includes processes such as host bidding, construction, etc. Grsz¹¹ 15:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, WP:CRYSTAL does not seem to apply in this case. Royal weddings such as this are the source of much attention as is evidenced by the BBC article used as a reference. Peacock (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguement is not that it fails notability but anything about it write about it for a lenghthy period will be speculation The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The British Broadcasting Company reporting about the British royal family, how outstanding. Grsz¹¹ 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it's a "scheduled or expected future event", and a notable one. Nightw 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prince William until more is known. At the moment, it's just the day. Making it a separate article would be a good idea around a month before the event or so. --Tone 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton, which is probably the correct title (but the sentiment of my comment is the same, in that an article should remain) - we have articles on Prince Charles' first and second weddings, which were notable events in their own right, both the weddings themselves, as well as the preparation before the day. It may be a year away, but there's no doubt that the page will be updated as details become clearer. If it's deleted now, all that will happen is that the pages about William and Kate will grow respectively to include these details anyway. Better to have a dedicated page that can act as a central focus. I bet eventually, this will be a substansive article. Rob (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC), edit Rob (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the crystal-ball objections would be removed if it were simply called "Engagement of Prince William and Catherine Middleton". I could do without the vast majority of the royalty articles on Wikipedia, but the engagement of the future William V of the United Kingdom is a notable event, and will become even more notable whether the wedding takes place or it's called off. Back in 1981, the wedding of Charles and Diana was broadcast live around the world, including on the major U.S. television networks. Mandsford 15:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; ~~WP:SNOW even perhaps.~~ merge whatever is usable/redirect to Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. The nomination rationale is flawed as has been adequately broken down above. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
Keep. Royal weddings are state occasions that generate a great deal of public interest and publicity. WP:CRYSTAL does not really apply here: even if the engagement were broken off this would still be an event that will be remembered a long time. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All sorts of information is going to amass from now onwards about the wedding, so having the article as a focal point seems only prudent. __meco (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All over the news in Britain; since it has been confirmed it is not a case of WP:CRYSTAL. wacky wace 16:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the more complete Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. --Kwekubo (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wedding of William, Crown Prince of Wales, and Kate Middleton. lil2mas (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "William, Prince of Wales". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I moved the article other to "..., Crown Prince of Wales, ...". lil2mas (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no such thing as "Crown Prince of Wales". Please stop moving pages. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look at the current standard in the category: Royal weddings. Similar articles should be named accordingly. lil2mas (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the article needs to be named accurately. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Officially, he's "Prince William of Wales", although "Prince William" is how the press refers to him. "Officially", the U.S. President is Barack Hussein Obama, but "Barack Obama" is what everyone says. The stiff formal title can be reserved for the article about him. Mandsford 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Almost certain to be a major event, as with Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer. Thinking it won't be is where the crystal ball comes in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton, under that article's title. Afterall, we don't need 2 articles on the exact same topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - too early. not much content. just too early and awkward. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what do we do nearer the date? Recreate a deleted article? Physchim62 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is not much content right now to write anything. That's the point. Once the wedding picks up more content relevant 67.177.203.207 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, it's done all the time. Grsz¹¹ 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally ridiculous, wait until there is some concrete fact (other than it's going to happen) and we have a date. Disclosure: I have edited the page. Giacomo 19:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If talk about it is a major news story for a sustained length of time, and it expected to happen at some point, it probably should be kept Purple backpack89 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. The article was redirected to Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton during the AfD, which was totally out of process. It's two people who are going to marry, so we need at least two articles about the event. Besides, crucial information from Lady Ka was lost through this disruptive act. We cannot possibly decide how many articles we need for this event before it has taken place, so all these deletionist excesses are way premature. Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful Hans Adler 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. It has already been merged. AnemoneProjectors 01:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? A redirect doesn't change anything for the deletion discussion, and the article title can always be changed later through WP:RM. If anything, the second article should be merged into the title listed here: (1) because the prospective groom is not generally known as Prince William of Wales, and there is no need for disambiguation; (2) because identical arguments will apply to either article. Physchim62 (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's wrong to have two articles about the same subject and the prospective groom's article is located at Prince William of Wales, not Prince William, so Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton is the correct title. AnemoneProjectors 01:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The prospective groom's article is located at Prince William of Wales because of a need for disambiguation. WP:COMMONNAME dictates that he be referred to as "Prince William". Physchim62 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since this article has already been merged there, I would still say redirect this or even perform a history merge and then discuss the name of it. Anemone Projectors 02:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete this is definately WP: Crystal ball (who says it cant be called for any reason?), and these kidna thigns is what makes wikipedia a tool of WP:Recentism more than encyclpaedia. Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - this is an obvious example of WP:CRYSTAL, an article on a presumed future event that is not yet scheduled, let alone certain to happen. A wedding can be a notable topic for an article - we have Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer and Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles - and if it happens, this one arguably will be just as notable as those. But for the time being, there just isn't enough content to justify an independent article, and what we have can easily be merged into the articles on Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. Robofish (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not bar the creation of articles about future events that are confirmed and expected through RS, and merging, especially across two different articles, is not an efficient use of resources at all. If Wikipedia doesn't have a WP:RECENTISM issue with creating an article for every single fatal aircrash that ever happens in the world, whether it proves to be historically notable or not, and even though equivelant coverage of just 30 years ago is simply non-existent on Wikipedia, then it can cope quite easily with creating a Windsor royal wedding article every 30 years. There is already more than enough detail to fill out one article, and that's just one day after the announcement. MickMacNee (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MickMacNee.--Scott Mac 14:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources are reporting it, and if it doesn't happen, that will be notable too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable event with very large media coverage worldwide. The article is poor though and needs work.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton was a duplicate article, using content copied from this one. It is now a redirect to this title. Both articles were tagged with the AFD notice pointing at this discussion. History mergers, if actually needed at all, can be done at AFD discussion closure. Uncle G (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No it wasn't "using copied content", it was an independently created article which then had material merged into it. The merge was then undone. Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either way, we can't have duplicate articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Obvious Keep: per MickMacNee. Its already notable. For things that actually need editor attention, we need help sourcing Thai footballers at Category:Unreferenced BLPs from October 2008. Thank you.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course; notable future event highly likely to occur. I daresay that if, for some reason, the event does not happen, that will be even more notable. And Spring 2011 is not all that far away, especially as regards a British royal wedding. We already have enough info from reliable sources to write a decent article, even if the one we currently have isn't it. :-) Frank | talk 15:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per compelling argument from MickMacNee. Pedro : Chat 15:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we've already have an article on this topic: Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. Why not merge this one into that one. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major event, hundreds of source just for the announcement of it. I'm not fussed where the article is, but it should be somewhere. AD 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's already attracting huge international media coverage which will only increase as we approach the date of the event.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That this discussion was even brought up with a motion to delete is ridiculous. This is a story whether or not the event were to transpire. It is already formatted and would be edited as it progresses. Nevertheless there are some who move to delete constantly just to be given editorial attribution.. that is why there is art and on the verso criticism and in the end the artist always wins.Masterknighted (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep including an article on this subject isn't recentism, as comparable events from thirty years ago are still notable. Nor does the article violate WP:CRYSTAL, because the event is very likely to happen (the policy doesn't say future events have to be scheduled), it would be notable if it had already occured, and even if the wedding is called off the event may still be notable. Hut 8.5 16:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons that are listed above and are so blindingly obvious, closing admin should strongly consider a reprimand for the nominator for such a frivolous nomination and wasting everyone's time.VER Tott 16:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous comment. You should clearly be reprimanded for wasting my time by writing that. This is a discussion and valid points have been raised by both sides. I don't see you making any specific keep rationale, and WP:ATA is something you should read. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, and I did not see the point of writing out all the points raised above, but just for you :

It is most likely going to happen in the same way as the Summer Olympic games of 2012 or the 2020 Summer Olympics. If it does not happen then there will be an large amount written about why it did not happen.

WP:CRYSTAL does not come into it because the critical part in the policy is the opening Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation since it has been announced (there are sources that IMO qualify as reliable) that the wedding is going to happen it is not unverifiable speculation. VER Tott 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - will be a major event not only for the United Kingdom, but acknowledged (and watched on TV, etc) around the world. Yes, there are few details at the moment, but they will be forthcoming. The name of the article needs settling and stop being moved about! I favour Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. David (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - already attracted much interst from media and public alike - Note also, compare the results of:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) with the earlier links of (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wholeheartedly agree that this is a notable topic and worthy of inclusion. That is, inclusion once it happens. What if they suddenly broke up? The article would only contain "The wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton never happened." Delete now, restore later. It's simple as that. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably also be inherently notable, although on the basis that speculating it "might break up" is also crystal balling, lets keep it unless such an eventuality occurs. Rob (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the wedding almost certainly will take place (what WP:CRYSTAL says) but the break-up almost certainly will not. Anemone Projectors 17:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as I say above floored argument as if it does not happen lots will be written about why it did not happen and it will be just as notable for being the royal wedding that never was. VER Tott 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I !voted speedy redirect as it had already been merged, but now that's been changed, it's been redirected and the other article is being governed by this AFD. So I have struck my previous !vote and now say keep. WP:CRYSTAL allows this article as it is a notable even that is almost certain to take place. Anemone Projectors 18:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "Engagement of..." per Mandsford, as that topic verifiably and notably exists, unlike the wedding. Skomorokh 19:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. William is most likely a future King of the UK, and his parents' wedding was such a major cultural event. A page on Harry's wedding someday would draw more skepticism from me, but since William is directly in line to the throne and a child would be another likely future monarch, I say this wedding is easily notable enough for its own article. Also, the title is fine. If, God forbid, William and Kate do separate we can delete the page then. But that is a bridge I don't see us crossing. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar McClinton[edit]

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

This article is about a person who has had various roles in the movie industry. I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources to establish notability. Specifically with respect to his entertainment career, there is no evidence of any awards for his works in visual effects, or any of the other roles he has played. Whpq (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only ref provided is an IMDB page, which doesn't cut it. The Eskimo (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, McClinton's home page is also cited, but again that doesn't pass wp:rs, and the is the press release about the Stork (film) which seems to indicate that McClinton is notable in the industry...but I am not sure how credible it is, and stand by my delete vote for now. WP does have an article Stork (film), but it doesn't mention McClinton, so I'm not sure if it's the same film (even so, I think that it should probably be deleted as well...will take a second look at the refs provided) The Eskimo (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The film you linked is a 1971 film. The press release is about this one. -- Whpq (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find credits as VFX Coordinator and Visual effects in some Google Books matches but nothing to address the significant impact required for a biographical article. Fæ (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep or delete if visual effects people are production managers have articles then i say keep because he has worked on some major projects if not gut it because it comes off as a promo at the moment anywaysHemanetwork (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't seem to have created any major works to pass WP:CREATIVE, and I can't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Bigger digger (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Salvatore Giunta. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Brennan[edit]

