< 27 November	29 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petru Negrea[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Echetus Xe 23:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plays in the third tier of Romanian football. Fails WP:FOOTYN. -Drdisque (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that he has played in the Romanian top flight (or some other fully-pro league) and it appears the article could not pass the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable Wikipedia:ATHLETE. Also cannot find any mention in FC Baia Mare of which the subject is supposed to be the current captain. Google search failed to give any other relevant third party references.WarFox (talk | contribs) 18:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G3 by Stephen. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fury of the Elves[edit]

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

Cut-and-paste move of a vandal from King of the Elves. Georgia guy (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism, then. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:40, 28 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) 01:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Corea[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please consider the following: CONCACAF.com. This player is noticable because on this day, December 1, 2010, he represented his country in an official sanctioned senior international competition. Please also consider the following: fesfut.org.sv. The official Federation Website states clearly that Dustin Coreas has represented his country by scring one goal in the 2011 CONCACAF U-20 Championship qualifying tournament thus notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. Jaime 070996 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Under-20 is clearly not the highest level of football, full (adult) international would be the highest possible level -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Having never played for a fully pro club he fails WP:ATHLETE, since it explicitly states that youth international caps do not confer notability. He also fails WP:GNG, due to a lack of significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why this should be deleted, isn't this what wikipedia is all about?

He represented his country with the hopes to qualify to a world cup, he has worked with Italian clubs I say keep it. thanks]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.193.32 (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reann Ballslee[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Rd232 ^talk 23:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One splash does not notability make. PhGustaf (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drag_queen#Societal_reception. Subject is notable enough to be cited in encyclopedia, but not notable enough for its own article. Vynjj23 (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment was by sock of banned user User:Grundle2600, who created the article. Rd232 ^talk 11:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One ref looks OK - the other doesn't give me any text. Otherwise, apart from the spammy mention down at the bottom, the article looks reasonable to me. We don't have homecoming queens in the UK, so I am a little confused as to the actual notability of electing a genetic male to the position (and even as to what a homecoming queen is...). Is this the first known case? If so, then it could pass notability. Peridon (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would still be WP:BLP1E. Rd232 ^talk 15:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adie Harris (footballer)[edit]

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY, as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any siginificant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 23:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as above:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all of these players have only appeared in semi-pro leagues and fail the relevant notability guidelines. These articles can be recreated if and when they make their debut in a fully professional league. Bettia (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fail at WP:ATHLETE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep « CA » ^Talk 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note above editor appears to be on a spree of !voting keep without adding any reasons whatsoever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of black actors in science fiction film and TV[edit]

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

Hugely irrelevant intersection. Certified WP:listcruft in every way. Bulldog123 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm hoping someone will step up and provide any reasoning/justification for the article's existance. I think it's just overlisting as stated above. --DanielCD (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You won't get it from the article's creator. After Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 20#Category:Science fiction by writers of color etc, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 20#Category:Speculative fiction novels by writers of color, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 26#Category:Science fiction writers of color xe claimed to give up. However, include the black science fiction article and Blacks in Comics — some more of this person's creations — and I suspect that you can see a pattern that this fits into. Uncle G (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actully kind of offensive. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. It seems like just a random list of actors and shows. (But Ultrablastic, how is this offensive? (And this is coming from a black man.)) Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually intersecting three (or, arguably, four) different factors, to make an unecessarily specific and irrelevent list.--Korruski^Talk 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable intersection. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep « CA » ^Talk 15:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Titan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, plus WP:CRYSTAL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP pie-in-the-sky pipedream. No sources, no credible possibility of this happening. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...believe it or not, there actually is a group proposing this: SS Titan Foundation. It does, however, very much fail WP:CRYSTAL (and WP:ITWILLNEVERFLY, which I just made up, and the meaning of which should be obvious!). Not a hoax, but it's definitly something that will never happen, and is something not worthy of including in Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible non-primary-source link? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Titan Foundation is just why we don't rely on primary sources. Anyone can have a website. Anyone can claim that some charities might be interested in a future cooperation. There are claims of Harland & Wolff being the builders, but that isn't even a functional building yard any more. SS Nomadic (which exists) is too short of funds to undergo restoration. None of this adds up to a new-build ship.
  The Suomi link doesn't seem to be the same project. For that matter there's already one dry-land 90% scale replica of Titanic, the one for the film. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I know, that's why I'm saying Delete. It's just that it's not a speedy-able blatant hoax IMHO (which the article was tagged as). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, TenPoundHammer and his overzealous speedy nominations. The thought of speedying it did, however, cross my mind when I was nominating it, but I ultimately determined that it was not up to that standard, thus why I took it to AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. I don't mind the zeal so much, but to speedy something already at AfD is IMHO, outside of some very narrow vandalism articles, a usurpation of those editors who have already commented there. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mention anything notable at Olympic class ocean liner. But Delete this article, it can't be "RMS" - I sincerely doubt the Royal Mail will allow Royal Mail to be shipped aboard to make that designation allowable. 76.66.194.128 (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, the "RMS" designation is a wholesale invention of a Wikipedia editor, HecRPD (talk · contribs). The WWW site says SS Titan. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't add anything to Olympic class ocean liner, either, because by definition, it's not. There were three Olympic class liners - no more, and no less - and one cannot add another so easily a century after the fact. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps a single paragraph at RMS Titanic, saying "a proposal for a replica was floated*, blah blah blah"? (* - unintentional pun, I swear) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only if someone with a good reputation for accuracy who has independently checked the facts says so. Otherwise Colonization of Mars would get information all about how Uncle G will get there ahead of everyone else, based purely upon a WWW site saying so. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's SS Titan, then perhaps it should be mentioned at SS Titan instead? 76.66.202.72 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked, but I couldn't find anything outwith the single WWW site already mentioned in the article. This is not notable because the world simply hasn't noted it. I could put up a WWW site documenting Uncle G's Project to Colonize Mars, but it wouldn't be worthy of an encyclopaedia article until someone, independent of me, had researched, fact checked, written, and published about that. There are, in this article's case, simply no independent sources to be had. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there has been some pervious people that tried this and failed,but we aren't.As a matter of fact in 2011 there are going to be an event in both the US,Ireland and Austrialia.Plus theres have been talks with Harland and Wolff already.A document has been posted on at the following link. http://www.sstitan.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=h1487f39R3A%3d&tabid=103&mid=461 - HecRPD

Then Delete It,what else can I tell you.I'll post it somewhere else than- HecRPD —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(Assumed Keep) Yes there has been some pervious people that tried this and failed,but we aren't.As a matter of fact in 2011 there are going to be an event in both the US,Ireland and Austrialia.Plus theres have been talks with Harland and Wolff already. A document has been posted on at the following link. http://www.sstitan.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=h1487f39R3A%3d&tabid=103&mid=461 HecRPD

I've re-added the article creator's comment, which had been deleted in some edit mixups. It's worth reading the link - it does appear that Harland & Wolff have indeed been approached for discussion in building this. Their response was a polite refusal, and an offer to at least draw up a feasibility study for £100k. Mind you, I could draw my own feasibility study up rather more cheaply and I suspect I'd give the same answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If and when this proposed ship is actually under construction it will be worthy of inclusion but not now. Brad (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice should construction ever start, as is customary with ships. Haus^Talk 11:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation iff the project actually gets off the ground and construction starts. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Titan (2012)

Delete - obvious CRYSTAL issues here. We don't generally have articles on new ships until the keel's been laid, or at very least the contract has been awarded. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and comments above. Write the article when the ship is built.—Diiscool (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Kaguya_(ship) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (cruise ship). Kablammo (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like someone said on my RMS Olympic III article. There should be a article about a ship when the keel is minimum build. Peekarica (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christmas hit singles[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list, no qualification for "hit". WP:IINFO, WP:SALAT. We've got everything from Top 40 Hot 100 hits, Top 40 country hits, Top 20 UK singles to obscure one-offs by non-notable acts. My main concern is that there's no qualification for what a "hit" is, and the list seems to be trying to include every Christmas song ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is a valuable source of information about Christmas songs that have charted, with links to those songs that have their own articles, and those that have been released by more than one artist. Perhaps the title needs to be more specific, or there should be more criteria in the intro of the article for what constitutes a "hit", but it should not be deleted. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "hit" is something that makes it onto the hit parade, surely? Uncle G (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fix and keep: Define hit (say, Top 40 anywhere by one artist or Top 100 by multiple artists), and keep the article Purple backpack89 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're thinking about definition we should also define "Christmas song". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I echo the comments made by the other users, especially Fortdj33. This list is an extremely valuable source of information about Christmas/holiday songs that have attained some level of popularity either in the UK or the US in the past. I agree that article could be improved. Its current size is too large for the entire list to be contained in a single article. The title could be either more or less specific, and reflect songs that were deemed "popular" at some time or another (note: not all songs that have attained significant radio airplay were chart hits). Maybe change the title of the article by removing the word 'hit'; one possible suggestion I have is "List of popular Christmas/holiday songs". Nevertheless, I am strongly against deleting this article. More than likely, there is NO reference on the Internet like it in existence. Also, "fixing the damn thing" (as user TenPoundHammer suggests) will require much time and effort. It won't be a quick task, since there's a large number of entries in the table, and especially since consensus should first be reached by the article's more frequent users/contributors as to how it should be fixed before any significant changes are made. --Sliv812 (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So fix the damn thing, don't pass it off to someone else. They'll only pass it off to someone else, and we'll just go around in circles without getting anything done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you approve of my definition? Purple backpack89 00:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Trim it just to Top 40 by one artist, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all popular Christmas songs made the top 40 in their day ("It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year" by Andy Williams is a perfect example; "Christmas Wrapping" by the Waitresses is another). If we trim it to one artist per song, which artist gets designated? The artist that is known to have first recorded the song (whether it was popular or not), or the artist to first have a chart hit on any of Billboard's music charts with the song? Do all songs that only charted in the UK get excluded/removed (if that's the case, "Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy" by David Bowie & Bing Crosby will need to be deleted, as it only charted in the UK)? Also, do popular cover versions of songs continue to get an honorable mention in the Additional Information column of the table? All these issues need to be sorted out by the discussion group. --Sliv812 (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now we get into obfuscating what a "hit" is. How do we know that a song is a "hit" without some sort of definitive criterion? If the article were "List of Christmas songs that made the Top 40", then we'd have a clear criterion for inclusion. This is just "Christmas songs by popular artists" with no real criterion for inclusion. I wouldn't call "Christmas Wrapping" a hit, for instance, but you apparently do. See what we're getting into here? There needs to be a clear criterion for what should be on this list if it's to be kept. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My take on the article in general, is that the "Artist(s)/Year" column should be for the first artist to release the song as a single, regardless of how it charted. Anyone else who released the song, can be listed in the "Additional Information" column. There are other songs in the List of Christmas hit singles article, where other artists are better known for having recorded the song (such as "Auld Lang Syne" and "Jingle Bells"), but I think that the article is more accurate the way that it is. And any discussion regarding criteria for the article, would be better suited on that article's talk page. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Between 1963 and 1973 (and then again between 1983 and 1985), Billboard magazine published special weekly Christmas Singles sales charts from late November/early December to late December/early January during those years. Many of these songs never hit the top 40 portion of the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, yet they still charted on a special Christmas-related singles chart. Do we exclude these songs too? Also, what about songs that charted in the top 40 portion of other singles charts that Billboard published (for example, the Billboard Country Singles chart, the Billboard Adult Contemporary chart, or the Billboard R&B/Soul Singles chart), but may not have hit the top 40 portion of the Hot 100 singles chart. Do these get excluded too? Limiting the article to only "top 40" songs isn't as cut-and-dry as it seems. Sure we could only include songs that hit the top 40 portion of the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, and if that was done, the size of the article would be much smaller. But it would also be a lot less useful as well. I can easily cite Joel Whitburn's excellent 2004 reference book Christmas in the Charts (1920-2004), which provides abundant stats on all Christmas season-related albums and singles that charted on any of Billboard's published record charts during those years (not only the Hot 100 chart), regardless of peak chart position. --Sliv812 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of including any song that reached Top 40 of any type of Billboard Chart (Country, Adult Contemporary, etc.) --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep « CA » ^Talk 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. There don't seem to be any problems here which can't be addressed by ordinary editing per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But put it in order by year and not alphabetical order. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 21:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skram[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced and apparently non-notable fictional character. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, Sadads (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom,Dwanyewest (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrounge[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable fictional character, unsourced. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources = no article therefore it has to go. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no sources, Sadads (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WHAT THE EFFIN' HELL? I'm sorry, but this is insane. Why should we have an article on this guy? He had one fictional appearance, in an obscure 80's comic book, a bunch of cameos, and, uh.....that's it? ----Divebomb is not British 17:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE - He actually made other appearances after this, this article only mentions the first two, but this writeup is badly out of date as well as lacking sources. It should probably be merge to List of characters in Transformers comics. Mathewignash (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the deletes above. Black Kite should be commended for having the guts and patience to take on all this excessive transformerscruft. Reyk _YO! 09:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Road Rocket[edit]

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

Unsourced article on apparently non-notable fictional character. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - clearly non-notable, Sadads (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- another poor article using twitter as source. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- minor character, Twitter as source, no real assertion or demonstration of notability. Reyk _YO! 09:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamseller[edit]