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

Though I hate doing this, I have to argue that there is insufficient notability. Brennan fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL; even I have to admit that a Bronze Star isn't enough and his death is not particularly remarkable in the terms of WP:GNG. Since his noteriety is almost dependant on Salvatore Giunta‎'s attempt to save his life, I would consider a redirect to that article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC) See also WP:BAHAD.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally opposed to deletion but in this case almost all the notable material can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia, in particular in the Sal Giunta article. I would recommend merge but merge has essentially already been done such that I recommend delete.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I agree with the nominator's rationale, this subject does not meet WP:MILPEOPLE or the WP:GNG. A redirect seems an appropriate compromise as it seems like it might be a valid search term. AustralianRupert (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the nomination covers it. A redirect would be fine if the consensus is that it is a valid search term. pablo 20:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak redirect) - Notability bc of Giunta. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Notable because of Giunta= not good enough. Deleting would miss a minor detail, so redirect instead. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator. Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak redirect) - per nominator. Mlpearc powwow 14:54, 18 November 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. Since the nominator does not in fact wish the article to be deleted, this AFD appears to be in error. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air sensitivity[edit]

Speedy keep. Somebody has added a Reference within the last hour or so. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Patrick Catch Phrases[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Olbermann catch phrases. I beleive this article is irrelevant. J390 (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the rules of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, this page is unencyclopedic trivia that serves no vital purpose. It should be deleted or possibly merged into the Dan Patrick article. J390 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete con Fuego per the above. A few of the really good ones ("You can't stop him, you can only hope to contain him") are already mentioned at Dan Patrick, so no worries about coverage. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep con Fuego to steal from Dan and above. He obviously has some notable catch phrases. He's known for them. So why would a summation of said phrases not be appropriate for inclusion as either part of or and adjunct to his article? Same goes for other ESPN characters with notable histories of catch phrases. I'll be glad to merge it with the article, but that might make the section and article overly voluminous, thus the separate article and wikilink. Trackinfo (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Dan Patrick, to tell you the truth. I know we deleted the Keith Olbermann catch phrases article, and it had catchphrases from both his sports and political commentary, so I figured this could be deleted, too, by that logic. Also, articles on people's neologisms generally get deleted here. J390 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete con Fuego per Ultraexactzz.

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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Montana[edit]

I think I would rather not see this page deleted. It does seem to have gotten out of hand lately; it was only the top 10 buildings at one time. Now it is mostly a list of low-rise buildings. Really the top 3 buildings are the only high-rise buildings in Montana. However, all in all I think I would rather see the page stay.

Sara goth (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC) — Sara goth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why?

is this being considered for deletion? I think it is important to keep. I agree, maybe some of these buildings can be deleted as they're only 4 highrises. Three are in Billings and maybe one in Bozeman. Wolfdog406 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this a joke? The tallest building is only 20 stories tall. The topic is not notable. And WP is not a directory of (non-notable) buildings. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why doesn't someone start a page on the largest cattle ranches on Long Island? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neutral on this one. Steve has a point. List of tallest buildings in Billings is even less notable. Seems there are no big skyscrapers in the "Big Sky State", but perhaps the information can be incorporated into one of the articles in Category:Montana-related lists. Lists of tallest buildings are a common feature in books like the World Almanac, so it's not unencyclopedic, nor is it a joke. We might have lists of cattle ranches, I'm afraid to look for fear I might find one. If it's a matter of the page getting out of hand lately, everyone has a right to edit an article on Wikipedia. Mandsford 15:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, List of ranches and stations. meh, I'm no fan of these lists. Dlabtot (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy DenverLady

This page was nominated for deletion DenverLady. DenverLady has been vandalizing this page over and over again, I should have reported this person along time ago but I didn’t. I urge everyone to look at all this person’s contributions on all the pages they edit. DenverLady all most exclusively vandalizes pages to make Missoula Montana look like something it isn’t. I like Missoula, it’s a beautiful town but apparently DenverLady isn’t happy with Missoula and wants it to be the center of the world with the tallest buildings and many more people than it has. This person creates wiki pages that are not true at all, just to use as references. DenverLady just created a page on the largest cities in the west. Missoula isn’t on it yet bet I bet in a week or so Missoula will be listed as one of the largest cites in the western United States.

I am tired of policing this person and I agree this page has grown to large The top three buildings are the only high-rises in Montana. More got add a by DenverLady just trying list more buildings in Missoula but none of them belonged. Rather than shrink the list back down I put the buildings on that did belong.

I think I will edit the list down to those three buildings and please leave this page. And PLEASE everyone check out the contributions made by DenverLady.

I am new to this and maybe I am not doing everything right but I have just been trying to keep this page truthful if anyone wants to help me that would be great.

Linda Rider (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC) — Linda Rider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete no indication from reliable sources that the subject is notable. Indeed, it is almost a joke -- like a list of the greatest German lovers, or yes, the largest ranches on Long Island. Dlabtot (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these buildings are very tall compared to the tallest in America. If any of these buildings were tall enough, I would say redirect to "List of tallest buildings in America," but the tallest building in Montana is about 30 floors off the lowest on the list I mentioned earlier! RomeEonBmbo (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This is a list of the tallest buildings in Montana, a state of only one million people. So no none of the buildings are even close to being on the tallest buildings in the United States. That doe not make them any less valid. I am from Montana and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be to impressed with a list of mountain ranges on the east cost or a list of the largest nation parks in New York but that would make them no less valid.

Linda Rider (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ The very person that has been vandalizing it nominated this page for deletion. Linda Rider (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ Lists like these are very common and I don’t think that this list should be deleted just because most of the buildings on the list are low-rise buildings. The page is “the tallest buildings in Montana” not “High-Rises of Montana” or the “Tallest buildings in the world”. I think the page needs to be redone, most likely using only the top three buildings on this list, easily online referenced. Rebuild but not deleted. Linda Rider (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the label "Do not delete" or "keep" (or for that matter "delete" or "merge") only once. Everything else can be referred to as Comment. It's a common first time mistake, I've done it before myself, but the closing administrator has to get an idea about how many separate people are venturing an opinion. Thank you. Mandsford 13:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the point of the article appears to be that there actually aren't any tall buildings in Montana. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of three locally and only moderately tall buildings doesn't appear to be useful. --Elekhh (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I concur that the article probably doesn't meet our guidelines, and probably should be merged somewhere (of possible), I find this nomination to be irretrievably flawed, and would likely have closed it on a procedural basis had I noticed it. Such is life, we now have multiple good faith editors recommending deletion - which is fine, as I agree more than disagree. Just bothered me, is all, how this went down. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I realize these buildings aren’t all that tall compared to most metropolitan areas but that is really not the point of this article. They are tall buildings in this part of the world. The First Interstate tower is the tallest building in within the five state region of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, North and South Dakota. That is a pretty large land area.

Sara goth (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

There is and entire category Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States that has over a hundred pages of lists just like this one. If this one were deleted wouldn’t all of all of those pages be eligible for deletion? Sara goth (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that, by WP's stated policies. WP is not supposed to be a directory, nor are articles supposed to be written about the intersection of two unrelated things. In this case the intersection of tall building and Montana was kind of quiet, but I would even question an article on the tallest buildings in Chicago or New York. "Tall building" is one topic, a location is another. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information in this article could be merged into a paragraph in Billings, Montana. Like: "The three tallest buildings in Montana are in Billings [their names and heights]."

Like: "New York has many tall buildings..." (In New York City) and "Two of the most important cities in the history of skyscrapers are New York and Chicago." (In Skyscraper) But not "List of tallest buildings in New York City" or "List of tallest buildings in Chicago." This is about how information should be presented according to what WP policies say (as imperfectly understood by me.) It is not about what information should be given. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "List of tallest buildings in the world" is fine, and needed...no intersection there. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could also make a list of tallest stands and dressers in my house article and call it notable because they are the tallest dressers and stands on my property which is important to me and because it's accurate to the inch and it would be, too. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:20, 22 November 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Djibouti)[edit]

We already have a Foreign relations of Djibouti page, although specific pages related to the government of Djibouti are lacking, even in the ((Politics of Djibouti)) template. This article has been an orphan/stub since it was created and tagging has not resulted in edits. It also contained a link with a virus threat. (Since removed.) The topic of the "Ministry" can be/should be discussed in the For Rel page and in a general/overall "Ministers" page.--S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I think this AfD is not properly formated/listed? Alinor (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note About the virus. I have opened this link and it seemed like a real MFA website (albeit with scarce information) - of course it could be a scam, I don't know. I think the link is valuable nonetheless - do we have a "beware, virus" tag? Alinor (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (the link, if possible) and Redirect to Foreign relations of Djibouti - not delete. Alinor (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I haven't got the right format -- but I did follow the instructions. Re the virus, my AVG program blocked the site saying "Accessed file is infected. Threat name: Exploit Link to Exploit Site (type 1152)" message. I have sent AVG a "incorrect page rating report" and will correct the link if they say it is OK. (AVG is a great program & provider!) Re merger, since there is basically nothing to merge from this article, I think AFD is simplest. But yours is a good idea, and I'll merge in a few days if we don't get a AFD consensus. Thank you, Alinor, for responding. --S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received a response from AVG. They report the threat detection was correct. (Anyone who wishes to see their response should email me.)--S. Rich (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but even if it has a virus - it still may be the official site (e.g. lazy admin or intentionally inserted by the admin) - so I think it should be put in the Foreign relations page (with a 'beware virus' tag of some sort). Alinor (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duhh! Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lone sentence in this article "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation is the ministry which oversees the foreign relations of Djibouti" (Duh) is already covered in Foreign relations of Djibouti. Mandsford 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. Subject is already covered elsewhere. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no valuable content there (besides the link to the MFA page - see above), but putting '#REDIRECT' is no more complicated that delete - and it is aways good to have a link from the full name of the ministry. Alinor (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree that the content is redundant, but redirects are cheap. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:05, 24 November 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. Ok, I assume the large number of mentions in the media make it notable, even though I'm unable to find in-depth coverage myself, precisely because there are so many in-passing references. Presumably the same notability standard for academic journals can be applied: lots of references to it => notable. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Society of Journalists and Authors[edit]

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

Tagged for nobility since 2007. No secondary coverage, so perhaps it's time to break the limbo. Some concerns over [25] WP:COI as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better, of course, we don't delete just because no one has updated the references since the article was created, there are 1,400 Google News archive hits under "American Society of Journalists and Authors". The organization has been around since 1948. We also have about two dozen internal links coming in to the article. The organization also gives out the Conscience-in-Media Award. There is no deadline for improvement, and we don't nominate for deletion as a way to force people to improve the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The award article is rather WP:COATRACK. No independent sources discuss the importance of the award in that article, but those that have received it are notable on other grounds, so that article cobbles together their biographies. That it's a GA only speaks for the meaninglessness of the GA status in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though I'm usually inclined to delete poorly sourced articles about niche organizations, this one is the exception. Though traditional sourcing may be hard to come by, this organization appears to have a long history and lasting significance -- there is little question this organization is notable and respected; we just need to demonstrate it with better sourcing. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:21, 16 November 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayian[edit]

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

All WP:OR and unsourced. Better to start from the beginning. Possibly not even a Sikh tradition, according to an ip. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources here, including many describing this as a Sikh tradition. Even if it is thought better to start from the beginning that doesn't require an admin to hit the "delete" button first. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN 9788178357218 pp. 219 is one source that confirms quite a lot of this content as-is. So not only is this not original research, it is not even necessary to start from the beginning. ISBN 9780706983685 has a maiyan on page 29, which seems to be a related part of the overall ceremony, if not the simple alternative spelling of the name that ISBN 9781858563534 pp. 73 indicates it to be. This seems to be an article on a subject where evidently there's at least as much as is already in this article right now to write. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some references could definitely be found for this article, and after that it'd be fine. Endofskull (talk) 22:28, 16 November 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) 21:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Airlines (United States)[edit]

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

Article was created in 2008 by User:Atlanticairlinesinc (only Wikipedia edit by this user, so likely Conflict of Interest and Advertizing). Since then, nothing has changed significantly, especially the fact that the airline's website is still the only source. There are no reliable third party references to be found, which would add some deeper coverage of the company to pass WP:CORP. Atlantic Airlines is only a small airline which has not been assigned an airline code, which IMO means that the company is of no sufficient encyclopedic value. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COI isn't a reason to delete...and that search phrase generates plenty of results...someone just needs to sort through it to decipher which are related to the airline CTJF83 chat 04:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I could tell, none are. I could find literally nothing about this company except its website. It appears to be a charter service flying small planes to small airports around Florida. Does that make it notable? My hunch is no, but I don't really have the expertise to say. --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Also, I reported that user. Endofskull (talk) 22:33, 16 November 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. Merging or converting to a dab page are still on the table though and can be discussed at the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rover 200 Series / 400 Series[edit]

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

Article duplicates other articles Rover 200 / 25 and Rover 400 / 45. All useful content was merged into those two articles (and Honda Integra) recently, and article is now an orphan. No significant edits have been made since the merges. Letdorf (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if useful content was merged we need to keep the attribution history. Not familiar with the details, I'd redirect to Rover Group which mentions both lines. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs to kept, maybe it's better to make it a disambig rather than a redirect? If the point of redirecting to Rover Group is just that both lines are mentioned so a reader can find more information (it's conceivable e.g. the reader has followed an external link to the old Wikipedia article on a dated webpage somewhere) then such a reader is presumably better-served by a disambig page that points to all the places where that info has gone? TheGrappler (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably best to replace with a dab page, IMHO. Letdorf (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been relisted twice? Given the merging it should not be deleted and whether to keep it under a redirect or convert into a dab page is a mere editorial decision that does not need to be discussed here. I'd say close as redirect with no prejudice against converting into a dab page by knowledgeable editors if they see fit.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make it into a disambiguation page. Since there's other articles with the same information. Endofskull (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - maybe keep the links to the articles as brief detail on the Rover 200/25 article and split them like at Volkswagen Golf.

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) 21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International School for Primary Education, Bucharest[edit]

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

We don't normally consider primary schools notable, and there's no compelling reason (such as an independent source covering the school in depth) to make an exception here. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nominator, there is nothing to suggest this school is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's not notable. Endofskull (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Till Deaf Do Us Part. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckle Sandwich Nancy (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song that didn't chart. E. Fokker (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single has background information - regardless of chart performance. Only non-charting single throught 1980 to 1988 for Slade.
Rock band Queen has 6 number one singles, just like Slade and yet Queen has article's for all singles such as these which has not only less info but it did not chart:
I did not realise that some popular band's are given more effort and care than others in the similar popularity. Why should this article be deleted quickly when the articles mentioned have been alerted and yet remain active? Ajsmith141 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, Delete for lack of individual notability per WP:NSONGS; the superfluous (song) makes it unfeasible as a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Till Deaf Do Us Part, as per the WP:NSONG guideline, singles (excluding a few very special examples) should be merged with the relevant album.--hkr Laozi speak 04:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is going to break the chronology chain, the consecutive listing of complete singles although not all are completed yet, this single was chosen next as it had plenty of information. Unfortunately, there's a lot of heartless editors out there who just don't care. There has been info on the article that states it's importance. Ajsmith141 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not see the harm in this article. There is a fair amount of information on the page which is much more than the usual single article has. It is also by no means complete and so more information will be added. Ajsmith141 (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Till Deaf Do Us Part. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With what reason? Ajsmith141 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - because the song fails to meet notability for a song. per WP:NSONG. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the notability page: "A separate article on a song should only exist when there is enough verifiable material to have a reasonably detailed article. Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album".Ajsmith141 (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That is a necessary but not sufficient condition to establish that a separate article for a song should be created. You carefully snipped the text out of context. Right before that little passage you quote is "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside..." which identifies the how to decide that a song would meet notability. The part you have quoted is an addiitonal condition, that even if a song has charted, it still needs sourcing such that a fully developed article can be created. The article, as it stands right now, has no reliable sources. A blog on Bloglspot is not a reliable source. And I see no substantial coverage about the song. So it fails notability, and fails sourcing even if notability were otherwise established through charting. -- Whpq (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference added which includes newspaper articles based on the matter. Notability - due to this very single, the departure of manager Chas Chandler who guided, produced and led the band to six number one hits in the 70s, a total of 17 top 20 hits. Fair amount of press coverage on the incident which the single was based on. Only non-charting single from 1980 to 1988.Ajsmith141 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Game Network. The consensus is that there are not enough sources for an article, but several people indicate that a redirect could be useful. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game Guru[edit]

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

Tagged for primary sources for 2 years-plus. No reliable sources found anywhere. Fails WP:GNG in all senses. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Bundy Jr. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete profoundly non-notable. Only hint of notability is the unsourced claim that it spawned an internet meme, this appears to be false (or very minor if true, as I can't find it anywhere). Chances are if no reliable sources have been found in the 2 years since it's been tagged, that's because no such sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Game Network (in the appropriate section). There is some sourcable information, but not enough to establish notability on its own. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. —Half Price 18:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or failing that, Merge into Game Network as it was the channel's main show.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Game Network; not enough coverage to warrant an independent article, and not much verifiable info to merge. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect What Fetchcomms said. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:05, 24 November 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) 21:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewmageddon[edit]

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

No notability asserted, no sources found anywhere. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Bundy Jr. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in terms of British Television shows on Satellite TV, it was very popular (infact it was Xleague's highest viewed show in their history) and was went into re-runs for well over a year. Also there was very few British video gaming--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC) shows around that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FirecrackerDemon (talk • contribs)

WP:NOTINHERITED. "There wasn't another show like it" is not a reason to keep; it's just opinion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added References and sources of Reviewmageddon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FirecrackerDemon (talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube vids and a press-release; not enough to show notability. Chzz ► 23:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability whatsoever aside from the claimed assertation that it's popular, which seems to be clearly false. It was oh so very popular that they made a whole SEVEN episodes, and so popular that DOZENS of people have flocked to watch it on youtube. (I'm not joking either, episode 5 has a youtube view count of 82... not 82 million or 82 thousand, just 82. Seriously.) Misses our notability and verifiability standards by miles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:36, 17 November 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 article has been speedy-deleted under CSD A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeless Reality Records[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 07:19, 16 November 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) 06:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bremen Fife FC[edit]

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

Amateur sports team; does not meet WP:NSPORTS. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable club. Alleged coverage in the Niagara Falls Review can't be confirmed, as articles cited don't seem to exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - low level club, not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Giant Snowman 13:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - low level recreational team. Very clearly non-notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, granted, the links need to be fixed, but as I've argued on the page's discussion, how can anybody even begin to try to define what "notable" means? Wikipedia's criteria for what can be defined as "notable" is a complete joke. Notability is a completely subjective term whether you happen to try to define in finite terms or not. So when wikipedia says ""Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Who's going to tell me that mission statement is bogus, and that what we really want to do is be exclusionist. For what? To save paper? If even only one single person on this earth wants to get more information about this club on wikipedia, then leaving the page up should be worth it, according to wikipedia themselves, and frankly anyone disputing that is doing a disservice to the site. Please note the wikipedia mission statement does not read:""Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the knowledge that the people who use wikipedia the most deem notable using some ridiculous criteria that we'll enforece in order to give us something to do. That's our commitment." Keen 3 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Keen 3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also, searching through many of the other pages for local football clubs very similar to this, the only reason I can see this page being up for deletion is because it's new and therefore drawn attention. Without difficulty, I was able to find dozens of clubs, just football clubs, of similar size and level that also have pages. Deleting this because of notability would be egregious.Keen 3 (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate any of those articles for deletion and they will be considered on their own merits -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low level recreational team, not notable. Article suggests they may go pro someday, but that day isn't today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even find any info on the web about the league they play, it's not even mentioned on the Ontario Soccer Association's website, suggesting that they play at a very non-notable level. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:22, 19 November 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) 06:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jones (actor)[edit]

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

Completely unremarkable actor. Fails WP:GNG. Obvious autobiography. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to IMDb, he has only had three small roles, not to mention the photo is lifted directly from IMDb. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of any major roles, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON [26] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 22 November 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) 06:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glitterbomb[edit]

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

New mixed drink; non-notable, unsourced. Orange Mike | Talk 02:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no refs or sources found via usual searches. Appears to be non-notable. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. It seems this just escapes ((db-nocontext)) because it states how the drink is made, but I cannot find any sources other than Urban Dictionary and Answers.com (otherwise, I would suggest merging it to List of cocktails). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Possibly made up. Cullen328 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All cocktails are made up. This one is available in pubs in Swindon, UK. I found it being served on Saturday 11th November. Just because you can't find a source online, doesn't mean an item doesn't exist. There is more to this world than what you can find on the internet. The Glitterbomb is a genuine cocktail. You should try it. MuzHell 10:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)</[reply]

Please read our standards on verifiability and our standards of notability. You're tacitly admitting that this fails both standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you type Glitterbomb Goldschlager into Google, there are links to several bars and clubs that serve this cocktail. Is that not proof that it's not made up?