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

An autobiography from a marginally known figure. The only references to this article are from one of the author's appearance on his friend's cable radio show and the publisher's webpage. There have been no reviews or mentions of this in secondary publications in the two years the book has been out. No reviews from outlets that review books and no information of book sales. The article was given a PROD, but the tag was removed without changes/improvements. Therefore, the lack of any secondary sources makes it impossible to have an article about this book and the article should be deleted. EnterDamnMan79 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no indication that any of WP:NBOOK is satisified. In particular, I can find no reviews of this book, or any sort of critical commentary. [1] and [2] are mentions of the book as bing promoted by Brandon Novak. That falls well short of the sourcing that would be needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, Sadads (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a page of book, do not is from deletion « CA » ^Talk 15:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AFD is not a vote. Could you please explain why you believe the article should be kept? -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correpted « CA » ^Talk 13:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What policy or guideline do you think applies, and which this article meets? -- Whpq (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yummy spam, no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G.V. Sreekumar[edit]

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

PROD declined as article had previously been prod'ed last year. Since then no sources have been added to the article, and his official biography (http://www.idc.iitb.ac.in/gvsree/bio.html) shows nothing that would indicate notability. The reason given previously for keeping the article was: "professors at IIT are generally notable, one of the best schools in India" -but this is obviously untrue, not every minor professor at a good university merits a wikipedia article, especially those whose claim to notability is so minor as to be an unsourced, orphan article. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PROF Ajbpearce (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:PROF--Sodabottle (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing enough here to satisfy WP:PROF. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:02, 30 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. Jujutacular ^talk 02:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Way Flight 4412[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Planes fall from the sky far too often for every one to be notable and the airline the aircraft belonged to isn't even notable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Il-76 is a large aircraft. The fact that the airline does not have an article does not mean that it is not notable. This accident completely destroyed the aircraft, killing all eight crew on board, as well as between 4 Aviation Herald and 18 Korrespondent (in Russian) ground casualties. Coverage has been worldwide, including Russia, United States and the United Kingdom, thus establishing coverage outside the immediate local and regional press. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So what if the airline the jet belonged to isn't notable? A quad-jet cargo aircraft crashing into a ~~dense~~ neighborhood of a major city is a very significant event. Very extensive worldwide coverage. There's evidence this was caused by a bird strike and this case will most certainly be studied for a long time to come in efforts to understand and hopefully prevent tragedies like this again.--Oakshade (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPECULATION. Lunalet (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - per the two preceding Keep comments. Also, this seems to be a frivilous AFD just for the heck of it - no real thought at all, just a vague NOTNEWS comment. - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Speedy keep Bilcat. MickMacNee (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user knows I cannot respond to him under the terms of my unblock. Scch comments are obviouslyt baiting. Suggest a one-week block would be appropriate,and that the admin then mysrteriously be unable to log on for 20 hours to respond to unblock requests. ;) - BilCat (talk)

I didn't know actually. Looking at your archive it seems HJMitchell neglected to tell me anything about this unblock binding promise of yours to stay away from me, or that he had told you he would "see to it that he avoids you as far as humanly possible ". If I was remotely aware of such a notification infact, why would I have posted to your own talk page just yesterday? Rather than calling for me to be blocked on the assumption that I must have known you had promised to avoid me, I suggest you wait to see if Mitchell will explain how he can invoke an interaction ban without notifying one of the affected parties. The only ban I'm interested in is you not repeating what you did to get blocked, and it seems that was what was originally offered to you in the first place. I can hardly have been expected to have been following the progress of your unban negotiations, if you recall I was rather busy at the time with my own conversations with admins and other interested observers. Infact, I'm pretty sure you and I interacted at the Qantas Afd, how come you never mentioned this then? MickMacNee (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith. Under the current version of WP:AIRCRASH, accidents don't necessarily merit a stand alone article unless they also pass the significance test of WP:EVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS is a legitimate concern when an article is created in response to news. While my personal opinion is that a guideline that used to be way too inclusive has evolved into way too strict, it's a fair question about whether a recent news event can be expected to attain long range significance-- and in that instance, it's a matter of opinion. In this case, it was a cargo carrier rather than a passenger airliner, although there were also at least four people killed on the ground. The significance of a lack of an article about the Sun Way Airlines is that there's no redirect target if the consensus were that this didn't merit a stand alone article. Mandsford 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the aircraft article to rfedierct too. - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't doubt that the nom is sincere in the nomination, almost every aviation accident article is being nominated for AFD now on the same NOTNEWS grounds - and the majority are kept. Sincere or not, this is a collective waste of time, as there is no discernment evident in the nominations of the past few months. - BilCat (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

To be clear, this accident is likely to be notable per WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria: and WP:EFFECT: This event has received "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources", and "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - per WP:AIRCRASH, accident was fatal. --Kslotte (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment shows that you obviously don't understand either WP:SK or WP:AIRCRASH (which, if anyone's wondering, is an essay). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is WP:SK I didn't understand, so Keep. Anyway, WP:AIRCRASH being a guideline or not, it gives some indications and reasoning what is notable and what is not. --Kslotte (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - as per above comments. However I would add that wikipedia is used around the globe and it is not necessary for everything to be notable everywhere. For example in this case, for the people of Karachi this incident is very notable as it is the second aircraft crash in thirty days, moreover it was a large aircraft that crashed into a dense residential area. Furthermore there were no survivors from the crew and there were casualties on the ground. Taqi Haider (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a large plane crash, with worldwide coverage of the incident, is not routine news coverage and does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS. C628 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact it was a big plane, or that some people died, or that it was caused a bird strike, or that it occured so soon after a completely unrelated accidents, or that it fits one editors personal idea of what is and is not routine news, or that an editor thinks people will for sure investigate it in future, are all pretty poor ways to actually rebut a NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT nomination. I would also dispute that the coverage in this article demonstrates international impact, or widespread coverage in diverse sources. They are all simply wire news reports, saying pretty much the same thing, and with not much depth at all beyond what you would normally expect a news report to contain. It got reported in Russia for instance, because it was a Russian crew. In terms of how news organisations work, I'd say that was a case of perfectly normal and routine international reporting, and not something an encyclopoedia would consider worthy of inclusion per NOT#NEWS, without other supporting factors, as for example expanded upon in EVENT, which have not been shown to exist here. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, and it crashed in an unfinished construction project on a naval base - that is not a "dense residential area" by any stretch of the imagination. It may have crashed near a residential area, which is a reasonable assumption given that it got into difficulties climbing away from an airport, but then again, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. MickMacNee (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT were created to prevent routine insignificant stories from having articles simply because they were reported in the news and have no lasting significance, ie "Peoria Firefighters Rescue Cute Cat Stuck in Tree", not major jet crashes into neighborhoods in major cities caused by a notorious and deadly problem that aviation experts are continuously striving to prevent. Look at the talk history of those guidelines and you'll see. Many people are under the mistaken impression that simply because an event was reported in the news, automatically WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT applies. It doesn't. To imply that there will be no investigation, analysis or follow-up by any government, aerospace company or aviation agency and this will magically be forgotten tomorrow is simply willful ignorance. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which guidelines you are looking at, but the latest one makes it pretty indisputably clear that NOT#NEWS and EVENT very much do apply to all aircrash articles, and that those are what has guided the topic specific aircrash notability draft in stating the what's, why's and wherefore's behind lasting notability in this field. And if you look at it, you will see that it does take account of the fact investigations always occur, and what governments/industry/faa's are interested in. If you think this crash would pass EVENT and NOT#NEWS once the report comes out, well, considering bird strikes are an ongoing issue, then you should have no problem finding an historical case of a similar sort of crash like this, and proving that with some sample diffs, if it's not already got a Wikipedia article with all the necessary sourcing evidence, to rebutt the nomination. Certainly for common crashes, it really is odd to see how infrequently historical precedent is presented in these Afds as better proof than simple assertion. MickMacNee (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the same guidelines and not only do I not see how this applies to all or even any aircrashes. It applies to news events and discourages routine news events from having articles like sports matches or wedding announcements. The guidelines in no manner whatsoever "bans" articles on major air crashes into major cities such as this one. --Oakshade (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability. Both the current version and the previous versions. They could not be clearer that NOT#NEWS and EVENT apply to all crashes, aswell as on everything else I said if you look at past draft versions too, such as the fact that reports are always issued means nothing. You seem to be making the classic mistake of assuming that just because something is not specifically barred in NOT#NEWS, or not mentioned in EVENT, it does not apply. You couldn't be more wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That essay (not guideline) states "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." That simply states an airchrash should be subject to notability guidelines like anything else. The essay does NOT in any manner mean that air crashes cannot have articles.--Oakshade (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have got absolutely no idea what your point is any more. You tried to claim that NOT#NEWS and EVENT don't apply to aircrash articles, that they somehow don't have to be shown to pass both of them to have an article here, I've shown how this is simply not true, and explained at length the reasons why. If you think that I said at any point that aircrashes cannot have articles just because they are based on news, period, then you are fighting an imaginary battle, because I never said anything of the sort. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you bringing a straw man into this? Never did I or anyone here state NOT#NEWS and EVENT don't apply to aircrash articles. Those guidelines should be adhered to for any topic. What we're saying is that those guidelines don't advocate this topic should be deleted. Just stating a guideline "applies" to a topic doesn't mean that guideline bans it. They're only a guidelines about how to deal with these types of topics. WP:BIO "applies" to Barrack Obama, but that doesn't mean his article should be deleted. WP:MUSIC "applies" to The Beatles, but it doesn't mean their article should be deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The area is not a navel base, the plane crashed in a residential areaYahoo/Reuters. Taqi Haider (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link. "The plane hit a building under construction at a navy housing complex. Several unoccupied buildings nearby caught fire". The base might be in/near a residential area, but it did not crash onto a residential area. MickMacNee (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the housing complex in question is not miles away from the populations, and those several building are small houses not multi story apartment buildings, your statement that a 'dense residential area is unimaginable' is completely wrong. The housing complex is being developed in a densely populated area of area. Taqi Haider (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. Struck the word "dense." Thanks. --Oakshade (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once again, not every plane crash is notable. These articles and their subsequent (though justified) deletion nominations are getting tedious and annoying. Grsz 11 03:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While not every plane crash is notable, every plane crash that involves ~~tens of~~ people in a busy residential neighborhood dying from the crash is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classic straw man argument. Nobody here advocating keeping this article is arguing it should be kept because "every plane crash is notable." --Oakshade (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there were no notable passengers aboard. Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It was a cargo aircraft so few pax are on board. That's NOT what gives the notability. The "plane crashes on ground and kills lots of people on the ground" is what is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Cargo planes do not carry ministers or royal personal, this specific plane was carrying supplies for Sudan and was on its way to Khartoum before it crashed in a densely populated residential area of ,one of the most populated cities in the world, Karachi. Fortunately the immediate surroundings were under construction and empty. There were fatalities on the ground and the crew of the plane was lost. Taqi Haider (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seeing an optometrist, tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - When a large cargo aircraft crashes into a residential neighborhood and kills lots of people, it is an encyclopedic event that must be documented. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read this AfD before participating? It's patently obvious you didn't. "Residential neighborhood"? No. "Encyclopedic"? No. Lunalet (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The aircraft crashed in a residential neighborhood, weather or not this is an encyclopedic event is under debate. Taqi Haider (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would have thought this was notable given the fatalities --Snowded ^TALK 06:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an "as per WP:AIRCRASH"? Also, you "would have thought...", implying your opinion changed. What do you think now? Lunalet (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you know that the meaning of the phrase "I would have thought" in English is the same as "I believe to to be the case" with a twinge of surprise that anyone would doubt it --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; seems clearly to pass the relevant tests for inclusion. --John (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. Lunalet (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per NOTNEWS. MickMacNee's well-founded arguments trump both vendettas fostered by malicious editors and the nonsense being parroted about AIRCRASH, a mere essay which holds no weight against NOTNEWS, a policy. I encourage the misguided and uninformed to reacquaint themselves with Wikipedia's policies. Lunalet (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Based upon the responses to MickMacNee's comments, I conclude that the editors who are in favor of keeping this are well acquainted with Wikipedia policies, and that this is not a vendetta against him.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident that easily meets inclusion per the general notability guidance:

Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Check.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Check.
"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Check.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Check.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Check too. Lugnuts (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "check"s qualify as VAGUEWAVES. Lunalet (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Anyone else think that Lunalet is a sock of MickMacNee? Lunalet's only contributions (as of typing this) are to this AfD (why would a newbie's first and only contributions be here?), then try to counter-argue keep rationales with citing WP:VAGUEWAVE (a trait MMN does all the time) and his general tone is in the style of MMN. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have messaged Lunalet on the talk page. Taqi Haider (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another attempt by the opposition to level accusations at those voting to delete the article. Lunalet (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style is MacNee so per WP:Duck it might be an idea to ask for a sock puppet investigation. However it might be someone immitating his style (its not that difficult) in an attempt to get him banned. Its happened before. --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, it's usually the impersonators that end up indeffed. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can only be sure after an investigation, I would like to say that Lunalet's vote should be nullified till the sock puppet issue is resolved. Taqi Haider (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to extend a suggestion as well: that Lugnuts' VAGUEWAVE is discounted since he pastes this on EVERY AIRCRASH AFD and because he was canvassed here by Taqi Haider who lacks integrity and honesty. Lunalet (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA might be interesting reading. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 09:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, doesn't interest me. Lunalet (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lunalet: We all have an obligation to be interested by WP:NPA. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Lunalet (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, actually, you do. WP:BAN can come into play if you don't. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're planning to ban me? Lunalet (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but continued uncivil and disruptive behavior will result in people complaining, and your flippant attitude towards WP:NPA, a core policy of the encyclopedia, won't work in your favour. You're citing WP:this and WP:that in amost every comment you make (in fact, some comments are nothing but "WP:essay - signature"), but you have no interest at all in NPA? Very strange. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mjroots and Lugnut. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 08:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...what? Another WP:PERNOM? Lugnuts' vote essentially said nothing, except containing a couple VAGUEWAVEs. All s/he said can be simplified to this: "This air crash meets GNG". That's all! How unhelpful, unconstructive, and ambiguous. Lunalet (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another WP:PERNOM; when other people have put things in the way I would, except saying it better than I could, that's what I do. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 09:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taken straight from WP:PERNOM: what indicates that "you are not hiding a WP:ILIKEIT position" (quote modified slightly to fit this situation)? Lunalet (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERNOM is a mere essay; we can hardly invalidate The Bushranger's !vote simply because they felt the same way as a previous editor. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need to even link WP:PERNOM. I could have just said, "what indicates that you are not hiding an WP:ILIKEIT position"? Lunalet (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption of good faith, actually. But since you insist: this is a major accident that is, IMHO, quite likely to be considered a landmark accident when the Il-76 is discussed in the future. How come you're so desperate to have the article deleted anyway? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to delete it because I believe it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Lunalet (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you keep attacking every argument that doesn't agree with deleting. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I believe the keep arguments are weak and faulty, why should I not call editors out for it? Lunalet (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

procedural keep. If MMN and an SPA say "delete", it must be kept. No prejudice against good-faith re-nomination. East of Borschov 10:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whose rulebook says that? Don't you think that's a little biased, Mr. East? Lunalet (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lunalet is an obvious impersonator, he is simply parrotting what I said in the last Afd. Anyone who really thinks I would be stupid enough to be socking with so many out there eager for my blood, has a screw loose. I do indeed have a regular impersonator who wants me banned, but I have to say he is not usually as thorough or persistent as this guy. However, it should be noted that what he says is correct, this and this by Taqi Haider is most definitely innappropriate WP:CANVASSing, and Lugnuts has indeed just copied and pasted his rationale from the previous debate into this one. This seems to be a new variation on his old Afd technique of just copying and pasting the sentence 'keep, meets N through RS and V', or somthing equally VAGUEy and pointless, into Afds. I won't bother copying and pasting my critque of his rationale here, he didn't feel it necessary to respond over there, so I doubt he will answer it here, but funnily enough, it is equaly valied here as it was there. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taqi has been advised of WP:Canvass. He is not familiar with AfD, so let's AGF that the canvassing was a genuine mistake. FWIW, I do not believe that MickMacNee is socking either. Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies Mick - now having seen more of Lunalet's antics, I'm fairly certain he has nothing to do with you. Lugnuts (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no intention of getting you banned. I'm not trying to duplicate your style. You are a great editor, always bringing something valuable and insightful to the table. I laud you for that. Lunalet (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this guy just came back from a very long vacation, and yet he knows all about everyone and everything. Taqi Haider (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed that too, eh? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know about MickMacNee because I took the time to READ and SIFT THROUGH his contributions. While I was searching for diffs to convict you of canvassing, I read MickMacNee's valuable input at the other AfDs. Again, why do you find it necessary to come after me no matter what I say? Lunalet (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you did not find any thing of interest in ANI list? which you frequented before you vacation.Taqi Haider (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...what? I just said I found THIS AFD to be of interest. Lunalet (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep: Loath though I am to agree with Mick, his reasoning that he would have to be insane to engage in rabid sockpuppetry in exact mimicry of his style and stance makes good sense, and we can safely dismiss the SPA as a pointy agent provocateur. As far as anything else goes, I wouldn't in his shoes have the stones to raise WP:POINTY allegations, but given the overwhelming consensus against him, it's time to close this AfD. Six months from now, if there hasn't been any lasting impact from this event, it might be appropriate to file again. Mere hours after the crash, it most certainly isn't. If these rancorous day-after-the-crash AfDs are, as Grsz opines, tedious and annoying, how about we not file them quite so quickly? No one's handing out awards for speediest AfDs filed. Ravenswing 14:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This vote was canvassed here abusively by User:Taqi Haider, the creator of this article. Lunalet (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another keep. As far as I can tell it easily passes the GNG; widespread coverage by multiple independent sources. WP:NOTNEWS does not automatically exclude anything that's news; and if we're to have an accurate and up-to-date encyclopaedia then some article creation is bound to be about current events. That's fine as long as they satisfy the usual criteria such as GNG. bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments provided by Mjroots and Lugnuts. hardly the routine news that WP:NOTNEWS applies to--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - we have very very little on Sudanese aviation history, or involvement with aid programme air crashes. In accordance with Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias, this article should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...when did that become a reason? Because we have too little material on the Whoopagaloopa tribe in Africa, we should write an article about that? Lunalet (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument seriously for a moment: If we can find a reliable source on the Whoopagaloopa, why not? This is an encyclopaedia; coverage should not be limited to anglophones, or white people, or developed countries. CSB is a very real concern. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where are the lasting effects and continued coverage? I'm not seeing anything. Lunalet (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To counter the SPA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetent, unconstructive, biased, and unhelpful. Lunalet (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put yourself down. You have much to offer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike yourself. Your comments here have been incompetent, unconstructive, biased, and unhelpful. Lunalet (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll let the admin decide that. He labeled the AIV report on you as "stale", presumably because you had stopped editing (for awhile). What's your personal interest in this particular event that you feel the need to argue with everyone who said "Keep"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to ponder why this article should be deleted and to sift through this discussion. Why shouldn't I defend my position? Are you disposed to not stand up for your beliefs? Lunalet (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support for bugs keep! Taqi Haider (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're going to start voting for votes, eh? Lunalet (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTNEWS. That policy was never intended to exclude recent notable events simply because they are recent and notable. It's more about routine coverage of routine events. A commercial flight going down with multiple fatalities is a relatively rare event, contrary to the nomination statement. Each event like this draws a significant investigation with a lot of in-depth coverage and analysis. World-wide flight regulation agencies will open cases on such foreign events precisely because they are worth tracking in terms of their enduring impact. If this were some general aviation crash then I would probably vote differently. Gigs (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More speculation and no facts. Where is the "in-depth coverage and analysis" you purport to exist? Lunalet (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - check pictues here and here, I will assume that account named lunalet was never created. Taqi Haider (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that assumption ain't gonna pass. Lunalet (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic. Taqi Haider (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's convenient of you to deviate and then blame it on me. More dishonesty. Lunalet (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing your personal attacks here, as it will make the potentially blocking admin's job much easier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Typical misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS. This event was more than just notable, being covered in diverse reliable sources and while it may not mean much to those thinking "planes just fall out of the sky", well they don't fall everyday - and where the crash occured, this event was certainly notable and recieved media coverage. It is also significant from the point that this is the third aviation accident within 4 months in Pakistan - as the media is putting it. Mar4d (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid some systematic bias may also be behind this article's nomination, particularly when one reads articles such as Emirates Flight 407; Mar4d (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Flight 407 was also taken to AfD. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that citing "NOTNEWS" on major aviation disasters, involving fatalities and large aircraft like the Il-76 is, is a misapplication of that policy. There is nothing routine about these disasters, and they prompt far more thorough investigations than car accidents. If this were a mere emergency landing, or an accident with a GA aircraft, NOTNEWS would probably apply since those events are far more common. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently a notable accident, given the aircraft, the situation, and subsequent media coverage. wacky wace 19:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wackyace. The references seem sufficient for this article to meet WP:N and the topic meets the inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH (which, while only an essay, is widely accepted and has been successfully used as a reason to delete articles about minor incidents in the past). Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet AIRCRASH exactly? (note that it has recently been rewritten) It doesn't appear to meet either the old version or the new one, (which requires more than just meeting N). And I think you are wrong about how accepted it is, in recent Afds when people have cited AIRCRASH as the reason for deletion, most people voting keep have just completely and utterly ignored it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm neutral on this one, it's hard to deny that it's WP:SNOW applies pretty clearly. I'm surprised it still hasn't closed. Mandsford 21:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Quidam. Jujutacular ^talk 02:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full Circle (1996 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and Redirect Quidam is the ninth stage show produced by Cirque du Soleil. As a "making of" film, this has not gotten the press or coverage required by WP:NF and WP:GNG. A reasonable redirect to Quidam will take readers to the one place where this has context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Qaderi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, can't find any secondary sources. Only sources out there are for a different Hamed Qaderi. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO; the only sources I can find refer to a different chap by the same name. Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally say redirect to Khorasan TV, but I'm not convinced that that article's any more notable than this one, so delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faiz Qaderi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, can't find any secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO; not even Lexis has stuff on this guy. Ironholds (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2010-11 Indonesia Super League Foreign Player[edit]

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

This article is far too specific to be of any use. A List of foreign Indonesia Super League players may be appropriate, but not one for each season. Echetus Xe 18:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. This list is far to specific and far to arbitrary to merit an article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Having this list would suggest the creation of analogous ones for every single upcoming season of the Indonesian championship, which would result in a number of valueless barely differing articles. However, IMHO a list of all foreign Super League players of all time, like List of foreign Premier League players or List of foreign Norwegian Premier League players, would be welcome, as it might be regarded as by far more thorough and informative. --Theurgist (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, if wanted then please make a new, referenced article. Giant Snowman 14:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of foreign Indonesia Super League players - as already suggested, this is a plausible subject for a list but it shouldn't be for an individual season but rather an all-time list. Bettia (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bettia (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was astonished to find, that this sort of List had even been written in first place. Likewise, I would even vote a nay for a historic version of the list, as showcased by Theurgist for the English Premier League and the Norwegian Premier League. I consider the info as some unimportant trivia to show at a dedicated page. Why are foreign players so interesting to list and count? Do we ever visit such a page with a list of foreign players? And why? I think we should trash all of these pages, due to the fact that we already list each players club career at his biography page, and this should really be sufficient for Wikipedia. Danish Expert (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD#G5. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Walpin lawsuit[edit]

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

Lawsuit has been dismissed Phne65 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is that grounds for deletion of the article? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because wikipedia is not supposed to be a suppository for every insignificant event that gets reported by the media. If the case had resulted in a ruling, then it would merit its own article. Phne65 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 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: Article deleted for violation of our copyright policy MLauba ^(Talk) 10:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Len Simard[edit]

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

not a WP notable tennis player or coach, by a bit of a stretch Mayumashu (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 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 Jeopardy!. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Jeopardy![edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week

Same reason as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Celebrity Jeopardy is not an independent television program; it's merely a special week of shows that has aired sporadically.