Comment Of course, all cocktails are made up at the beginning, but those that are notable and have enduring articles in Wikipedia need to have multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss them in detail. A mention on the website of a bar or club promoting a new drink does not qualify. Perhaps an article in a daily paper that serves the Swindon area that discusses this new drink sensation might qualify. Can you provide such reliable sources? Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable drink of which nothing can be said besides WP:ITEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TVShowsOnDVD.com[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Only sources are primary. Might warrant a merge somewhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Gord Lacey, founder of the site, interviewed here. I actually had to justify my use of this site as a source when I was bringing Last of the Summer Wine up to FA-class and, in my research, found a couple tid-bits that made me believe they are notable. Since 2007, They have been affiliated with TV Guide.[27] They were also a driving force in the campaign to bring Family Guy on DVD during its first run, the eventual sales of which convinced Cartoon Network to pick up the show and eventually Fox to bring it back from the dead. Other mentions of the site as an authority include The Scranton Times Tribune, The Mantis Eye Experiment, a press release from Warner Bros. mentioning the site as a driving force for releasing Perfect Strangers on DVD, and another Warner Bros. press release mentioning the site as a a factor in releasing Third Watch on DVD. Redfarmer (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep some of the puffery needs trimming, as does all the self-reference. But with that said, there does seem to be a sliver of real-world impact, which is more than we can say for 99% of website articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jameel Dumas[edit]

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, I thought I was going to go delete on this one, but I checked the news and this guy had articles written about him in papers all over the US for his college ball. Solid widespread coverage--he's in.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Sorry, but I don't see the "solid widespread coverage" that Paulmcdonald mentioned. If someone finds and adds suitable sources to the article, I will reconsider, or if there is additional coverage in the future the article can be re-created. cmadler (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT, no evidence of national news articles describing the subject in significant detail. Ravenswing 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORTS is not an exclusionary standard. A college football player who "fails" NSPORTS is not excluded from Wikipedia. It is one of the ways to be included. A college football player who never plays professional football still gets included if he/she has non-trivial coverage (i.e., more than passing references in game coverage) in the mainstream media sufficient to satisfy GNG. There is no requirement that such coverage be from the "national" media. While I agree in some cases that limited coverage in a single, small-town paper may not suffice, here we have multiple feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers in New Jersey and New York states., including the The Post-Standard, Syracuse Herald American, and Home News Tribune. There are also articles from The Daily Orange and Our Sports Central. Though less meaty, there's also a Sports Illustrated article that has some brief discussion of Dumas. Cbl62 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't had a chance to research the news coverage yet. However, Mandsford raised a question at the Byron Hardmon AfD about whether playing in NFL Europa qualifies as fully professional. WP:NSPORT recognizes the USFL, CFL,and Arena Football League as fully professonal, rejects AF2 and makes no mention of NFL Europa. I don't know how the level of play in NFL Europa compares with the CFL or Arena Football League, but we should probably have an express ruling on that. Mandsford asserts that NFL Europa should be the same as fully professional baseball and basketball leagues outside of the United States. Says Mandsford: "The six teams of NFL Europe not only represented the highest level of American football in Germany and other nations at the time, but were also comparable (or higher) to the quality of play in the Canadian and Arena leagues." This may be something to be taken up at WP:NSPORT. Cbl62 (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It's generally held, across the board, that the "top-level international leagues" which usually represent the basic devolved NSPORTS criteria presupposes that the sport in question is of major stature in the particular countries. However much a cricket league in the United States, an ice hockey league in Japan or a basketball league in England might be the highest level of those sports in those nations, no one holds their players to be de facto notable. Ravenswing 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See List of leagues of American football#List of defunct American football minor leagues around the world, which lists NFL Europe under this category. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though injuries cut his career short and prevented him from being an NFL player, a college player passes general notability standards if he has had significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Dumas has tons of news coverage from his college years. He was the top defensive player for Syracuse, and there are more than a dozen feature stories about him from major daily newspapers from his time as a college football player. This is not "typical" news coverage for a college player. There are other college players currently up for AfD (e.g., Charles Missant and Wade Betschart) where I have voted "delete" precisely because there is not significant news coverage like this. I have completely re-written the article and integrated many of those sources into the article. In light of this news coverage, the article is a "Keep." Cbl62 (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - I took another look at the article after Cbl62 reworked it last night. Of the online sources, only one appears to be non-trivial with regard to Dumas, and that's this one from the Syracuse student newspaper. There are a bunch of offline sources, regarding which I have to just AGF. But I have to guess that, among those 15 offline sources, there are at least one or two that are non-trivial, to go with the one online. It's weak, but I'm changing my !vote to "keep". (Sorry, forgot to sign! cmadler (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There are actually multiple feature stories about him in The Post-Standard, Syracuse Herald American, The Star-Ledger and Watertown Daily Times. These articles are available on-line (with subscription) through newspapers.com. They include in-depth coverage of Dumas. For example, the article, "DEFINING SEASON: JAMEEL DUMAS; Linebacker's back for a fresh start", fills a half-page of the paper. The article, "Dumas aches to play: The SU linebacker aspires to play in the NFL, but an injury sidelines him" is a full column from top to bottom of the page. References 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22 and 24 are all substantial feature stories that are about Dumas. Though shorter, many of the other articles cited in the article (30 in all) are also stories that focus on Dumas as the subject. That is an extraordinary level of coverage for a college player and clearly passes the general notability threshold. Cbl62 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they're available online (even behind a paywall), can you add links? Also, can you either give (a) link(s) or more bibliographical information for the Post-Herald? I can't figure out what newspaper that is, where it's based, etc. cmadler (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the way newspaperarchive.com works, you can't link directly to an article. I've tried in the past and it just takes you to the main site. The site is http://newspaperarchive.com/. The Post-Standard was founded in 1829 and is the major metropolitan newspaper for Syracuse, New York. It is one of the 100 largest papers in the USA.[28]. The Syracuse metropolitan area has a population of 732,117,which is larger than the population of 60 countries (including Iceland and Belize).[29] Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out The Post-Standard, but what is The Post-Herald? cmadler (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain about this, but I think there may have a period around the Syracuse Herald-Journal folded in 2001 when the papers may have been combined. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's it, because the Post-Standard and Post-Herald articles cited in this article are from the same time period. The only Post-Herald I can find on that newspaperarchive.com website is the Buckley (WV) Post-Herald, which went out of business in 1977(?), so that wouldn't be it. There's also a Post-Herald in Birmingham, Alabama, but I'd be surprised if that's it either. A search on newspaperarchive.com for "Jameel Dumas" did not turn up any articles from any Post-Herald. Can you double-check where those came from? cmadler (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check tonight. The other possibility is that I mis-cited the newspaper as "Post-Herald" when it was actually "Post-Standard." If so, I'll fix it tonight. I'm glad to have introduced you to newspaperarchive.com. It has full coverage of a lot of newspapers not found on google news; their yearly subscription is actually a pretty good deal if you do a fair amount of research. Maybe some day, Google will buy newspaperarchive and it will all be searchable in one place. Cbl62 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the cites. Somehow, I typed "Post-Herald" when it should have been "Post-Standard"

Delete: Not a very notable athlete. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether he's "very" notable. Multiple feature stories in the mainstream media means he's notable. The comment is similar to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just not notable, but worse yet, "Just not very notable." Cbl62 (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:17, 16 November 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) 06:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ochani Lele[edit]

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

Unsourced autobiography by non-notable person Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General Comment. The article's original author is also its subject so there's a fairly clear-cut conflict of interest here. The name 'Lele' is a pen-name of another author - according to this article. I checked the publisher's website - Inner Traditions - and everything is legit...but I do wonder just how notable the subject is without independent sources. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - but COI in and of itself is not grounds for deletion, nor am I asserting that it is. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per the WP:GNG. -- role^player 10:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources whatsoever. GBooks has never heard of the subject. The lone GNews hits is a minor passing mention that might be a false positive. Edward321 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per OrangeMike and WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punktown[edit]

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

Non-notable setting for works by minor author Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BK. Endofskull (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable setting for a series of minor written works. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional setting of a series which itself doesn't appear to be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four points on article's discussion page^[1] that argue for notability. Talien79 (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - those references are the sort of thing that might be relevant for discussion of a book; but not for discussion of a fictional setting. They include a bizarre assertion that M. Night Shayalam borrowed part of the plotline for his Avatar movie from a short story set in Punktown! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 22 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margo (soap)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable commercial product Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. It seems to be advertising too. Endofskull (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable product. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The few refs I've added are sufficient to show significant coverage, if more are needed they can be picked out from gbooks or gnews archives. —SpacemanSpiff 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the oldest brands in India and has been the subject of several academic studies and has received continuous coverage to differentiate it from run of the mill brands--Sodabottle (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-known soap brand. [30][31][32][33] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added references show sufficient notability. --bonadea contributions talk 19:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reference to establish notablitity. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Rabbabodrool (talk) 20:11, 22 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Wilde[edit]

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

Non-notable episode of minor program Orange Mike | Talk 01:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Running Wilde episodes. Endofskull (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Running Wilde episodes. It looks to me like all the same information is already in the list, with the exception of the "Cultural References" section (and that just details some less-than-critical facts which belong on a different wiki). SteveStrummer (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep lack of content is not a reason to delete an article. that's a reason to add content. BEARinAbasket (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above. Episode doesn't seem notable in itself and the keep vote above is a strawman argument. Redfarmer (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it is not a strawman argument, as per WP:ATD BEARinAbasket (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a strawman because no one's arguing it should be deleted because of its length. Length is irrelevant. Redfarmer (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - SteveStrummer argued exactly that. BEARinAbasket (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I interpreted that to just mean a merge wasn't necessary because all the information was already in another article. I don't see it as an argument for "too short". In any case, it's still a strawman against the nom's argument. Redfarmer (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Running Wilde episodes: non-notable episode of a not-very-notable show --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created the article in the first place is that Mitch Hurwitz seems to love the use of running gags, both within a project, and between projects he and/or others in them have worked on. Take for example Arrested Development. As on the pages for individual episodes of Arrested Development, there are (quite large) sections for background references and callbacks. In this episode here, there was an obvious callback to Arrested Developement (David Cross's chronic use of "Come On!"). Noting this on the Epsides page would clutter it up, and furthermore, I assumed others would add other references they'd noticed; and so I created this page. I think this callback is a noteworthy observation between the two series, and having now watched all the current episodes and come across other background jokes, I think it's a matter of time before wikipedia-users will start to edit/create pages for just these reasons. Just my thoughts. Barmy Fotheringay-Phipps (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - if these things are not taken note of by reliable sources, they have no place here. This is not a Mitch Hurwitz fanboy forum, nor a blog for "spot the references" games to be played. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 20 November 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.