WP:NOTINHERITED, and a handful of special episodes over the course of a season are not notable enough to warrant an entirely separate article. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jeopardy! per nominator. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeopardy!. JTRH (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, no standalone notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeopardy!, seems a bit overkillish. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeopardy! per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Addi hockey 10^e-mail 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; independently notable subject. The result of all the above "merge" votes (many of which appear to have been canvassed from a Wikiproject, as they come from editors who have never had any involvement with the article before) would be the same close result as the previous nomination for deletion, "bad forum": AfD is not the forum for making redirection requests. The nomination rationale hinges on Celebrity Jeopardy! having no independent notability. This is incorrect. Celebrity Jeopardy! is independently notable and does not require "inherited" notability to be counted as notable. There are countless parodies and references to Celebrity Jeopardy! and as clicking any of the "hunt for references" links at the top will show, there are plenty of sources to show this, in the news, in books, and on Google Scholar. Robert K S (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—This artile has not been nominated for a redirect as clearly stated in the earlier AFD, so the "bad forum" argument does not apply. If, however, the result of this AFD is to merge as was with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week, a similar AFD, then so be it. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above concerns. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Perseus, Son of Zeus 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Us441(talk)(contribs) 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have many articles about certain aspects of famous television shows. In addition, the concept of Celebrity Jeopardy! is somewhat different than regular Jeopardy! Purple backpack89 07:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—The gameplay and concept is the exact same as in regular gameplay; contestants on these episodes just happen to be celebrities. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's often treated as something different. If it weren't, why would there be so many parodies of Celebrity Jeopardy!? References to Celebrity Jeopardy!? You might as well be arguing that we shouldn't have a Wikipedia page for the All-Star Game because "it's just another baseball game, same rules and everything--let's just delete that page". Robert K S (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Celebrity Jeopardy! is already adequately covered in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#Celebrity Jeopardy!. Random special weeks of shows that happen to feature celebrities as contestants are not notable enough to warrant a completely separate article from Jeopardy! or even List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. The Major League Baseball All-Star Game is clearly a notable annual sporting event, just as the Super Bowl and America's Polo Cup are. Comparing a week of special game show episodes—no different than any other episode of a daily game show other than the fact that celebrities play the game—to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game is not an accurate comparison. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, this comes down to your opinion vs. reality. You say, "non-notable". The general notability guideline says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." As I mentioned before, the links at the top of the page prove amply that Celebrity Jeopardy! is treated, significantly, by reliable source independent of Jeopardy! The numerous "Merge" votes you've canvassed don't contradict this simple premise. This is an open-and-shut keep. Robert K S (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There are no reliable sources listed in this article that would prove notability. The main "source" is an unreferenced fan page showing game statistics. Mentioning the phrase "Celebrity Jeopardy!" in a publication is not a notable reference nor is it significant coverage, and the links you provided (in the news, in books, and on Google Scholar) show no real resemblance of notability on the topic. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a television show; the information in on the page is sourceable to the episodes themselves, and in this regard "citing" to the J! Archive is merely is serviceable pointer to the episodes' airdates and show numbers. Citing to television episodes is entirely proper and done by very many wikiprojects. As to your argument that the hundreds of mentions in the media, the news, books, the parodies, etc., etc. do not add up to independent notability, this is an astounding conclusion that flies in the face what is out there. Is your quibble that these very many mentions which evidence notability are not used as citations in the article? I do not think this is a requirement for the establishment of notability, nor would it be proper here--it would be overkill. Robert K S (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My "quibble" is that this article is overkill. Every piece of minutia about Jeopardy! is not a notable enough aspect that it needs an entirely separate article on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not the house-all fan site for any topic. This article is akin to the former set evolution, in popular culture, recurring categories, seniors tournament, etc. articles—Although they're all part of a television program, they are not independently notable and they are already covered with enough detail and information in Jeopardy! or List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Obviously a show that has appeared in various forms for several decades has notable features, but every single minute aspect of this program is not notable enough for a separate article. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        A deletionist preference isn't a rationale for deletion on a bogus inference of non-notability. The coverage proves separate notability for this topic. Robert K S (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An AfD is not determined by canvassing votes, it is determined by WP policy. In this case, the crux of the matter is notability. User:Sottolacqua's arguments are all in the same vein: "it's not notable, it's just a special week on a game show", blithely dismissing considerable counter-evidence: what other week of a game show has been the subject of at least two independent parodies (on SNL and the Tonight Show) that have been recurrent sketches for the better part of two decades? There aren't any comparable parodies of regular Jeopardy, or the Tournament of Champions, or any other "special weeks", so the comparisons with the Seniors Tournament and Kids Week simply don't hold water. Celebrity Jeopardy (Saturday Night Live) has its own article. User:Robert KS has linked to mentions of Celebrity Jeopardy (distinct from the regular show) in many, many published books and news articles, none of which have been refuted in any specific way: Sottolacqua sweepingly declares 612 news mentions over the course of twenty years show "no notability". I find it highly doubtful that Sottolacqua examined very many of these 612 mentions, since many of them are behind paywalls; thus I find his confident asseveration that they are all non-notable is almost certainly empty bluster on his part, and further evidence of the bad faith character of this AfD. Refute the sources, and maybe then there would be grounds. Otherwise, this is clearly notable, and clearly keep. 271828182 (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Calling the Celebrity Jeopardy! page non-notable on the basis of WP:NOTINHERITED is absolutely foolish and suggests a facetious duality. Celebrity Jeopardy! may not be a standalone program, but neither is SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy! nor the two dozen other SNL sketches that have received their own pages, several of which have not been properly sourced. User:Sottolacqua's assertion that Celebrity Jeopardy! is "a handful of special episodes over the course of a season" ignores its true scope; Celebrity Jeopardy! may be a subset of Jeopardy! episodes, but if 100 episodes aired over an 18 year period does not define notability, then perhaps the hundreds of pages for television programs that have aired fewer episodes should also be reevaluated. If there is any issue with the Celebrity Jeopardy! page, and there is, it is not its supposed "non-notability," but the dearth of non-list information on the page which future edits could correct. Toadwildride (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

60second Recap[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

non notable website, article created by SPA who has done nothing but promote this website, speedy removed WuhWuzDat 16:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has enough mainstream sources to establish notability. Yworo (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article meets the notability criteria of WP:WEB with non-trivial coverage demonstrated by multiple third-party reliable sources; although the article should be expanded and the links to the coverage should be incorporated into the article as in-line citations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Barek's point about the citations seals it for me (and we can do without all the words in quotes the article has too). I really don't see any proof for the SPA claim, but if it is so, consider taking the matter to WP:COIN. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Barek. -- Lear's Fool 01:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7, per authors repeated requests [3][4]. WuhWuzDat 03:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The G7 deletion was declined by Favonian at my request, for the reasons I explained on his talkpage. -- Lear's Fool 03:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Boston Globe, Wash Post, USA Today coverage more than sufficient to establish notability. — Brianhe (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Author created it, tried to own it, tried to get it deleted and made legal threats when he realized he couldn't own it, and was indef'd until or if he retracts. If it's notable as others here say, it can stay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourcing seems to indicate notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, What is WuhWuzdat even talking about? Skippy 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)— Skipperdude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep, the references available demonstrate notability through non-trivial media coverage, especially the CBS news article. I agree that there is almost certainly a conflict of interest on the author's part, but this can be overcome with a quick re-write. There no doubt needs to be more references asserting notability added for this article to avoid future AfD/PRODs. --§Pumpmeup 02:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cuz there's no "Abelman" at Heeb Magazine (cf. footnotes) but y'all are too lazy to bother with actual fact-checking. Nah. Better to just call people names instead. And, while you're at it, why not delete the whole website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.237 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC) — 166.137.139.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What are you talking about? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment <sarcasm on> I believe the IP's comment are an excerpt from his new book, "My Life as a Sock"<sarcasm off>. WuhWuzDat 07:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Because of repeated blanking by IP socks I have semi-protected this AfD. Favonian (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also because of socking, I added the ((notavote)) tag. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comments by blocked socks struck out. WuhWuzDat 17:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia's notability policy to feel comfortable venturing an opinion about this subject's suitability for encyclopedic treatment. But I would like to address the OP's contention that 60-second Recap is a "non-notable website." As a secondary school teacher, I believe I can state, with high confidence, that 60-second Recap is having a real impact in the classroom. The way it presses the vernacular of contemporary internet video into the service of literary pedagogy is both startling, useful, and, possibly, transformative. I do think the article, as it now stands, doesn't do the subject (or Wikipedia) justice. I'll see if I can find some time later this evening to add it. Perhaps this will assuage the OP's concerns. Thanks. Contextmatters (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find verifiable sources that say similar to what you're asserting, that would be a step in the right direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinfra Apparel Park[edit]

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

nothing to point to notability, just a dump to name-bloat with nn's. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The apparel park is a notable one, providing jobs to hundreds, and one of the major establishment by the Government of Kerala. The article needs a re-phrasing with more citations. But does not stand for deletion. I can help in expanding the article. Should not be deleted. Cheers, -- Aarem ^(Talk) 05:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [5][6][7]. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : The article obviously is about a NOTABLE establishment. The reason for deletion mentioned here is notability, which is not correct. The Kinfra Apparel Park is spreads on an area of 50 acres. It is an employer of more than 3000 people, and contributes to the economy of the district and state. I too agree that the article needs to be expanded, but I will oppose a deletion; since it is a notable industrial park. --Xsto2501 (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic—obviously so to anyone who conductions even the smallest amount of WP:BEFORE with access to Google. ^Bongo_matic 23:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable. There is a lot of news coverage about this business, see [8] Some of these sources should be added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable. one of the major establishment by the Government of Kerala. The article can be expanded. BINOY ^Talk 14:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Sack[edit]

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

Being certified is not an award, nor does it require any notability or contributions to a field of study. Board certification is merely an exam that any physician in any one of numerous fields takes in order to continue practicing. As such, it does not meet WP:ANYBIO. The subject of the article is a board-certified physician who has published some original research in an academic journal. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Sack has been one of the best-known and most-quoted experts in the field of circadian rhythm, chronobiology and sleep research from the early 80s to today. He has authored dozens of research papers, reviews and chapters in books. I shall try to find more references. --Hordaland (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if more is needed. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Hordaland, while Dr. Sack sounds admirable, the inclusion of all physicians of his level of accomplishment might admit 10,000 or more bios, of US doctors alone, to Wikipedia. Is my understanding of the significance of Dr. Sack's medical innovations, or role in the political or social spheres, or presence in the media, etc., insufficient? mcgees.org (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You think there are 10,000 US doctors who are pioneers and leaders at the forefront of their medical fields? That's an awful lot of fields. We're not talking about his medical qualifications, we're talking about his media coverage - which as I've demonstrated, is extensive. If other doctors have that level of coverage then yes, I don't see why they shouldn't have articles too. It's nothing to do with qualifications. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Deleting and withdrawing my reservations, given research provided by other editors] mcgees.org (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Web of Science lists 10 papers that have been cited more than 100 times (highest cires: 453 - 386 - 215) with an h-index of 33. Article is pretty bad, though, I agree. --Crusio (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; passes WP:BIO. I have found articles on him and his research in The New York Times, the South Bend Tribune and The Oregonian, along with another article from The Oregonian reporting that he'd won an award. Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the article does not yet demonstrate that he passes the basic criteria of WP:BIO, doing a quick search through Google news provides a lot of articles. Only 15 if you use the link above that includes use of his middle initial, but remove the L and you get a lot more (many are not him, but enough are). And since we judge the topic itself and not the article, he seems to pass. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I withdraw my reservations, given the above research. mcgees.org (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Village[edit]

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

As far as I can see, this article is purely promotional. Most of the content - plus the pic - is from smart-villages.com. I might well be wrong, but I can see no notability for this Egyptian... I don't know what it is. Does it offer "gated community" Real Estate? Is it a Hotel franchiser? Is it an ISP? Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 28 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 delete a7, no claim of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Lesinski[edit]

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

Losing candidate in 2009 Virginia House of Delegates race. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 11:21, 28 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Ghisi[edit]

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

Long-term unreferenced BLP. No reliable sources found (IMDB and Anime News Network listings are not enough). Appears to have had a number of minor roles (or larger roles in unremarkable movies). Fails WP:ENT. Plad2 (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. He is interviewed at this Superman fan page, but that's neither reliable nor coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 30 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Žerajić[edit]

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

With greatest respect to a well-known but arguably non-notable musician, this article does not appear to meet the basic criteria for notability. Google discloses no reliable secondary sources for this musician - info available is his own website + Facebook/MySpace. In the alternative, fails WP:MUSIC: hasn't charted, no significant tours, not pre-eminent in a local scene, and so on. As always - please, prove me wrong! Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary sources from which to write a bio. Kevin (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. —J04n(talk page) 01:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO #5. Whether that's sufficient, given the absence of references, is another matter. GregorB (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madaraka Estate[edit]

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

Non-notable neighborhood. No reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 05:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why was this article nominated for deletion within ten minutes of creation? --Oakshade (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[9][reply]

Probably because WP:DEADLINE works both ways (btw, I'm neutral here). Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily found very significant coverage from reliable sources [10][11] not to mention the reliable source already in the article. [12] The location of Strathmore University. --Oakshade (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was nominated for deletion only minutes after the article was created! What about undertaking some research before posting AFD nominations? Julius Sahara (talk)
Keep - I've seen this happen multiple times already in my short time perusing AfD. Article made, an hour or less later - "AfD!" Have so many Wikipedians really forgotten WP:BEFORE (not to mention WP:BITE)? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 10:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the assumptions of good faith and for the interesting idea that an article which doesn't declare any notability shouold be kept. Corvus cornix_talk 20:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW, I still don't see anything in the article which makes this any more notable than any other neighborhood in the world. Corvus cornix_talk 20:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being a neighborhood in one of Africa's largest cities in itself is an assertion of notability. Your deletion rationale "No reliable sources" when in fact they could've been found in seconds with a simple g-search and the fact this was nominated for AfD within 10 minutes of article creation suggests that WP:BEFORE was not adhered to. If you'd like to open bad faith case and start a request for comment or something, I look forward to the actions of this AfD being investigated so as administrators can come to their own conclusions. --Oakshade (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't be ridiculous, there's no way your comments merit an RFC, it's just lack of civility. But are you trying to claim that I am assuming bad faith? Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant and notable neighborhood in one of the largest cities in Africa. Sources demonstrate notability, and besides, defined neighborhoods of major cities tend to be considered notable here, as witness the thousands of such articles about neighborhoods in US cities. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a small housing project, not a true neighborhood. I'm aware that in some countries "Estate" can be used for a much more extensive area than it would be in the US, where it usually refers to a non-notable commercial development project. But this is not one of them. 45 acres and 600 families do not usually make a notable neighborhood in a large city, in any country. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 applies. Courcelles 11:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Anderson (singer)[edit]

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

Unreferenced. No records yet released. Is not signed to Hollywood Records. Links are either to self published social networking site content, or do not specifically mention the subject. PROD has been removed twice. This is either very much too soon or a hoax. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: A comment on the article talk page by an anon user suggests that this article might be a test page:
76.3.152.135 : 'This up and away is not mike Anderson it's Jesse mccartneys new single from step up 3d')
--Kudpung (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a hoax, but it looks like it could be about a hoax. Still, I couldn't find any in-depth coverage about this singer. In addition, the article lists supposed upcoming appearances for Mr. Anderson, and they state the time but not the day. The article is even more confusing because the title suggests it's about the singer but then the introduction is about the song. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely a hoax. Supposed cover image has zero hits on Google image. Supposed video for song on his "official youtube page" doesn't exist. Zero references, and all of the external links go directly to home pages rather than articles about subject. There is a "Mike Anderson" who is a singer, but he is a folk singer completely unrelated to any of the other people listed in the article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Erpert may be correct that this is about a hoax, or it may indeed be a test page for some bizarre guerrilla marketing campaign. The links to reviews in the infobox are fake. The single "Up and Away" by a certain Mike Anderson is available on iTunes but people there are also complaining about the song being hijacked from someone else (Jesse McCartney). I don't feeling like investigating what's going on in all of the social networking sphere, but this article definitely does not qualify for Wikipedia. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:10, 29 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 08:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Moore (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this player meets the notability criteria, but correct me if I'm wrong D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails all the relevant notability criteria. Also, the Keep !votes in the first AfD were rather unconvincing. Bettia (talk) 16:36, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agents of Secret Stuff[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable YouTube film, with over 2 million views in 5 days. First film of its kind, starring multiple YouTube stars and internet celebrities. Wked (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Incubate . As per above. Aeonx (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First film of its kind? Says who? Weak delete. If you think having two million views on YouTube in five days is enough to prove notability, then you should read WP:WEB#Criteria. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. It may garner notability in the future, but right now, it isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From:WP:MOVIE
- 1 The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema. ***Most likely one of the first short films (30+ minutes) produced by a small, notable, independent, group based in the U.S. that primarily features Asian actors and culture and is released on Youtube.-
- 2 The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person -***Wong Fu Productions- and is a major part of his/her career.-Herenthere 20:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Putting something on Youtube isn't much of a unique accomplishment when you need to slap that many qualifiers to make it "unique", and even then it's further qualified as "most likely". Is there even any documentation of this in independent reliable sources? The second critrion is referring to an individual and not a production company. Again, documentation of any of this? -- Whpq (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn but don't expect the house to build itself. Do some work on them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1915 in jazz[edit]

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

Cosprings tried to nominate the 1957 article with a reason of "Unsourced, poorly maintained group of article. This article all all article contained with the same category Category:Years in jazz." but made a malformatted AFD here.

I would've suggested a speedy keep since there are countless "[year] in [genre of music]" articles already, but these ones are super-short stubs that violate WP:PUTEFFORT. No context, no intro, no sources, no criterion for what would be included on the list. Years-in-jazz articles could easily be done but these are so bad that it's better to invoke WP:TNT and start over. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about 1920s in jazz, 1930s in jazz, 1940s in jazz, 1950s in jazz, 1960s in jazz, 1970s in jazz, 1980s in jazz, 1990s in jazz, 2000s in jazz, does that violate WP:PUTEFFORT too? Sorry, but we have hundreds of lists like 1617 in Ireland which are much worse. Those are true "super short stubs". A merger of articles into decades shows that the information already listed in seperate articles amounted at least to something but just needed improving like most articles on wikipedia... Given time I am certain they will all be expanded like 1926 in jazz and 1979 in jazz...As it stands the decades mergers are in a good position to branch out from with further details and repopulate these rather meager stubs with something worthwhile.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 1924 and 1930 have only one event on them and were previously prodded for that very reason. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm generally dubious that a calendar year provides suitable context for significant development. But even if they did, the years 1944-46 were about the most momentous in jazz history with the Bebop revolution, and what have we of that here? Absolutely nothing. So as argued by Ten Pound Hammer, it feels better to discard rather than salvage, and then perhaps look at what would be suitable representation for the evolutionary trends by period. AllyD (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For reasons described above. Cosprings (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and expand or at least merge into e.g 1940s in jazz, 1950s in jazz etc until they can be improved and built up. This was supposed to be a working progression. Why is it any different to say 1944 in country music or 2002 in Armenian football? All of the lists certainly contain more info than 1617 in Ireland for example. Hell we even have year pages for minor sports clubs. These pages could all be written into decent articles documenting the history of jazz in detail and plenty of sources reveal that they are notable.... 1959 in jazz etc could easily be expanded.. Plenty of reliable sources could be compiled like this etc to turn all of these into decent articles. 1955 in jazz has a whole article here which could be used as a source. As for bebop being the be all and end all of jazz, really... Yes the golden era was pre 1960 but jazz is big enough of a genre to mean documenting musical history in this way as valid. There are tons of reliable sources and information in books like this and this to document jazz history.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I hadn't previously noticed List of pre-1920 jazz standards and those decade lists. Ideally we'd have pages for each year equally well written and sourced. hadn't realised we had those lists, but all the same I think there is plenty of room for growth here as evidenced by the year guide on All About Jazz ...,♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into decade articles - sure the pages are flawed but the better way forward is to fix the problems which is the way that we develop the project. Deletion would lose a great deal of potentially useful information. As a first step, merging into decade pages would produce articles of reasonable length and allow sensible intros to be written. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some of the articles are stubby, but they have not been around that long. Sooner or later jazz aficionados will come along and expand them. Lists like this are useful navigation tools. Removing, for example, 1979 in jazz wipes out valuable content, too long to be included in a decade article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~in some form, possibly merged into by-decade articles~~. While some of these are indeed "super short stubs", a lot aren't, and together there's quite a bit of content in them which would be lost and would have to be re-researched if we threw it all away and started again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun compiling the 1970s in 1970s in jazz. Once information is gathered I actually think it would be too big and would need splitting by year. But for now I will begin sorting them out. The idea actually was that these list articles are developed like this 1970s in jazz article is developing now but clearly nobody has had time yet to develop them much.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it. I started expanding 1979 in jazz, adding events and links to artists and albums, plus links from events and albums to this article. There is plenty of material, and 1979 was long after the peak of the Jazz period. These articles just need work is all. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was that in the main jazz article we have a main|1970s in jazz etc and have those pages and then in turn we have the year lists. I started merging because I feared that these would be completely nuked and I'd lose the notable albums which I'd added to the year pages and notable/births deaths. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a decade article, I suppose, but don't want to introduce forking by duplicating material from the individual years. I was sort of thinking of starting 1979 Montreux Jazz Festival, which would be a child of 1979 in jazz and of Montreux Jazz Festival. The 1979 show was huge. I would say give this discussion a day or two to see where it is going, and maybe save yourself time on merging into decade articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can you source the 1979 article? I just want to actually see how many sources could actually be compiled for a year which is beyond the golden jazz era. I wouldn't have started the lists if I hadn't of thought there would be a lot of content which could be added. There is a ton of stuff that can be found in google books. I agree they shouldn't have been neglected. I just think the encyclopedia would be better off having these with content. Even the Concord Jazz Festival is missing, let alone 1979 Concord Jazz Festival. The Concord jazz festival is even mentioned in my Clint Eastwood biography!! A vastly undeveloped part of wikipedia. No surprise there then...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced the redlinks. All the list entries could be sourced easily enough: the bluelinks should have sources for the content summarized here. Nothing dubious or controversial about the content that I can see. There are maybe 40 or 50 sources altogether for the current material and would be a lot more for a complete article on 1979. Same as any year in jazz. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated my original comment (see struck part), based on subsequent discussion. I think each of these articles should be kept separately, as there is clearly a lot of material that could be added to them which is of great reference value -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Merge if necessary - I'd be fine if the articles stayed [year] in jazz, but since that raises so much upset, how about merging into [decade] in jazz? I mean if we have things like 1919 in architecture or 1704 in architecture (not meaning to pick on architecture), then why not [year] or [decade] in jazz? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below fellow Welsh person..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand or Merge for the present into articles per decade, per Blofeld. We are not on deadline, so there is not a good reason to delete a promising article with lots of reliable sourcing, and to decide that the subject does not belong in this encyclopedia, just because no one has taken the time to expand the stub. The Pubic Television series on Jazz and its accompanying book provide lots on information on each year of the 1920's thirties, forties, fifties and sixties, covering the emergence of jazz and its evolution, important groups and trends emerging and influential records released in particular years. I once traced articles on jazz in every year from its first appearance in Readers' Guide to Periodical literature, and there several critical articles, reviews, etc every year from about 1919 on. Numerous historical reviews have been written covering the historical emergence of jazz year by year. Notability is easily satisfied with numerous reliable sources discussing jazz in any year from 1919 on, and its pre-history in earlier years (such as birth of future jazz greats). Edison (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've currently done 1920s in jazz, 1930s in jazz, 1940s in jazz, 1950s in jazz, 1960s in jazz, 1970s in jazz, 1980s in jazz, 1990s in jazz, 2000s in jazz all based on existing wiki material which do look a massive improvement compared to the crappy year lists I created. These will be expanded further in due course with more sources and info. But Edison and Aymatth 2 are 100% correct that we could easily write detailed articles by year for jazz and they are perfectly encyclopedic and acceptable. See [a google book search for 1944 in jazz for example.. They can easily be merged and then branched out again once event details are added or they can be done now, but I haven't the time to expand every year right now...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the "Decade x in jazz" series as narratives describing changes in public attitudes, music itself, major performers etc. Conceptual articles. But I dislike the idea of merging the "Year x in jazz" articles into the decade articles, because they work better as list-type articles, and the lists for each year have the potential to get very large. The example 1979 in jazz is clearly large enough to stand alone already, and potentially will grow to three or four times the size. All of the year articles have the same potential. Once the lists get into the decade articles, it will be hard to split them out and avoid forking, unless all the years are split out at the same time leaving no lists in the decade article. Easier to keep them separate than to merge now and then split later. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, look at 1926 in jazz too now thanks to Edison and myself. But one of the biggest problems on wikipedia is the mismatch between potential and actuality... Most articles have the potential to be fully developed but that doesn't stop over 85% of the site being stubs and in desperate need of writing... I think a few people should actively work together on this perhaps and ensure we have decent articles for each year, but it won't happen overnight, obviously.... Maybe redirecting into the decades is not constructive but I think it is sensible at least until somebody is willing to write about the events of that year rather than it just being a list of releases and births/deaths... When events and sourced are added they can be resplit like you did with 1979 from 1970s in jazz. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1946 in jazz. It is not on the list yet, but that was a year when players like the Bird, Louis Armstrong, Count Basie and many others were doing great shows and recordings. Charles Mingus, Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young. This is a pre-emptive keep vote. Duke Ellington. No merging on this one, please. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and expand until the end of time and space. Jazz is a unique American art form whose reach exceeds its grasp and has stretched itself out into every conceivable facet of the arts to propel its arrow of sound beyond music beyond words beyond consciousness itself only to stoke the fires of the Sun and then come back down to Earth just in time for tea. These lists are a valuable resource for the historian and the student of music and can be used as data repositories for reconstructing the past and studying the thread that binds it to the present. All entries are notable, significant and important. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You like jazz then, do you? ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosprings greatly surprises me with his outlook on this one...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into decade articles. This is an excellent solution that preserves all the important information and helps the reader see the relationships of the information in a slightly wider context. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a size problem with merging. Some years, notably 1946 in jazz, have (or will have as User:AllyD says) so much content they clearly deserve stand-along articles. Others could perhaps be merged. It might help to have a rule of thumb, like 10,000 visible characters = stand-alone with ((main)) in the decade article, less = merge. Should there be a guideline? AfD is not the place to decide on merging, which should be done on the article talk pages. As Viriditas tentatively suggests, jazz is a broad, deep and immensely important topic. Can we pick a decade, any decade, and use that talk page for further discussion on merging? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to size the problem, I did a Wikipedia search on 1979 jazz, and got 7,568 results. Based on a cursory scan, I would say about 3,000 could potentially qualify for an entry in 1979 in jazz: mostly albums released that year, some performances, some births and deaths. At about 30 visible characters per entry, that would give a huge list with around 90,000 visible characters, 3,000 sources, pushing the article size limit. 1979 does not seem a particularly notable year in jazz, it is not clear what value this massive list would have, and maintenance seems impossible. But it is hard to justify a random selection of 50-odd entries out of the potential 3,000-odd, whether in a "year in jazz" or a "decade in jazz" article. I really think there would be value in a separate discussion on how best to organize the material, independent of the AfD deadline. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think the best thing really would e to keep these and gradually fill out like 1926 in jazz and 1930 in jazz etc. At least by adding the jazz standards of each year with sources improves them. I agree, the most constructive thing for the encyclopedia would be to have full length well sourced articles on these eventually, the problem is that the majority are very lacking in the meantime.. If we deleted them all now we'd lose all the info in articles like 1916 in jazz, 1926 in jazz, 1930 in jazz. It is just too much to add to be redirected... All I can say is that I think they should be kept on condition that I and others improve them..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much controversy over keeping the material. The debate is between keep and merge, which is best handled on article talk pages. If the "year in jazz" articles show signs of growing to significant size, merge is not going to be very practical. My concern is that potentially they could become huge, and so lose all value. Just massive, unstructured lists. One way of making lists usable is to make them sortable tables, with e.g. band/artist, album name, genre, label as columns. The somewhat subjective idea of "jazz standard" could help to keep the size down, but that is already covered by articles like "List of 1940s jazz standards". I am drifting towards the idea that there should be some sort of centralized discussion on how to organize articles on jazz. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - no objections to merging less significant years.--Scott Mac 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1915-1967 now at least have the standards listed for that year which are sourced and not really deletable. The actual writing of events and musical criticism will take time but I think this is now a definate keep. I think it'll be cool actually writing about some of the years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think duplicating existing content is the way to go when creating new pages. For example, most of 1924 in jazz is now a duplicate from the list of 1920s jazz standards, without even an indication in the page history where the content was copied from. A link to the list article would work much better than simply copying everything over. Jafeluv (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read what was said above? The majority of the articles when properly written will mostly be about events, not standards...Adding the standards is just the first step to developing them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard sections are completely redundant, so I can't see how copying them from elsewhere makes the articles "sourced and not deletable" as is claimed above. I considered removing the sections and replacing them with links to the appropriate list article, but I think I'll wait for the result of this AfD. At the very least you're supposed to attribute the original author of the text when you copy-paste content from other pages. Jafeluv (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns seem to be purely about ownership rather than actual use. PLease read WP:OWN. 1924 in jazz now is a perfectly accpetable article and the jazz standards are an important part of it. Yes, I should have attributed your fantastic work in the lists, sorry for that i have now done so here and if you work with me rather than against me in deleting the sections I will attribute you for the other articles in due course and the articles can all be built up like the 1924 article. But years in jazz are perfectly valid and it is essential to list the standards for a given year within the article I think. If you could help get these articles up to a similar status our coverage of jazz would improve massively.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to imply ownership, sorry if you got that impression. I'm sure that the year articles can have legitimate content that warrants a separate page, as your reworking of 1924 in jazz shows. However, the duplication of content is a concern. It means that any changes need to be made in two places, and the two versions can easily become contradictory when a correction is made in one but not in the other. (That's why transclusion was invented, but that wouldn't work here.) One solution would be getting rid of the list articles altogether and moving everything into the yearly articles... Or to make the list article a short summary of the yearly articles, which would then contain the detailed information... Anyway, this AfD is probably not the best place to discuss that issue. Jafeluv (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, message sent to your talk page and suggest discussion resumes at Talk:Jazz/Years in Jazz...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure about merging less significant years, but the series is both intersting and practical. Hoverfish Talk 12:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page. I started Talk:Jazz/Years in Jazz, with some suggested topics for discussion. I suggest that those interested add their view there rather than here. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (no view on specific low-content years). Notable topics, can be improved by normal editing. ^Bongo_matic 17:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While many of these are/were in terrible shape, with a little time they can be expanded to be useful. Just give it a little time. Jafeluv (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 08:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Mngxitama[edit]