Triumph Group[edit]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW.--Father Goose (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Triumph Group

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

I don't see sufficient evidence for notability. The results for this company on Google News appear only to be "press releases" that discuss its quality as an investment. I see no mention of its products. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 01:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Triumph Group is a $1.2 Billion company on the NYSE. Jax 0677 (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(re-pasted from the article talk: page) Andy Dingley (talk)

Keep NYSE listed, S&P 600 list. They might be the dullest company ever, but it's crazy to claim that a company in either of those two listings can somehow sneak through without being noted! Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this company appears to be notable; as it does have a stock. Having a stock definitely means something. Thanks. Endofskull (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it definitely needs improvement and expansion, notability isn't an issue, per the other Keeps above. - BilCat (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I've added info on the company's purchase what was left of Vought, a well-known aviation company, in June 2010. I;m sure there's more out there that can be added, and I'll do what I can fo add more. - BilCat (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just looked in google news. It's got articles in Barron's, Dallas Morning News, Toronto Star, etc. It is in the news. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these "articles" are actually press releases. Can you demonstrate one that's not? Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 17:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This supplier of aerospace components and systems may not be a household name, but it gets in by pure weight of economic significance, being listed on major stock exchanges as an index stock. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The votes to "keep" here seem to based upon its being a publicly held company, however this alone is not sufficient. See WP:LISTED. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOFIXIT BEFORE you bring it to AfD and waste everyone's time. Did you get the little footnote about "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies"? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I could've found any specifics about what the company does, I would have. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it says "*almost* always exist". Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 17:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:COMPANY#Primary_criteria. I see no "depth of coverage". The results from google news appear to all be press releases, or other trivial items that have no depth. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that others found specifics after the AFD was filed strongly suggest that others could have found specifics before the AFD was filed. None of us our perfect, and most of us here could tell of searches we did that failed, but others were able found good information on the same subject. But you have to ask, and ADFs are not really not the best way to do that. That is where projects can be of big help, and editors that have been of help in the past. - BilCat (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "specifics"? You mean the "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business"? Anyways, it's not worth fighting over. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did do multiple searches for information about the company, and have yet to see a substantive article about the company. They're almost all in the form of press releases, which are "self-published" and not admissible. For example, this reference is a press release. And this would qualify as a "brief announcement". You can disagree with the nomination, but don't say that it's baseless w/o clear evidence to the contrary. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then continue to file premature frivolous AFDs in complete oblivion. I'll be very surprised if the article is deleted, and I'll certainly contest it if it is. The AFD is not even a day old, and I'll still be doing more work over the next 7 days as I have time. I wouldn't even be trying if I genuinely though the company was not notable. - BilCat (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up. (I don't file AfD very often so there's no need to assume that I'll "continue to...".) And the article almost surely won't be deleted, so you can relax. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC) (18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I almost never file a PROD or AFD without seeking a second opinion on a project page or from an editor I trust. The fact that you apparantly relied solely on your own judgement is qutie telling. WP is a collaborative project, and it's almost always a good thing to get someone else involved in whatever one does in WP. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"quite telling"? "Telling" of what? It's brought to an AfD for review; that's what an AfD is for. However, I'll try to remember to bounce it off a few others before I nominate next time. Also, I've been around Wikipedia long enough to understand the collaboration involved. Don't be so insulting. WP:ASSUME and WP:BOLD (17:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)) Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant to be insulting, just instructive. Given your behavior and attidude here, no real experiance is evident. - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're interfering with efforts to improve the article? Do you want a 3RR block?? It can be arranged. Time to call in an admin. - BilCat (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool off... relax. You're way too worked up over this. And again, you're assuming bad faith. The policy says "once the notability is established...", which hasn't been done yet due to the dearth of reliable sources. But I have no interest in edit warring over this issue. We both have the same goal of improving the quality of Wikipedia, we just disagree about what content should be included. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:CORP for notability. - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Press releases aren't ideal, but suffice for a corporation. OEM companies usually don't make their own products, but do so for other companies and tend to "fly under the radar".Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Finding coverage of the company wasn't hard -- Triumph Group Rolls The Dice With Vought - Aviation Week (Not a reprint of the press release). India set to join China as big aerospace manufacturing market. Aviation Week (Article about the group expanding into Asia). The company is clearly notable. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of articles and information can be found in Flight Global simply by using the search term "Triumph Group." Latest article Triumph Group aquires Vought or TG supplying transmissions for MD500/600 helicopters. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, not to pile on, but can I invoke WP:SNOWBALL now! Bzuk (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I would agree to that. If an admin would like to go ahead and close this AfD (early), I wouldn't object and I doubt anyone else would either. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 22:34, 16 November 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) 06:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Realm Online, A History[edit]

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

Original research article that seems to be an unnecessary branch off of the The Realm Online article. ceranthor 01:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - excessive and pointless fancruft. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely unsourced, and an unnecessary content fork. Any information that can be sourced should instead be added to the main article, where interested readers are more likely to find it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced WP:POVFORK created to avoid reversion of attempts to insert the same unverifiable content into The Realm Online. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORIGINAL. Endofskull (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am new to editing articles on Wikipedia. I seem to have offended a number of you with my additions to "The Realm Online" but I assure you, I mean no malice to anybody. i feel this way because when my content was removed, I was given very little reason as to why. Being a player of the game for over 10 years, I felt my experience in the community could add to the article that existed prior. So when that didn't work, I created a separate page. I understand that my experiences cannot be referenced, but the information I provided is a unique look at the game's robust history. Although I am glad to see that Wikipedia articles are being thoroughly examined for relevant content, I feel that I am being attacked in this scenario. The Realm has been running for 15 years and I honestly feel that the limited amount of history provided by the current article does not do the game justice, as I feel it deserves, being one of the oldest MMORPG or MUD games around. I see that I am outnumbered by people who feel my articles are worthless, and for that, my contributions are being taken down. Am I to understand that these parts of this game's history (In game commerce, player to player scamming) do not belong on The Free Encyclopaedia? I feel these elements are pertinent to this game's history. A reference to my contributions doesn't exist beyond my own experiences, but that does not warrant the erasure of such a rich history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickschiggins (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. It seems that you do not understand that Wikipedia requires all information to be verified in reliable, independent sources. I understand that you would like to publish your thoughts about the history of this game, but Wikipedia is not a first publisher of information- it is against the rules for us to use any information from you except that which is referenced. Since you say that you understand that your experiences cannot be referenced, then you understand that you haven't contributed anything that Wikipedia's rules permit us to publish, but I hope you find a place that will publish your thoughts on this subject. Perhaps a games magazine or web site? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Sickschiggins. It's unfortunate that you've had such a difficult initial experience, and please know that you're welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but that the way you contribute needs to be in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and standards. To understand why your contribution of this document isn't appropriate, it's first necessary to understand that Wikipedia is not a place for publishing accounts of one's personal experience with topics; it is an encyclopedia built on information that can be verified with reliable third-party sources. Reading WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research should clarify this. I also note that nobody is "erasing" the history you've created; you are perfectly welcome to publish it on your own web site, for example. Not everything needs to be in Wikipedia. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for responding. Thanks for fixing the formatting. I was a little perturbed in the beginning because the user who originally removed my content from the page was a self-proclaimed wikipedia nazi (in their bio). Based on that immature description of themselves, I thought it was a user who just hadn't read my contribution, and was angry to see someone else adding to their article. It then became obvious that there was a team of people trying to remove my additions. The information I provided is minimal and I do not have a website to post it: Wikipedia provided a space for me to add content that is not being portrayed in the gaming industry. Thank you for clarifying that there are rules to follow and I was blatantly not following them. I had never once considered what I was doing as 'publishing' and was, honestly, just trying to spruce up the boring, short and non-specific article that currently exists. I figured, being a fan of the game, that there just wasn't enough there. I guess I didn't think it through more than that. Short and generally obscure reasons were given as to why it was removed, all of which I felt were inadequete . "Excessive and pointless fancruft" seems to be an inadequate reason to remove what I added, but, FisherQueen and Chaos5023, thank you for explaining my mistakes to me and offering suggestions so that my contributions can be read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickschiggins (talk • contribs) 04:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're entirely welcome, and I apologize that none of us managed to effectively communicate about the matter earlier. One of the dangers we encounter as we become more experienced as Wikipedia editors is that we fall into patterns of communication via shorthand and jargon that wind up doing what we call "biting the newbies" (itself a piece of jargon!). You got bit; sorry. Your basic motivations, in seeing the state of the article and feeling it needed more material, are absolutely great, and are what Wikipedia at its best thrives on. If you can take that motivation and add on the skills involved in working from reliable sources, great things will result. :) For instance, you very well might be able to go onto Google Books, search for "the realm online" and find previewable sources that provide verifiable documentation of facts about The Realm Online that you'd like to add. It's a bit of work, no question, but it's definitely something that can be picked up. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply per WP:OR, and as said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-admitted WP:OR. In response to the question above "Am I to understand that these parts of this game's history (In game commerce, player to player scamming) do not belong on The Free Encyclopaedia?" The answer is, well, yes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 17 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Spencer[edit]

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

BLP about a model/actor that has been unsourced for nearly two years. No significant coverage found beyond gossip magazines discussing his relationship with Paula Abdul. Michig (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a member of the Unreferenced BLP team. In looking for possible sources, I too could only find gossip sources. On the other side of the argument, he is somewhat notable for winning the "Mr. USA" - ahem - pageant. My vote would be to delete. TiMike (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep The article's addressable puffery aside, assertions of having won the title of Mr. USA and being runner up of 2000 Mister World [34] contest are claims of notability that should meet WP:ANYBIO if properly sourced. If sourced wins and nominations for Miss USA and Miss World are acceptable for showing female notability under ANYBIO, the equivalent male pagents should be acceptable for showing notability for males... even though the guy's pagents get far less popular coverage. Fair is fair. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that female beauty contests receive much more coverage, and several women are internationally famous for having won them, and this is not the case with the male versions.--Michig (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... more coverage due to the long-standing objectification of women... and certainly, there are far more female pagents of all sorts. Currently WP:ANYBIO does not condone nor grant the existance of a double standard. To eliminate any such considerations in the future, ANYBIO should be rewritten to specifically disallow notability for such equivalent male pagents. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral results for the Division of Darwin[edit]

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

~~Pointless; nothing here that shouldn't be in main Division of Darwin article. Orange Mike | Talk 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strong keep as creator. A little more research would have revealed that this is part of a 209-page series covering all Australian federal electorates. The pages almost invariably become far too long for the main electorate article, and it was agreed a long time ago (scroll down a bit) to handle this in this way. Frickeg (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the nominator is proposing a merge (and that appears to be the gist of his deletion rationale) then this discussion should be closed and a merge proposed on the relevant talk page. It may be that a merge is the most appropriate option but AfD discussions should not be used as short cuts to force a merge. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep per Frickeg. A single AfD for one article is not the way to object to 209 articles. Either all Federal electorates should have articles like this one or none of them should. I think all of them should. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - although I still think it's silly, since there is no other justification for separate articles on electoral divisions than the inclusion of just this kind of data. What else do you write about: the gerrymandering? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, leave as is? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:04, 16 November 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) 06:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Cuddeford[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no need for this. If you look at The West Country Tonight, section Current on air team you see her. Her name is also listed several other places on that article. Endofskull (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews [35]. no coverage no article. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 16 November 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) 21:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Perdew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources are:

Two directory listings from NSAI which mention no more than his name.
A "reported attack site"
A blurb about a song that Perdew wrote that mentions no more than his name.
A 404.

In short, while he may meet WP:MUSIC for having written three songs for Joe Diffie, a search turns up no BLP info whatsoever, just directory listings such as allmusic. Without any reliable secondary sources that are explicitly about him, he fails WP:GNG. Last time around I suggested that a lawsuit about one of his songs may be enough, but again, the lawsuit barely mentions anything about him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy close. Once again, the nominator hasn't done a minimally competent job of Google searching or complying with WP:BEFORE; the very first Google Books hit provides an adequate biography as well as sourcing for the awards which demonstrate notability and the song authorship which does the same. If recording a single track that barely cracks the top 40 is enough to establish notability, as the nominator has indicated, then writing three well-known songs that hit number one surely should be. Once again, the reason the nom can't find sources seems to be that he isn't bothering to look. There's also at least one GNews hit that he ignores. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: speedy close is an inappropriate !vote when this issue hasn't been addressed for two years. As of right now, this article is clearly a violation of BLP as there are no reliable sources provided from which to write a biography. Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while performing hit songs is unquestionably notable, that notability isn't necessarily always inherited by writers, producers, sound engineers, managers, publicists, and so on. Since he doesn't seem to have done much else there really doesn't seem to be anything to say about him within an encyclopedic context. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:48, 17 November 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) 21:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Kimbel[edit]

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

The height of this chap's career according to his CV (which is how this unsourced piece is written, appears to be that he played on QVC, a home shopping channel. But it's not an A7 speedy because "[he] has garnered critical acclaim from magazines, newspapers, and music peers." Which aren't cited. TS 12:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Endofskull (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, no reliable sources to prove notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:53, 17 November 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) 06:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Laxton[edit]

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

This actor has had three small roles in television shows, with no more than four appearances in any of them. None of these roles could be considered significant, thus the subject does not pass WP:NACTOR. In addition to the lack of significant roles, the subject is not covered in any reliable sources independent of himself so he does not meet WP:GNG. —J04n(talk page) 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENT. Endofskull (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete. General consensus is that news items which do not have enduring notability (short lived) are not suitable for Wikipedia; however, there is no clear consensus that this news item will not last, and arguments have been put forward that there is a possibility the information will be referred to in books on the topic. Additionally, it is felt that the incident is interesting enough to be included in at least two other articles - one on related scams and the other on the victim who appears to have some form of notability and an article may be created on this person at some point. Given the lack of clear consensus to delete, and arguments put forward for possible endurance of interest in the material this is a keep. SilkTork *^YES! 10:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Datalink Computer Services incident[edit]