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

I don't see the headmaster (or principal, as we call it in the USA) of a non-college school as ever being notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no other claim to notability than being a headmaster, which by itself is not very notable. JIP | Talk 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem very non-notable, WP:BIO. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 00:05, 30 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 08:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 Music Awards[edit]

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

No notability, no reliable sources found. Utterly fails WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The references in the article are eitehr dead, not independent, or not significant coverage, and my own search turns up no better. the only independent reference in the article is from MTV. However, it simply published the results with no commentary about the awards so I do not see that as significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per Whpq --Guerillero | My Talk 00:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 21:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen Tide[edit]

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

Non-notable athletic club at a university, started relatively recently (2005) and no independent claim of notability (other than association with the university). Also, The article does not contain any reliable sources that are independent from the subject. The subject appears to be purely of local/community interest and does not appear to qualify under WP:NOTE. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a notable claim for the role that the Frozen Tide has played in the creation of the SECHC with sources such as nbcsports.com. I believe that they are a reliable source of information, and that this would certainly counter the argument that the subject is "purely of local/community interest". Bama Hockey is regularly covered in media across the south, and by hockeyyall.com. They are building a program of national interest with players and fans across the country (See, http://hockeyyall.com/?p=1641) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.145.89 (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the coverage on nbcsports is for SECHC, not Frozen Tide, though they are mentioned. However, there should be "significant coverage in reliable sources" and "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail per WP:NOTE. As for hockeyyall.com, that is a blog and blogs are generally not reliable sources. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 05:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a note, there seems to be a conflict of interest in the article's creation as the author User:Jonholston appears to be on the 2010 roster of the club, see [13]. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 05:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, club-level college sports teams aren't notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lawyer with you, I spent 3 years of law school and 7 years in the practice and you are the reason that no sane person would want to remain a lawyer. Things to consider, 1) ACHA hockey is beyond the normal level of "club" sports, there are international all-star teams that compete, including at the World University Games. At many schools, including Alabama, ACHA hockey is a top 10 spectator sport garnering more attention than many varsity sports. The ACHA is a perfectly acceptable league covered by wikipedia, and is nationally followed through blogs, message boards, and media. Any team competing at the highest levels of ACHA is followed by junior hockey players, high school players, and fans across the country. Numerous ACHA players have gone on to play professional hockey across the world, this is not "generally" true of club sports. 2) This is a work in progress and more things will be added as others that are interested work to build this page. 3) Your cite that blogs are "generally" not reliable seems to mean that blogs can be reliable. Maybe you should look into whether it is or not reliable, or better yet you could go to NYC and see if there is a Bama Hockey sticker on one of the firetrucks yourself. If the honus is on us to prove that it is reliable, then we say other than a few minor typos each week (which every newspaper in the world has), this blog covers college hockey from pennsylvania to florida to arkansas and back with tremendous accuracy. The blogger compiles scores on a daily basis when games are played, provides a player of the week award, and has 2 to 3 posts about programs from across the south each week. He is the source of information about ACHA hockey for those that are interested. 4) The SECHC did not exist when NBCsports carried that particular article, and one and only one organization paid for, hosted, and ran the event in coverage, the Frozen Tide. The event was owned by and the only beneficiary of the event was the Frozen Tide. Good luck with your life, I will continue to help build this page, and will no longer respond to your snarky, uninformed comments and misplaced energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.145.89 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) the burden rests with those adding content to show that it is notable through reliable sources, 2) there should be no article at all until there can be a showing of notability, 3) the types of blogs considered acceptable are those that are generally considered reliable, such as those run by news agencies and a fanbase is not the criterion for notability, significant coverage in independent sources is, 4) the article on nbcsports is unambiguously about SEC hockey in general and not focused on Frozen Tide. Also, individual players being notable does not mean the club itself is notable. Note: All statements meant to be purely informative and not snarky. The policies and guidelines of WP are in place for reasons and one of those is to prevent overzealous people from creating articles on subjects with which they have close personal attachments. If this topic is truly notable within the meaning of WP:NOTE, it should not be hard to find some significant coverage by sources not related to the Frozen Tide. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 01:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a perfectly straightforward issue; collegiate inter- or intramural teams have not been held to be presumptively notable. The GNG takes no notice of how many people attend their games, whether their players have or have not played professional hockey, whether or not the particular articles are WIP, the number of trucks nationwide which sport team bumper stickers, the industriousness of local hockey bloggers or the number of years Wikipedia editors claim to have worked in law offices (in which, at 17 years and counting, I should be ahead of the curve). Certainly someone familiar with the legal field must understand that the best way to meet a guideline is to meet it, rather than argue why failing to do so ought to be credited nonetheless as a success. We would of course pass any club team which did meet the GNG by having multiple reliable, independent sources report upon them in "significant detail" (not counting sports scores and match writeups discouraged by WP:ROUTINE). Do you have any articles from the Birmingham Press or The Hockey News to cite? Ravenswing 18:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as "regularly covered in media across the south" goes, by the bye, I did an archive search for news articles on "Frozen Tide" + "hockey." Only six hits [14] exist over a four year period, only one of them - from the Montgomery Advertiser specifically about this team. Ravenswing 18:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. There appears to be no reliable sources out there for this team. Looking at his links there is nothing to support notability for this team. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete (per referencing issues noted above and agreed with) I paticularily liked the first secondary reference (now to be former) used in this article...Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per rgtraynor. ccwaters (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments by Ravenswing. Also the user used the argument about teams "...competing at the highest levels of ACHA..." There is a grey area and an on-going debate on top ACHA DI team but right even if they are near the level of NCAA DIII we don't have articles for that level either. Also even if we did have articles for NCAA DIII and ACHA DI level teams, this is a DIII ACHA/club team. ACHA DI teams have attendance, marketing and other requirements by the ACHA, also a yearly budget of at least $50,000 and many have higher. Allowing for recruiting, marketing promotion, media coverage, etc... Many are run as varsity-club teams with direct connections to the university through the athletic department or rec sports and NAIA programs are varsity teams. Non of which apply to this article to even put that in a debatable grey area. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment much of this article is also poorly written and looks to have COI injected into it. I took some of the useable info and placed it under the Club Sports section of the main Alabama Crimson Tide article. for this level of college hockey that amount of info is sufficient.Bhockey10 (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 08:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bakersfield Freeway Network[edit]

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

This was an expired PROD that was subsequently recreated by the author. This article is basically WP:OR; while there are definitely freeways in Bakersfield, there's no proof to back up the assertion that this is a "network". Either delete, or merge to Transportation in Kern County, California. Rs chen 7754 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research. I lived in SoCal for decades and never heard these freeways described in this context. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. –Fredddie ™ 04:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR Admrboltz (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's a bad sign when the first paragraph of the article's body has to define a scope for the network's reach. If it was truly a network, the scope would already be defined by other entities to a point where you don't need to do it in the article. – TMF 08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Most of the content of the article fails these two principles, and once that content is removed, this article has nothing left to contribute to the 'pedia, either as a stand-alone article or merged elsewhere. Imzadi 1979 → 00:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be mostly original research, per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information to Bakersfield, California and Transportation in Kern County, California and Delete title as "Bakersfield Freeway Network" is an unlikely search term. Dough 48 72 02:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article itself provides sourced evidence in refs 7 8 and 9 that the transportation system was in fact planned as a network--as is almost always the case, since it is rare that people build major roads at random. The article is in fact about the planning of the network as well as the current status of the roads comprising it. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikk Haavistu[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 01:46, 28 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing[edit]

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

company of questionable notability, most references are self references, article is of somewhat promotional tone. WuhWuzDat 20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in pages discussion. I bring up other companies such as Manhattan Armor.

Most the references come from the official site for the reason being I thought it would be smart to show the wide variety of vehicles that can be heavily armored.

About the company being notable. It's just as notable as the rest of companies having to do with armored vehicles on wikipedia. It is highly popular in North America, Africa as well as the Middle East. Their company is based in Canada and Nigeria, supplying vehicles to government officials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonraphael (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC) — Dillonraphael (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. He is also the creator of the article[reply]

Keep (or if it must be deleted, incubate/userfy). While I indicated on the talk page that AfD was a possibility, it appears that the article was nominated without any discussion of what can be done to improve the article. I still the best course for the article is improvement, not deletion. The independent sources aren't always lengthy (the Robb Report story covers three companies in a relatively-short article), but they do exist. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I ask for. If i'm not mistaken, wikipedia is a community built website. All I did was get the ball rolling. It allows others to contribute and update what needs to be fixed. I would be more then happy to fix the issues my self if some one can specifically point out the issues influencing the deletion of the page.

(Dillonraphael (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It needs reliable third party sources (something more than blogs and the company's own website). It also needs to be far less promotional, there is a long quote in the current version which is little more than a sales pitch. Hairhorn (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot of third party sources that are reliable, The Robb Report for example. And to make things better I will remove the car list in hopes to make it less promotional in every ones eyes.

There is only one third party source that is not a blog, that is not a "lot". Hairhorn (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Dillonraphael (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, improve, re-list in six months if no further reliable sources have been added to article. Give people a chance to source things, please. --rahaeli (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When will the consensus come up with the final answer? I would like to remove the deletion tag. (Dillonraphael (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not remove the tag; it will be removed by the admin who closes this debate, AFDs usually last for a week but can go on longer if necessary. And to throw in my two cents the current version looks like a keep to me, although more sources are needed. Hairhorn (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The Robb Report article is the only thing close to a reliable source presented, that's far from "substantial coverage" (WP:GNG). If more sources are found the article could be restarted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Delete, loose searching by INKAS armoured/armored reveals some sources, which may be useful. Abductive (reasoning) 12:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some weak sources. [15] [16] [17]. Abductive (reasoning) 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not an obvious keep for me, but the addition of those sources (although weak like you said) make it a less obvious delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:57, 28 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 01:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confabulate 19:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources provided do not appear to pass WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^confabulate 19:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT A little after midnight on December 2, 2010, User:Dillonraphael moved INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing to Userpage:DillonRaphael after blanking its contents. Given the combination of page blanking and moving to Userpage:DillonRaphael, I took that to be an attempt by the user to userfy the article. Consequently, I moved it for him to User:Dillonraphael/INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing in his own user namespace. Because the page had been blanked, I did not realize that a deletion discussion had begun on it. Therefore, if I should not have finished the userfication for him, please feel free to move it back to INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing until the deletion discussion has concluded. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 05:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Southampton Arms[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable Public House. E. Fokker (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 01:34, 28 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 08:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Conventions controversy[edit]