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

This is a news story only, and fails WP:NOTE; see also WP:NOTNEWS. Would be appropriate for Wikinews. PROD was removed with no substantive response ("deprod...if you believe it isn't notable, take to afd"). TJRC (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one-off news item. WP:NOT#NEWS is a WP:Policy. Abductive (reasoning) 00:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom; also fails to meet the guideline at WP:Notability (events) inclusion criteria; no indication of enduring historical significance or widespread (national or international) impact. This is more of an example of the "'shock' news [or] stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories' ...whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time" specifically cited as not meeting the guideline "unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." TJRC (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources seem impressive. I'd be open to the notion of merging this article under a more general article describing the type of this scam; the story seems to be an updated version of the old fortune teller's "you are under a curse, pay me to remove it" confidence trick. I don't know if that particular scam has a name, or if so whether we have an article about it, but it might be worth looking into. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is geared towards proving that the incident was WP:Notable, but the nomination is talking about WP:NOT, a policy. In this current media environment, everything is instantly reported by every news organization everywhere. Abductive (reasoning) 20:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not quite, but yes: this particular event seems to have been reported by quality sources. So I was wondering whether there was a general name for the old fortune teller curse scam. We have a number of articles on traditional confidence tricks, like the Spanish Prisoner and the reloading scam, but I haven't been able to determine whether the fortune teller curse scam has a name or not. This is fairly obviously a high tech version of the same swindle. We have sourced information about this, so while I'd agree that this could be merged into another article, right now I don't know what that article is or what its traditional name would be. We do have a list of confidence tricks, but none of our existing entries seem to match what I am thinking of. This page contains news reports of more traditional incidents. So until someone comes up with the label for this particular kind of confidence trick, and points to or creates an article about it, I say keep, at least in the interim. I may try to gather what I can find and cruft something together, but right now I'm searching for the right title. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the sourcing; they're quality sources. But it's just a news item. TJRC (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I created the article following coverage of the scam, which I found to be somewhat absurd.Smallman12q (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absurdity is not a qualification for a Wikipedia article. The issue here is that the subject is merely newsworthy; not notable in the Wikipedia sense. TJRC (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I'm wondering if there is enough to for a merge and redirect to Roger Davidson (musician). Per one article: 1) Raul Jaurena’s “Te Amo Tango", which won the Latin Grammy Award for Best Tango Album in 2007, was produced by Davidson, and 2) Davidson is the great-grandson and great-grandnephew of the Schlumberger brothers who founded the world's largest oilfield company, Schlumberger Limited. Per another, he is an acclaimed modern composer and the founder of Soundbrush Records. I understand notability is not inherited, but is there enough on this guy to pass WP:MUSICBIO? It seems as though if he was scammed out of $6 to $20 million, then he must be relatively successful and therefore possibly notable. Location (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge, providing he'd pass WP:BIO.Smallman12q (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it genuinely more desirable to present this info in a BLP about the victim, rather than an article focused on the scam and scammers? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the merge, if the article were written. Given the Grammys, I don't think there's any issue with the musician's notability. (I think the relationship to the Schlumbergers is irrelevant, see WP:NOTINHERITED, although there's no problem with mentioning it in an article whose notability is supported by the other factors, such as the Grammy awards.) No value in the redirect. TJRC (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chatter 05:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Send this to Wikinews. SnottyWong ^chatter 05:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS & the fact that the article is, in the majority, sourced to a single press release (a WP:PRIMARY source). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or secondary WP:INDEPTH coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have started an article on fortune telling fraud, and added some of the information here to that article. As far as I've been able to learn, the traditional name for this particular kind of operation is bujo; but that's a Romany word, not English, and as such refers specifically to the Gypsy fortune teller version of the operation. The composer victim may be notable in his own right, but I'm not convinced that the best place for this information is in an article about him. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving as much content as is appropriate into the fortune telling fraud article and deleting Datalink Computer Services incident seems to be the best solution; and if Roger Davidson (musician) is ever created, it's worth noting the incident there (short of coatracking) as well. No need to redirect Datalink Computer Services incident to either. 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep There is notable well-sourced information here. Describing this as fortune telling fraud seems to be improper synthesis. Shall we merge Y2K and other computer scare stories into this concept too? Whatever we do, it should not involve deletion as this would remove the editing history and so obstruct improvement. Our editing policy indicates that we should keep this in mainspace for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Shall we merge Y2K and other computer scare stories into this concept too?" No because, unlike this event, Y2K received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE & Scareware is not about a single event (so is not covered by WP:EVENT at all). Please learn to cite examples that are not clearly distinguishable from the topic at hand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a notable case, not just a brief news story. I'd be surprised if it wasn't included in books published about this sort of thing. And this case will be mentioned in the news whenever anything similar comes up, that how they usually do things. Dream Focus 16:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that this news story (or stories of its type) tend to have continuing coverage? Because otherwise this is just your opinion. Abductive (reasoning) 19:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abductive's statement above that this is a "one-off news item" , appears to be a statement of unsupported opinion. Given that this is a fresh matter, time will tell who is right and there is no case for deletion in the meantime. For an example of encyclopedic coverage of such matters, which demonstrates the possibility, please see The encyclopedia of high-tech crime... Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the event in question is too young to have continuing coverage as required by WP:POLICY, I am right and you are wrong. I'll look at your source. Abductive (reasoning) 20:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is not policy and so your point is so incoherent it is hard to tell what it means. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same section of WP:NOT that contains WP:NOTNEWS also references WP:NOTE (and by implication WP:EVENT, which contains WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). This makes it reasonable to take consideration of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE when deciding what is WP:NOT an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. Some idiot fell for a scam. It happens every day, it isn't special, it has no lasting impact, no continued coverage, no anything that would warrant keeping this. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't "some idiot", this was the inheritor of Schlumberger and a grammy award winner. Furthermore, the alleged grifters' defense, which isn't covered in the article, suggests how unusual this scam may have been.Smallman12q (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus. Notable, unusual scam with lasting impact. See WP:FRINGE for guidance here. Fools and their money are soon parted. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmedia Activism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a neologism that fails the general notability guideline. Co-authored by two conflicted SPAs quoting their own work at length. Appears to be an attempt to bootstrap the term into greater currency by creating a Wikipedia article about it. No third-party coverage -- which might matter if Wikipedia were a dictionary, but it isn't. Previous AfD was aborted. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Transmedia storytelling? --Pleasantville (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article reports on original research, and the references are not independent, but connected with the people who developed the concept. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep as references have not collaborated to build the article; not sure why connection to people matters, especially if those mentioned in transmedia storytelling and many others are all connected. Disclosure: I am one of the people quoted - I can tell you with certainty that we are NOT quoting each other. This is not a marketing ruse or an attempt to sell anything of any kind. If you look at the examples, you can see this movement is very real, and while nascent, a very influential form of activism that can help change the way people look at causes in the world, as well as how they can get involved with them. Reference to neologism is completely absurd and inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonth (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC) — Goonth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Two major contributors to the article, who were editing it when it was still a userspace draft, are quoted at length. Regarding nascent movements, please see WP:UPANDCOMING. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. This is a recreation of a page that was deleted three weeks ago, and this version is almost identical in its text and content to the one deleted after the prior discussion. It's still original research and complete bollocks that sounds like it's selling something. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or put a brief paragraph in Transmedia storytelling. (The poor thing doesn't deserve the whole of this dumped on it...) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I get from this article is that some people have thought of using multimedia techniques for getting other people involved with things. And that some people have decorated this idea utilising polysyllabic metamorphoses of otherwise simple concepts. The referencing does appear a bit closed circuit, but having read the article twice, I didn't have the courage to dip in. If any of it is truly independent, I'm sure someone will tell me. Peridon (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is aimed at selling the books - if it is then it functions as antispam to me. Peridon (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: Transmedia storytelling. Doesn't this article suffer from many of the same defects as Transmedia activism, minus the COI? Ditto Transmedial play. Quite apart from all three being overburdened with the same kind of grandiloquent guff, the sourcing for each is all quite poor. I don't see that any of these neologisms enjoys sufficient currency to merit a standalone article. It seems to me that the point of each article is to try to increase the currency of the term by creating an article about it on Wikipedia, rather than what it should be: to explain a concept that already has already received significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does suffer from many of the same defects. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and SALT it this time. Re-creation of similarly crappy article from just a couple weeks ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with transmedia storytelling. There may be some logic to moving the key points of this article to a paragraph within the transmedia storytelling article for the moment, until more has been published about transmedia activism. That said, the difference between this iteration of the article and the previous one is that it now cites a number of existing published sources and concrete examples. Also, the idea seems pretty clear: transmedia stories are narratives that move across different media platforms. So the person following the narrative has to look across different kinds of media to follow the story. Some activists are starting to use this as a strategy, and calling it transmedia activism. And some scholars are starting to write about how this is happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.190.120.66 (talk • contribs) — 12.190.120.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The problem with all of the sources furnished so far is that they are controlled by the people who are mentioned in the article as having done the research. If the only sources are by the researchers, then the article is reporting on original research and is not acceptable for Wikipedia. We need independent sources to establish notability, and we don't yet have them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, fails WP:GNG due to little/no significant coverage of this term from independent sources, most of the article appears to be a thinly-veiled attempt at shoehorning this term into Wikipedia. I don't see anything anything sourceable worth merging into any other article at this time. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:48, 19 November 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. Both as a result of this afd and as blatant advertising, this could have been speedy deleted in my opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Steinberg[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. OTRS permission has been received for the text from a web site, but makes no claim as to notability. Step hen 00:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not advertising. The article violates the neutral point if view and is lacking independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This POV and promotional advert/article fails notability. Edison (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I would hope that the WP:BLPPROD rules apply here... 10 days to supply a reliable reference from an independent source or it should be deleted.The-Pope (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but re-write- The-Pope: The article is not a BLP, it is a promotion of the artist's works. EDIT: I have now supplied an independent reference, and I think the article can be kept, however it has to be re-written thoroughly. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the current article condition, it is a WP:BLP, and does have to comply with the BLP rules. I'm not sure if a single forum/blog post is a sufficient reference.The-Pope (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Blog posts are most certainly not considered independent, neutral, verifiable, reliable sources. There are no such reliable sources in this article at this time. Despite MichaelJackson231's statement above, any article that has a title that is the name (or pseudonym) of a living person, is, by definition, a biography of a living person, and must conform to those exacting standards. This article includes a variety of unsupported biographical information, and is indisputably a biography. In addition, this article fails to establish notability under our clear-cut standards for artists Those are only a few of the reasons why it should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 18 November 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) 06:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Wickham Swanton[edit]

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

Lacking notability as a rector, curate and justice of the peace. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wikified the citation the first time around, but I was unable to access the source cited. It's apparently the journal of the local history society, only available directly from the society. It's also apparently the only source in existence that documents this person coherently. I found several records mentioning this person, but lacking a secondary source by a historian piecing those records together, apart from (I presume.) the local history society article, I was unable to make anything coherent out of them in order to support this. I have little doubt that the source cited exists, but it's the only source in existence it seems; I don't know what it says, or who wrote it, or what xyr credentials were; and I have no idea what, if any, of this article it supports. Uncle G (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are several sources that show he existed, but that is all they show, which falls well short of the guidelines on notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year (2011 film)[edit]

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

Not as per WP:N and WP:NF- The film seesm to be a fake, with no evidence that the film is in production. The film in question, does not even feature on the pages of the actors, and seems to be a film which never made it into production. Universal Hero (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a fake. but a shelved film --Sodabottle (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:NFF. If it ever comes off the shelf, we might reconsider. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aap Ka Saaya[edit]

Not as per WP:N and WP:NF- The film seesm to be a fake, with no evidence that the film is in production. The film in question, does not even feature on the pages of the actors, and seems to be a film which never made it into production. Universal Hero (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fails WP:NFF. There is no evidence that this is actually being produced.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rumours in non-rs do not equate to verifiability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dijon Talton[edit]

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

Not Notable. note prod was removed by an IP address JDDJS (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete an LA actor smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. Anyone named after a mustard brand has to be worthy of notable citations and Glee is not a web based junk factory. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information? Thats what REAL journalists would do. PsychClone (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore troll's comment. JDDJS (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know what is going on with the discussion above. Ignoring that, it seems to me that this individual clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very short career[36] indicates this article is WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 22 November 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. Jujutacular ^talk 01:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madhan Karky[edit]

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

Resume for a non-notable lyricist/writer. SnottyWong ^prattle 16:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this wikipedia entry should be kept because through his active social networking, he has acknowledged that his is the dialogue writer for director Shankar's latest project - the Tamil remake of the highly successful film "3 Idiots". Secondly he is not banking on the success of his father. His assistance in Endhiran, both in dialogue writing and song writing was brought upon his independent approach to the director. He has also recently written a song for KV Anand's upcoming film "Ko". which has become one of the fastest Youtube hit in India within a matter of days! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.132.36 (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC) — 78.105.132.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, the lyricist is quite known now as he is credited as writer for a relatively large and successful film. He is also the son of a popular poet and lyricist. The article has lots of space for development. EelamStyleZ (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that having a writing credit on one film and being the son of a famous person (see WP:NOTINHERITED) makes someone notable. SnottyWong ^yak 14:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of now, he doesnt meet WP:ENT or WP:ARTIST. But by the way he is doing, maybe within a year he will have enough song credits to meet our notability criteria.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vairamuthu for now and add his details there. It seems very likely that he will become notable pretty soon. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 16:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:54, 22 November 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) 02:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdalhadi M. Al-Sopai[edit]

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

One mentioning of the name in one primary source. Not enough to establish notability. IQinn (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC) IQinn (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and several dozen identically poorly-sourced articles. See Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. THF (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not ideal sourcing but what there is is reliable and acceptable. There is, in my opinion, enough available material to permit articles on each individual who is known to have been held in gitmo . DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This fails every basic rules we have to establish notability and for sourcing including WP:GNG. If you have a close look at the sources than you will notice that there is only one primary source that mention "the name" only one time. No further information whatsoever in this document or in any other documents. I know you are an knowledgeable long term user who should know that we do have basic requirements that need to be fulfilled. This here ridiculously fails our guidelines that i ask you either to name the "available material" here on this page or i think your !vote should be discounted. Any other source other than the one document that mention the name one time? That would surely not enough for any individual in the world to write an encyclopedic biography on a person no matter how low you want to put the standard. Somehow it looks like we are heading in direction of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo or Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_15#Al_Fand_training_camp_.28closed.29 that were deleted for the same reason. If additional sources can be found - ok no problem but so far it breaks all basic quality standards and rules we have here at Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any notability aside from his presence at Guantanamo. There is no benefit in having this article beyond what can be included at List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:36, 17 November 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) 02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pagadian Explorers[edit]

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

Zamboanga National Museum Branch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These appear to be NN organizations with barely any claim to notability and barely any references supplied. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 02:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Basketball team finished second in a regional tournament for a (what I can tell) non-professional league. Meanwhile, the museum has 8 employees, and I can't help but think it's a small-time, run of the mill museum. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 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) 02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asifa Murtaza[edit]

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

The minimal sources available are woefully insufficient to establish notability on any standard, and the "article" is actually a cv Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 I think a reprinted CV qualifies as hopelessly promotional.