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

Poorly defined scope and unreferenced for an extended period of time and appears to be OR. I did some Google searches and there is no sense of a singular "Geneva Convention Controversy" Sadads (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but also partially merge with Geneva Conventions, with sourcing improvements. While there certainly is a controversy out there regarding the Geneva Conventions and its application to terrorists in the modern age, I do believe that the article constitutes as original research, and there isn't much straight-coverage of the controversy to make it a both well defined and notable. Still, the controversy is something that is worth noting in the article Geneva Conventions, and there are limited sources available that cover the controversy described in the article (for instance, this source). In addition, there are several notable people out there who have taken sides in the argument (such as Michael D. Maples and David Petraeus), so I think a merge of the most important details, along with adding the limited sourcing that is available, would be appropriate. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there certainly should be a discussion of how the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists somewhere in the Geneva convention page. Just don't think the content we have now is worth saving, Sadads (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:OR, under a poorly thought out title. An article on the legal status of war on terror suspects (under both international, and relevant national, law) would probably be appropriate (if sourced to solid legal scholarship) -- but this isn't the seed for such an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It's terribly obsolete. SCOTUS decided long ago that they're not POWs. Most of this is already in unlawful combatant and elsewhere. Note: I'm willing to change my mind if someone wants to bring it up to date. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Very poor, biased article. Czolgolz (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not establish that there is a notable topic with this name. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there a WP:WTH yet? An actually legitimate argument about the very real discussion of the definition of "POW" under the Geneva Convention and this the article for it? Just describing the relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions would take up more room than what was used here. And I dont think using two quotes is enough to qualify for notabilty and sourcing. There should be a well written article or at least a section of the Geneva Convention page describing the debates but this is definitely not it. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and esp. Hrafn. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to skim[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal) mhking (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Spam spam spam spam. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete article is an WP:ADVERTISEMENT inside of a WP:COATRACK - Pmedema (talk) 04:12, 28 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 The consensus was that this chapter of the Eagle Forum was not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Mandsford 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Eagle Forum[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable; not really worth merging into Eagle Forum as the policy statements are already adequately covered and the one news incident isn't important. Roscelese (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easily incorporated into the larger article, briefly, shedding unneeded detail about non-notable members and activities. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So far as the notability of the topic itself. This is clearly a situation where local knowledge/specialized knowledge is important. The Utah Eagle Forum is routinely a topic of discussion in the Salt Lake City media market and I'm sure you can dig up dozens if not hundreds of news stories from multiple media outlets about this group. Seriously, I am beside myself that this is even up for nomination at all and wouldn't even be considered among Utans. The only rationale for deletion is that this is a poorly written article and that perhaps by deleting it a better article could come in its place. That doesn't sound like a good rationale for deletion and is contrary to stub policy (which this article clearly is a stub). I'm not disputing that this is a horribly written article, but that sounds like a reason to do some cleanup tags, not an AfD. It ought to go without saying that a conservative organization is going to be quite strong in the reddest of the red states in America. A quick Google search ought to show plenty of sources to satisfy notability concerns. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:26, 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) 01:06, 20 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, Jujutacular ^talk 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only difference I see in the sources between the national group and the Utah group is the discussion over a film shown in a Utah school. The priorities seem to be the same and the announced statements of beliefs seem to be the same for the Utah branch as the national group. Maybe take the sourcing for the film discussion and merge it into the main article but even that would seem trivial. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Seems like a clearcut case for WP:CLUB: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Washington Boulevard[edit]

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

Declined PROD - Local road that does not establish notability. Admrboltz (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major coastal road of Lake Washington in major metropolitan area. Has had more than trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. [18][19][20][21]. John Charles Olmsted even designed two major parks on it. Tragically, Kurt Cobain killed himself on this street.[22] For those who adhere to the WP:50k essay, this easily passes it.--Oakshade (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This road has some sources to meet WP:GNG, and looking, there appear to be more. Sebwite (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to have some significance. Dough 48 72 04:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Des Moines Memorial Drive[edit]

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

Declined PROD - Local road does not establish its notability. Admrboltz (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Strong Keep. This local road has two historical societies listed in the references that have both published web pages specifically about this road. One of these is sourced to two books and the original 1922 newspapers from the dedication of the roadway. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ¢Spender1983. The sources just in the article establish notability. I've easily found more.[23][24] An example of why WP:BEFORE needs to be an absolute rule. --Oakshade (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ¢Spender1983. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple sources, thereby meeting WP:GNG. Sebwite (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be another city street. Dough 48 72 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is another city street, one that passes our notability guidelines. Do you have any persuasive argument that it doesn't? --Oakshade (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, from looking at the road on Googe Maps, it does not appear any more special than any of the other streets in the Seattle area. Dough 48 72 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree that it doesn't look much different than other streets. But how something looks is not a criteria of our notability guidelines. A street can be notable for many reasons. Abbey Road (street) doesn't appear any more special than any other London street. In this topic's case, it's designated a war memorial highway that has received significant coverage from reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Most streets in Seattle don't share either distinction. --Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iceni (company)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings. The nom should be more specific, how is the subject "non-notable"? The article is promotional, but I think there's enough salvagable content to be merged into the article Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings, which is the large corporation that owns this company.--resident (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 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) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings, I don't see this company as being notable enough for its own article. JIP | Talk 16:21, 28 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. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LSE Alternative Investment Conference[edit]

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

PROD removed by author (with explanation, to their credit). I repeat my PROD rationale, since I believe that's still relevant: "Non-notable conference. The references cited for the last line are not sufficient: the FT article is inaccessible, the other two only mention that people spoke there, and don't even give the conference's full name (let alone a discussion of the subject)."

To which I would like to add that I could not find any more sources that would help establish the subject's notability. I am bringing it here for wider community input. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to criticism and the rationale for deletion by Drmies[edit]

Thank you for your comment, Drmies, and for the wider community for weighing into this discussion. I think the article should be kept for valid reasons. Please see my response to Drmies' rationale for deletion regarding the notability of the conference and the verifiability of the references.

The issues of notability and references raised against this article does not seem to be valid in light of the fact that existing articles on student-run conferences of similar scale and notability without references to any third-party sources has been allowed on Wikipedia. See Campus for Finance. Other student organisations of more questionable international notability have been allowed: Yale College Democrats and Business Leaders 2010. More concrete support for objection to deletion is detailed below.

Notability of the conference

Regarding the notability of the alternative investments conference, please kindly check the following the following two third-party sources:

Financial Times article entirely about the conference: Maton, Brendan. “Graduates gather to gain from industry’s best”, Financial Times (FT fm), 08-Feb-2010, page 9. (This article is produced both in PRINT on February 8 2010 and ONLINE on FT.com for subscribers to the newspaper as FT grants access to archive articles only to its subscribers, myself included.)^[1] To confirm the existence of this article by the FT on the conference, please see: LSE in print. The other two references to FT.com regarding the conference can be found here and here. The FT has a circulation of 432,944 internationally.^[2]
Hedgeweek.com article about the conference Hedgeweek is a major news agency that covers news in the hedge fund industry.

Because of its success in the past, the conference has caught the attention of big City banking and law firms and has received sponsorship from there. The conference concerned is mentioned in the Wikipedia page for Liongate Capital Management. Other sponsors of the conference include Angermayer, Brumm & Lange Group, Mayer Brown, Bain & Company, UBS, Altima Partners LLP, Bain Capital, Credit Suisse, Dechert LLP, Greenoaks Capital Management LLC, Man Group, Sankaty Advisors, International Asset Management, and J.P.Morgan.^[3]

Problems with the references

The claim in the PROD that the references "don't even give the conference's full name" is misleading. They do in fact give the conference's full name, but in slightly different forms. They come in the following forms: the LSE Alternative Investments Conference, London School of Economics' Alternative Investments Conference, LSE's Alternative Investments Conference, and the Alternative Investment Conference at the LSE. In some cases the words "Alternative Investments Conference" has not been capitalised due to confusion on the writers' part. But in the major articles about the conference itself (two of them listed above), the name of the conference has been correctly represented.

Please kindly let me know whether this helps resolving the issue of notability and reference. Thanks!

^ In case you cannot access past issues of the Financial Times, I have included a direct quote from the paper: "Lagnesh Kumar is tired. He has been on planes for 23 hours and is now about to sit through two days listening to and meeting some of the brightest minds in hedge funds and private equity... Mr Kumar is a forensic accountant by training, now enrolled as a PhD student at the University of Wollongong near Sydney, Australia. He is hungry to learn more about hedge funds, which is why he has flown halfway around the world and ended up in a swish Mayfair hotel at the LSE Alternative Investments Conference... Mr Kumar is one of 200 highly motivated people to make the journey from Asia or Australia, joining the LSE’s own undergraduates to hear luminaries from the worlds of private equity and hedge funds, such as David Rubenstein of the Carlyle Group, Emmanuel Roman of GLG and Sir Deryck Maughan of Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts... “We weren’t sure that these young people on other continents would fly over for the event but we were wrong,” says Mr Kershaw(co-director of alternative investments at the Cornell partnership)."
^ Financial Times
^ Sponsors of the conference

(Henry1125k (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Short response to long rebuttal: that other articles feature similar topics is not the issue here: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We cannot judge confusion on a writer's part, it seems to me, but even if those mentions are correct, I maintain that the coverage (even with the quote from the Financial Times, for which I thank you) is not substantial enough. A list of sponsors also does not add up to notability. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 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) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I would usually hope for WP:RS's that are not behind a paywall, it appears that WP:V and WP:N have been achieved for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am very reluctant to consider a student club, society , or conference as notable, and have generally argued for deletion. Based on the available sources, this one seems an exception. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wear (artist)[edit]

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

Long term autobio/unreferenced BLP. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources to pass WP:GNG searching for his work in music or art. Nothing suggests notability via WP:BIO. Given that he was making music in the early 90s some sources could well be offline and I would reconsider if this proves to be the case, but please notify me as I might not be watching this page. Bigger digger (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wear is about to have an exhibition, and an accompanying on-line magazine article due to be published shortly.
In addition to this, Wear's new album is currently in production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andywear (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 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) 00:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any Australian coverage for this Andy Wear. [25]. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about these? Surely a National Library archive and a State operated gallery listing are sufficient and valid.[26][27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andywear (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid they are not sufficent; what we're looking for is significant coverage in reliable sources independant of the subject. -- Lear's Fool 06:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trove returns nothing other than a library record for one book, and the lack of anything meeting the coverage requirements of the general notability guideline suggests that this individual is comfortably not notable. -- Lear's Fool 06:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given Andywear (talk · contribs) edits, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI also apply here. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find sufficient coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish that this subject merits a standalone article. Additionally, the subject of this article should follow Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to avoid COI edits and avoid participating in this deletion discussion. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:06, 30 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, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Magazine[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Brand-new magazine, no gnews hits, google hits are largely for similarly-named magazines ("Bon Ami Magazine", publications from organizations named A.M.I.). Hits that are for this magazine are help-wanted ads, a few blog posts, a couple forum discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 01:07, 23 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) 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are thousands of startup and little magazines across the world and other then WP:ITEXISTS it fails WP:N like many others. - Pmedema (talk) 04:49, 28 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 Mandsford 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niamatullah (boxer)[edit]

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

Amateur boxer that dose not meet WP:ATHLETE. Google searches do not show much. Competed in 2010 Asian games but nothing substantial written about him. Disputed prod noq (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The boxer has to be an amateur to take part in some international competitions such as Olympics, Commonwealth Games, and Asian Games. Hence Niamatullah's status as an amateur boxer. If he was to turn profession later, he would be barred from taking part in the above competitions just like the British boxer Amir Khan who turned professional after the 2004 Athens Olympics and now cannot take part in any future Olympics. This is a sub article, more information as and when available. Rzafar (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added information on his gold medal win at South Asian Games Rzafar (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as he competes in the 2012 Olympics per WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL. Would accept merge to Boxing at the 2010 South Asian Games if that article ever gets written, but that seems unlikely. THF (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 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) 00:16, 28 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, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Aimer[edit]

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

Unable to verify anything. Only mentions are all mirrors of the content on WP. Very dubious notablility in any case, even if it is not a work of fiction. _wjemather ^bigissue 15:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 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) 00:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable, created by now-blocked user. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inverifiable at best. Only Gbooks hit is from Books LLC, which publishes Wikipedia mirrors. Edward321 (talk) 04:44, 30 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) 01:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Cameron[edit]

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

This unreferenced BLP article has no sources and was created by Scameron22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which gives rise to fears of autobiography. It was incompletely nominated by an IP editor for deletion in September although no-one picked it up. A search for sources has not produced anything of great import with most of the high ranking links being Wikipedia mirrors. The others are the subject's own blog. There is no clear trace of the group 'Women in Film', although the claimed notability is as a founder of it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not enough independent sources to demonstrate notability. The fact that most of the things she has been involved in are red links might have been a clue. Fails WP:BIO

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no claim of actual notability, g11 ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Technologies – Tax Series[edit]

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

A large number of ghits but no hits on gnews indicates to me this company is not notable.

Entirely unsourced.

(As an aside, there's something funny with the name, why is "- Tax Series" at the end of it?) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:33, 21 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) 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article is an WP:ADVERTISEMENT that has no reliable sources that denote notability. - Pmedema (talk) 04:55, 28 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. There are no sources, questionable notability (zero to a smidgen as I see it) and there's been very little interest in improving the article over the last months & years. Krakatoa Katie 23:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nika Turković[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nika Turković (2nd nomination)

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

Notability is not temporary, but this biography has failed to get expanded or referenced since the event that made the person stand out - the Junior Eurovision song contest.

Wikipedia:Notability (music) does not clarify whether such an event is a major music competition, so major that mere participation in it (not winning it) constitutes actual permanent notability. I personally fail to see how that would be true, but others may disagree, hence the AfD.

Note also that I am Croatian just like this person, just so I don't get any accusations I'm doing this on nationalist basis - I'm not. (Yes, it has happened before. :( )

(Technically this is the first AfD, but that's just because the previous deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nika Turkovic many moons ago.)

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of similar reasons. Timbouctou 20:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the criteria set at WP:MUSICBIO Turković may potentially meet criteria #2 (has had a single or album on any country's national music chart), #9 (has won or placed in a major music competition) #11 (has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network). However, it's virtually impossible to find anything but the trivial mention of her in major Croatian newspapers, and I can't find any mention of her 2006 album in any music chart or an industry award such as Porin. Her website was last updated in September 2009 and, apart from appearing as guest performer at several local jazz festivals, it seems her only solo public performance in Croatia was an appearance in a demo band show aired in February 2009 on HRT (which indirectly means that the national television sees her as a demo artist). Whether the Junior Eurovision is a "major event" I have no idea (it certainly isn't considered as such in Croatia) but the apparent lack of coverage is a clear indication of insufficient notability. Furthermore, since WP:NALBUMS states that the notability of albums depends on the notability of recording artists, her album should be included in this AfD. Timbouctou 20:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is poor judgement to dismiss such a gifted 15-years old, with a career of nine years which is only starting. Nika Turković has been known, admired and beloved in Croatia ever since she appeared on television at age 6, singing in Italian while starting to learn writing at school. She has made regular appearances in public since then. There is no reason why her foreign admirers should be deprived of an entry in English about her, even if they have learned Croatian. There is no talk of deleting her entry in the Czech, Croatian, Dutch, Sabmi (!), Serb, Swedish and Turkish versions, and I have added one in French. The logic of the internet is not that capacity is limited, but on the contrary that it is unbounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.135.150 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logic and policy of Wikipedia is that article content needs to be verifiable and the topics notable. This is accomplished by quoting articles from reliable sources where someone makes non-trivial mentions of the article topic. For example, you link videos from Turbo Limach Show and Studio 10, broadcast by Croatian Radiotelevision (HRT). That helps verify the person's existence and behavior, but does that mean that HRT as such vouches for the person's notability? Especially given that they have a vested interest in promoting a Junior Eurovision contestant simply because they're part of the whole show? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Limach Show was a children's entertainment program aired on HRT which featured a large number of children performers and appearance in it alone does not satisfy the criteria set at WP:GNG. A simple Google search for "Nika Turković" at websites of Jutarnji list, Večernji list (the two most-read dailies in Croatia) yields zero results, while a search of Novi list and Vjesnik dailies yields a handful of results which give her only a passing mention back in 2004 as they are really about the Junior Eurovision contest and the Croatian qualifiers for it (which is not really that surprising since even the most creative journalist would struggle to write anything meaningful about a random 9 year old girl). While it is true that she later released an album at the age of 11 in 2006, I can't find a shred of evidence that the album was registered anywhere by the local media or that it received any airplay. She may be a talented artist with a struggling career, but this is not evidenced by her official website and blog (which do not mention any concert performance by her and haven't been updated at all in little over a year) or local media outlets. IMO she also fails WP:ONEEVENT criteria for a standalone article as her only claim to fame comes from coming in third at the 2004 Junior Eurovision, fitting the description of an "individual who had a minor role in a minor event". At best, the article should be turned into a redirect pointing to the the 2004 contest. Also, take a look at the "Wikipedias in other languages" section in the WP:AADD article which states that "Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia. Other versions of Wikipedia are not reliable sources. Many articles in other Wikipedias are based on translations of English Wikipedia articles." Timbouctou 16:22, 26 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) 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. This young lady has been on TV singing since age 6. This is notable. She sings duets with such greats as Oliver Dragojevic and Toni Cetinski. How many people can we say that about? "delete" arguments above that in part state "Especially given that they have a vested interest in promoting a Junior Eurovision contestant simply because they're part of the whole show" can be said of many TV stations all over the world, just the same as for many newspapers all over the world. That is not a valid argument. By that logic, the TV station that airs the Oscars (part of the whole show) promotes the singers that perform, so that is not notable. This is my genuine opinion, I am not purposly voting with or against any editor I may have disagreed with in the past. Thanks.Turqoise127 00:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JFTR, that particular slope is not really as slippery as you say - the problem is that it's hard to find any other media other than a particular one promoting the subject. It's not invalid to consider this situation at least mildly suspicious, because otherwise there would be a converse slippery slope with all sorts of topics advocated by various other kinds of fringe media outlets. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about HRT, the national TV network, the only one up until the last decade or so. There are only like, what, three other TV stations? Common. It is like saying the NBC is advocating Jay Leno because they air him, so that is not a notability indication. I just don't see it, sorry.Turqoise 127 00:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two other national, but a few dozen regional and local. Plus all other non-TV media. Your example is actually exactly right - if Jay Leno only had NBC talk about him over a period of his entire career, and everyone else practically ignored him except for one single event, then yes, NBC's airing alone would not be an instant proof of notability for him. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:07, 30 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. The article does now appear referenced sufficiently to demonstrate notability; those arguing to delete have failed to outline what the problem is with the references beyond the fact that they are in Norwegian. ~ mazca ^talk 15:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaqueline[edit]

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

Fails notability for the wikipedia. Fails WP:Music in every point. Goroth 18:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above AfD was misformatted; I am just the person who reformatted it, not the nominator. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The band has at least one song (King's Table, which I believe was made by this band) on a somewhat regular rotation on P4 Bandit, but I am not sure if that counts as a major radio network. Ters (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The band has had significant coverage and good reviews in many major Norwegian newspapers. __meco (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have refs? Edgepedia (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just looking at the Norwegian-language article. Unless that is completely made up the band has had extensive coverage and reviews in the biggest Norwegian newspapers. __meco (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, with the work done by Ters to add references the article is dead strong. The headline for the review in Norway's second largest tabloid, Dagbladet reads "Norwegian Rock Debut of the Year". __meco (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where the band shall have some revs? Delete 20:43, 23 November (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.172.44 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most links are red marked... It isn't a good omen for an article which shall have any relevance... User:Goroth 11:39, 27 November 2010 (CEST)

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) 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. meco (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found the reviews mentioned in the article and have added them as references. Not sure if this was done right, though. I could not find the third review of their first album in one of the "three biggest newspapers". Ters (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. SnottyWong ^babble 19:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you reckon a band with reviews in the country's three largest newspapers fails WP:BAND? It seems clear to me that the band satisfies the first criterion: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."__meco (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Neutral It'd be nice if the sources were in English so those of us who don't speak Norwegian can verify the info. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This article and this article from Verdens Gang, this article from Dagbladet, and this article in Dagbladet confirm that notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music) is established. Cunard (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blažena Ovsená[edit]

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

WP:N: This is base on a single website. Can't find any WP:RS for this (Unless there's something in Slovak). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loads of material out there. In Slovak. Lazy nomination. --89.211.99.73 (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:05, 25 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, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent evidence suggesting that Ovsená and her bold theories are notable and respected in Slovakia. She is a contributor at www.sclabonia.sk, which is a website promoting Slovak nationalist ideas. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:37, 29 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. If anyone finds coverage, and substantuates the 2006 World Championship apperance, come talk to me. Until then, this unsourced BLP is going to go. Courcelles 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Mei-ching[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Ath#College_athletes, no significant coverage for this university level athlete beyond reprinting of statistics. Gigs (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 21 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, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I was unable to find any reliable sources to indicate/verify independent notability. - Aeonx (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. Will proceed with redirect, any content deemed worthy of merging can be pulled form the article history. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the burrito[edit]

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

Article is essentially a collection of trivial 'slow-news-day' pieces about burritos. Serious concerns relating to notability and undue weight. Any significant information should be merged to Burrito#History. Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Burrito#History, per WP:MERGE rationale 'context' & the tendency of much of the information in this article to lean heavily towards the unencyclopaedic 'novelty' end of the spectrum ("World's largest burrito", burrito eating competitions, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this comment. My suggestion is for a third party group of individuals (individuals that have not been commenting frequently on the Talk page) to go through the article for verifiable encyclopedic material and to propose the text to include in the main Burrito article for the merger. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Close The tags have been put on the Burrito article and there is a healty discussion going on to cull and merge the information. I would assume that once this has been done that a speedy G6 will be used... - Pmedema (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator and main proponent of the article, while nominally agreeing to merge the article, is actively resisting the removal of information that is trivial in nature[28] and removing tags other editors (not me) have added in relation to problems with the article.[29] It therefore seems this process may not be straightforward. Perhaps an RFC??--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, please stop spreading misinformation on Wikipedia. I did not agree to merge the article; I proposed the original merge on the talk page, and I agreed to remove material on the talk page. The facts show that you proposed this article for deletion only after being inappropriately canvassed by User:Fcsuper. It would help if you would get your facts straight, as I previously corrected you on your talk page, only to have you repeat the same misinformation again. Clearly, the process is straightforward, and you are welcome to participate and contribute with an informed opinion when you are ready and able. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to first diff linked above. Most of the content restored is trivial and/or advertorial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content is neither trivial or advertorial in any way, and I've agreed on the talk page regarding some of what should be removed. Please try to follow the discussion on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissive sarcasm aside, I have read the entire Talk page. If you do not understand that many of the 'points' are trivial, advertorial, and often not even directly related to burritos at all, then there is a serious problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be acting as a proxy for another user, baiting to distract from this AfD, and continuing to make claims about the content that are not based on the facts. I do not believe you have read anything on the talk page, and your continued behavior here is obviously disruptive. If you would like to talk about the subject, you are going to have to do some research on the history of the burrito and review the sources. Until then, there isn't going to be much to discuss. Since you are a single-topic user who only works on Jehovah's Witnesses articles, I would welcome your entry into the world of cuisine, and look forward to your informed opinion on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To other editors... it is clearly unproductive for me to attempt to discuss this matter with Viriditas. I invite other editors to consider the article directly and form their own opinions of its content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a totally valid article spinout. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to burrito#history. Looks like interesting information, but I still don't think it's worth its own article. JIP | Talk 16:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge Appropriate material, but there is no need to have it as a separate article. I'd suggest merging the entire content to the main article, and then discussing item by item what should be deleted. "Timeline" articles are essentially summarize. They are often necessary when the material is unusually complex, the each sequence of events is a critical part of the content, or particularly helpful for understanding, or the material needs to be related to other events in a chronological fashion. Any history section of any substantial article can be converted or duplicated to a timeline, but I do not think it generally helpful to do so; it s more helpful to add content to make one good article., As for the actual content, I think the names of the various establishments can appropriately be included in the article if there is some actual evidence they are of significance, but I do not see such for most of them. If there is such evidence for them, then a section on famous burrito establishments might be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. Great content here, but it could easily be condensed into the Burrito history section at this point. Would support forking if size and depth increased significantly. Steven Walling 05:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{_{Subscript text}_{Subscript text}}

Position changed to merge. Okay, let the article grow as part of the mother article. When the content grows beyond a manageable size, it can be forked out comfortably, and without many eyebrows raised. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My concern—and reason for raising this AfD discussion—is that whilst the article's author agrees to add the notable details into the main article, their intention has been (somewhat ambiguously) stated as that of retaining the timeline article rather than a true merge, only stating that this article should conditionally change to a redirect "if it is no longer needed".[30][31] However, the contention is that the trivial entries in this article are not needed, and anything that is notable should be merged to the main article, with a specific aim of changing this article to a redirect (or deleting altogether as it is highly improbable that anyone would ever search for "timeline of the burrito".) Viriditas' resistance to removing the purely trivial entries seems counter to that purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that a WP:REDIRECT is implicit in a WP:CONSENSUS for a WP:MERGE, and would suggest that anybody suggesting otherwise is being tendentious in the extreme, and would be subject to sanctions for disruption, if they acted upon that claim. That is certainly implicit in my own 'merge' !vote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a forum to debate what particular items in an article are trivial and what are notable. It is for discussing whether the article's topic is itself notable. It's obviously the consensus here that a history of the burrito is important to have when considering the subject, and not to delete the content in the list wholesale and permanently on the basis of lack of verifiability or notability. We can work out what should be merged and what should be discarded once this discussion has concluded. Steven Walling 09:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that, and I am not raising specific entries here. I was explaining that the purpose of my starting this AfD was to determine whether there was consensus not merely to add information from this article to the main article, but also to establish a broader view of whether this article is itself notable beyond the scope of the main article. Apologies if it seemed that I was bringing the debate about specific content here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry to have to say this. This article contains a lot of fun and interesting trivia. However there is no reason to think that the items included add up to a "timeline of the burrito." Burrito should, and probably does, have a section with an overview of the burrito's history. This goes back maybe 1,000 years or more. Notable modern burrito restaurants should have their own articles and a category and list directing people to them. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and Burrito covers the history of the burrito very well.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:28, 30 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. Krakatoa Katie 22:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Demo[edit]

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

Delete This article has absolutely no references anywhere on this page. There is also no valid information for this demo. This article is also not notable at all. For more information, read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Also, there are only about 151,000 results if you type in "Exodus 1982 Demo" in Google. It seems like a lot, but this is the only article about the demo. Finally, this article is a major stub. You differently should of researched this article a little bit more. I'm not saying this is fake, I actually own it, but until you can find for information, this page has to be deleted. Tnd900 (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Exodus article, here are some sources that mention it: The Art of Kirk Hammett,Allmusic:although it does not specify, alludes to Hammett recording with the band before he left for metallica, Discogs bio:mentions Hammett recording, and Mtv. If someone were to find a reliable source with tracklisting or release date, I would probably change to keep.- Theornamentalist (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable. None of the other demos have articles. At the very most, merge and delete. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. This discussion was originally closed as "delete" by Mandsford but he accidentally deleted this AFD instead of the article. This page has been restored but out of the 2 "delete" !votes I noticed that one is actually the nomination itself and the other is making a merge and delete argument which in most cases can't be done. Therefore, I think the best course of action is to relist this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I look more foolish than usual in this instance, but as Ron notes, it was indeed an accidental deletion. I think that the article title should be moved to something like "1982 Demo (Exodus demo tape)". Mandsford 18:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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