Ray^Talk 08:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cut and paste of a non-notable physician's resume. Cullen328 (talk) 08:22, 16 November 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) 02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Merengue Airways[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/World Merengue Airways

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

Proposed airline without any deeper coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus clearly failing WP:CORP. So far, no aircraft have been acquired and not definite routes were announced. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reliable sources about this airline with no airplanes and no operator's certificate are very hard to find. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:46, 16 November 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) 02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farhia Fiska[edit]

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

Fails notability. According to the article she just started her career and they are not reliable sources expect some that prove that she exists. Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here to establish notability. As nominator points out, the external links basically indicate that the subject exists. One in-line citation is impossibly vague ("Diiriye, p.76" without any other information) and the other (sunatimes.com) doesn't actually mention the subject. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a bunch of directiry listings. the Sunatimes.com site appears to have been hacked so I cannot read that soruce, but a single article is not sufficient to establish ntoability, and based ont he headline, its not about the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 17 November 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) 02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We All Get Lighter[edit]

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

It looks like this album will really happen, but as of now it is too early for a stand-alone article. The most recent source found (this) says that the release date is "rumored" and there is no confirmed track listing to be found in reliable sources. Until more info comes forth, the article violates WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. The album can be mentioned at artist's article for now. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Raine Maida per WP:HAMMER. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing to constitute an article as of now.Fixer23 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCS Group[edit]

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

Little evidence of notability. The only source cited is a report of the fact that the company restructured its business in September 2008, which is scarcely an indication of notability. Searching produces plenty of business listings and business report pages, of the kind that any business other than a very small one would have, but no sign of substantial independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 November 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) 02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martini Movies[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable collection of films. Nate • (chatter) 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Sony home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 17 November 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) 02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Fox Five Star Collection[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this collection except for a fancy silver wrap-around on the cover and a few extra features per DVD. No one but film collectors usually gets excited about this and they just want the movies individually. Nate • (chatter) 22:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Fox home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 17 November 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) 02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Fox Collector's Edition Series[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Fox home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 17 November 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) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Legacy Series[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable branding, the most among this mass-nom; the banner among this collection is barely a few millimeters and you'd need to be a legal type connoisseur to notice it. Many just want the individual movies and could care less if it's part of this series. Nate • (chatter) 22:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Universal home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 17 November 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) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Fox Award Series[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incredibly unnotable; pretty much a cardboard wrapper that wraps around DVD titles Fox really wants to clear out desperately, so they put on an "Award Series" wrapper and hope for the best, and the "awards" each film has won is tenable at best. Nate • (chatter) 22:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Fox home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 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) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miramax Classics[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Miramax home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. As a DVDMovieCentral.com reviewer wrote, "Apparently, there’s no significance to the eye catching 'Miramax Classics' banner." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 November 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) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MGM Vintage Classics[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable line of DVDs with a fancy banner on top to denote what a marketer calls a "collection". Nate • (chatter) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the MGM home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't (it gets zero Google News hits). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:40, 16 November 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) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MGM Contemporary Classics[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable DVD branding which is usually completely ignored as consumers just want to buy a film, not buy them all because they're part of some line of DVDs compiled by a marketer. Nate • (chatter) 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the MGM home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zane Grey#TV & Film . Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Grey Western Classics[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zane Grey; unnotable collection on its own. Nate • (chatter) 21:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zane Grey#TV & Film where this list of information already exists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Lionsgate home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't (its name gets zero Google News hits other than irrelevant references that predate the invention of DVDs). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't a redirect serve readers who wished to know what films were created from Zane Grey stories? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Schmidt. I don't see how the collection is notable in its own right, but it might be worth a sentence somewhere in the middle of Zane Grey. bobrayner (talk) 00:26, 24 November 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) 02:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Western Collection[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. I'd lean to keep if it were clearly marked as a list with clear inclusion criteria and sourcing. At the very least the article must clearly state the market where "distributed by Title Company" holds true (you may be surprised to know just how many businesses have legitimate rights to distribute these films). But then there's no need to split the list of Universal (or anyone else's) titles into a bunch of very small lists. The "collection" itself has no more encyclopedic value than the 1999 Armani Underpants Leftover. East of Borschov 10:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases, it's a good model. East of Borschov 10:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Universal home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 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) 02:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwick Vogel[edit]

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

Non-notable performer. Roles mentioned were apparently all uncredited because he doesn't even have an IMDB page. Performing on the same stage as notable people doesn't make you notable. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I added some references, notability not established. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a young rising singer smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. A five octave range and appearing with

other film actors is notable. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information? PsychClone (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore troll's comments. JDDJS (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Based on the information in the article, the subject is primarily a stage actor so it is not surprising to have no IMDB entry. However, I can find no coverage about those performances in the form of articles about him, or reviews that highlight his performance. The article also identifies him as a gymnast, but state level success falls well short of what would be needed to pass notability as an athlete. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 17 November 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) 02:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Miriam Collection[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mlamarre79 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable DVD branding ignored by most everybody but press people, video store stockers and completists of Weinstein biographies. Nate • (chatter) 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Weinstein Company home video marketing department. By contrast, The Criterion Collection is notable as a collection as seen from its Google News hits. This collection isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bandwagon Club[edit]

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

Notability asserted but unsourced; tagged for months. Oo7565 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the rationale from this September 2009 edit is a little silly, given the six source citations that have been added since. It makes it appear as if you are not really looking at the article at all and just repeatedly and robotically escalating the deletion tagging. What efforts did you make to comply with Wikipedia:Deletion policy and determine that there are no sources? Do you have a nomination rationale that actually takes into account the article in front of you, and its references section? Uncle G (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At this point this is about an historical element of the UK music scene. The first reference (the Liverpool Echo article) shows suficient coverage to not require original research to creat this article. Someone could hear about the Bandwagon Club, wonder what it was and come to Wikipedia to find out what it was. That's what articles are here for. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AFD nomination is puzzling as the removal of the PROD was followed by editting to address the issue. Sources were added before the AFD nomination which addresses notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I deprodded for the second time, and this time I pulled my finger out and added some sources. I think notability is shown, but if not a merge to The Bandits would make sense, seeing how they ran this club night. Deletion is not really an option: this is a careless nomination. Fences&Windows 00:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is sourced and those sources do indicate notability. --Oakshade (talk) 06:02, 21 November 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) 02:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Tasmania by population[edit]

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

Unnecessary, problematic, difficult to manage, quickly outdated and relatively pointless list that apparently serves only to rank cities in the state by size. Discussed at WP:AWNB and the only opinions expressed suggested deletion. It was originally created as a list of cities by an editor who appears to be under the misconception that an "Urban Centre/Locality" (UC/L) is a city. However, the list is simply that of various places in the state and does not necessarily include all UC/Ls in the state. Based on examination of all three similar articles created by the same editor (List of cities in Victoria by population, List of cities in Tasmania by population and List of places in Northern Territory by population) tThe list is ~~likely~~ most definitely incomplete, missing over 80% of the UCL/s in the state. Article includes only a single generic reference. A more detailed explanation of the issues and a comparison with the other articles may be found at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#List of cities/places in <state> by population AussieLegend (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I'm not even that familiar with Tasmania and I can see several places missing which are long-standing towns (e.g. St Helens) and for which, for whatever reason, the ABS has not created UC/Ls. List of cities in Australia by population is much better structured and organised, and isn't simply a list for list's sake. Orderinchaos 19:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis of such lists are what the nominator says - the Tasmania project is a quiet one - you might not even get another editor to make comment here Satu Suro 15:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Northern Territory by population[edit]

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

Unnecessary, problematic, difficult to manage, quickly outdated and relatively pointless list that apparently serves only to rank places in the Northern Territory by size. Discussed at WP:AWNB and the only opinions expressed suggested deletion. The original intention seems to have been to create a list of cities by an editor who appears to be under the misconception that an "Urban Centre/Locality" (UC/L) is a city. However, the Northern Territory only has one city and the list is simply an incomplete list of various places in the NT, missing 77% of the UC/Ls in the NT. Article includes only a single generic reference. A more detailed explanation of the issues and a comparison with the other articles may be found at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#List of cities/places in <state> by population AussieLegend (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Orderinchaos 20:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 16 November 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus (gay fiction magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this should not be confused with Icarus (magazine) or Icarus Publishing, an erotic manga publisher. Regarding this magazine however, it is hard to find RSs, nearly all the independent hits I found on a Google search were blog entries, facebook pages, and the like. However there does seem to be a following of some sort for the magazine so I'm hesitant to vote oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page makes no claim of notability for this young (2009) magazine. No reliable secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:43, 24 November 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noir Leather[edit]

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

Non-notable shop Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Though it is presently unsourced, a moment on Google Books shows it is remarkably sourceable. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its not hugely notable, but there is sourcing that can be added--probably just one of a very few shops of this type that have sufficient coverage. But its weird to see an AfD like this not garner any attention, AfD participation seems to have dipped lower lately.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vzaar[edit]

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

Vzaar is not notable enough for an entry - this is merely an advert containing promotional language, written by the company. Clivewoods713 (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)— Clivewoods713 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:CORP not notable - sources are either generic (link to ebay listing policies and link to encoding.com for example) or links to short copy/paste articles on non-notable blogs. Entry is marketing copy, non-objective and appears to only exist to provide back links to vzaar sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clivewoods713 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Clivewoods713 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Guardian, BBC and iddictive refs appear to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Needs rewrite to be encyclopedic rather than promotional in tone and focus, but that's not an argument for deletion. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The BBC article is a press release copy/paste from 2007! This is not a notable product, and the vast majority of updates and article creation were by 2 members of the staff of vzaar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clivewoods713 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — Clivewoods713 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FYI, your nomination of the article for deletion in the first place documents your position that it should be deleted, and entering a separate delete !vote isn't appropriate. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is blatant commercial content. Ref [3] for example is totally irrelevant and is simply a link to their encoding provider. Vzaar is not notable and this article should be a delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.10.192 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC) — 86.31.10.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This one's easy. A Guardian UK article about its involvement with eBay and a second, not as strong but still good confirming citation clearly satisfy the criteria for notability based on reliable sources. Msnicki (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References to BBC and Guardian are certainly good enough as WP:RS already. Not sure about Iddictive but I found this cnet article which for me establishes notability via WP:GNG. I might crack on with tidying up the article. Bigger digger (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Issues seem to have been addressed. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 19:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Yep, the article has undergone some heavy pruning and gained a source for notability that I pointed out above, per this diff. I wonder if I can approach vzaar for payment! Bigger digger (talk) 19:38, 23 November 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.