< 5 November	7 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. Courcelles 05:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mário Coutinho[edit]

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

Doctor, associate professor. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:V. Only potential claim to notability is fellowship in the European Society of Cardiology. I can't confirm this, as he is not listed anywhere on the ESC website, which includes lists of recent fellows, which are numerous, so I question how selective an "honor" this is anyway. (They have to pay 400 euro a year to retain this fellow status) Gigs (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that fellowship of the European Society of Cardiology may not be selective enough to grant automatic notability, with over 800 fellows being elected in the last three years, but the fact that fellows pay a subscription is irrelevant, as most academic societies, however selective, charge fees depending on the level of membership. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. With GS h index = 8 notability marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Searching without the diacritic mark finds more publications, including an article with 891 citations of which the subject was one of four authors. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, takes h from 4 up to 8. Gets into marginal range, Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Delete a la Xxan's work and the relatively low academic rank. I agree that the subscription fee is irrelevant; I believe the United States National Academy of Sciences charges a subscription fee as well. Ray^Talk 22:47, 8 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 05:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction set in Sheffield[edit]

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

Apparently this list was just dumped out of a category that was previously deleted, according to its creator. I really don't see what purpose it serves. Most of the books on the list are redlinks (and look like they'll stay that way, I could find very little on many of them), and I cannot find any literary sources that discuss Sheffield as a particularly important or noteworthy place for fiction to be set. As such, this list seems to be rather random in subject and not to cover a notable subject or combination thereof. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- topic seems rather frivolous and over-specific. Reyk _YO! 12:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect . I decided against making a disambiguation page, considering the guideline on partial title matches (WP:PTM). I am leaving the page history should someone wish to transwiki the material. Marasmusine (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pighead[edit]

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

I don't feel this character in the Saw games and films is particular notable for its own article. We have this character at List of Saw characters#Pighead, and I have redirected this article to there more than once. However, someone (mostly IPs) always seem to create this article again, but of course fails to provide any reliable sources to prove this character is notable for its own article on Wikipedia. Wikia yes, but not Wikipedia. Mike Allen 23:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Mike Allen 23:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike Allen 23:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom, and make sure it has been transwikied. Sadads (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and disambiguate There are many things this could be, mostly not the SAW character. Such as Pig-faced women, Pig's head cheese , pig's head gang , boar's head , Trophy hunting boar head trophy, etc. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep in accordance with WP:SK ground 1: the nominator agrees the article should be redirected instead of deleted, and nobody else favours deletion. NAC—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Turbulence modeling[edit]

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

The page Computational_fluid_dynamics#Turbulence_models already introduces turbulence models, describes their classification, and lists some of the most common turbulence models
Turbulence models are primarily a computational subject - analytical turbulence models are rare or nonexistent - so a description of turbulence models is most appropriately maintained on a page related to computational modeling
Any analytical approaches to turbulence (e.g. scaling analyses) should not be considered "modeling" and can be considered under the heading of turbulence theory; this information should be presented at either turbulence or turbulence kinetic energy, or some other article
There is no need for the computational fluid dynamics article to link to this Turbulence modeling article, because it links directly to the page associated with each turbulence model
Turbulence models such as LES or RANS are sufficiently described on their respective pages (each linked to by the computational fluid dynamics#Turbulence models page), and any additional effort going into an explanation of these models should go on their respective pages; otherwise it leads to bloat, as well as scattered and duplicated effort and information Charlesreid1 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article. Per the reasons above; this article reproduces information and functionality already fulfilled by computational fluid dynamics and turbulence articles. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This should be handled with a redirect, if necessary, per WP:REDIR. All of the cited articles are roughly start class with multiple issues. I would suggest moving them all toward C and B class and as you do, a consensus will develop as to what goes where. --Kkmurray (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I agree that a redirect would be better than an outright deletion. ~~However, I can't find any policies regarding making an existing article into a redirect. I'm not sure how that would work.~~ Found it here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD --Charlesreid1 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever your arguments for deletion, this is a highly notable topic and warrants its own article. There are number of books and thousands of scholarly articles published on this topic. See here, about 15,000 books discuss this topic. Salih (talk)

Keep Computational fluid dynamics is already about 30K which is big enough per WP:SIZE. Turbulence modeling is quite notable as entire books are written about it such as Fundamentals of turbulence modeling. The former topic should therefore introduce the second which can then go into more detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 18:31, 6 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. Yes I know that's entirely dissatisfying—I'm right there with you.

First let me say that I've obviously read the previous close by User:Black Kite (overturned at DRV) and the closing rationale by User:Mkativerata at the ensuing DRV. With respect to the latter, I wholeheartedly concur with Mkativerata's summary of the DRV. In a sense that was my jumping off point—consensus at the DRV was best interpreted to mean that the original discussion should have been relisted rather than closed, i.e. we needed more discussion.

Has the additional discussion helped? For the most part no, at least in terms of determining consensus as to what to do with the list.

There were a whole bunch of comments/votes that simply did not provide anything in the way of a valid rationale—and yes that means folks on both the keep and delete side of things. In the end this AfD is largely a conversation between GreyHood and a few who disagree with that editor, with S Marshall making some helpful meta points. Frankly it's not a very good discussion, which I don't remotely intend as a negative comment directed at anyone in particular—sometimes that's just how these discussions go.

The main arguments revolved around WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SALAT (incidentally the fact that WP:SALAD is a redlink is goddamn shameful, and if someone doesn't fix that soon....well you just wait and see what I do! and how fat we'll all get!). Some of the arguments were based on an earlier version of the article which seriously deforms the AfD (and is often a problem in these drawn out discussions). Overall there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the is-this-a-random-infinite-meaningless-list (there's the rub) argument. GreyHood commented far more than anyone else in the discussion, but the fact is that said editor makes some good, exhaustive/ing arguments rooted in our guidelines (or at least a completely reasonable interpretation of them). There just isn't a consensus to delete or change the status quo ante based on the indiscriminate/salad (sic) discussion (incidentally Pgallert phrases the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument most persuasively, but it certainly did not overrule other discussion).

A couple of delete supporters invoke a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH argument. The point would seem to be that, in order to limit the list in such a fashion that it does not fall afoul WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a criteria was developed for the list (this happened during the AfD) which said it would be based on other Wikipedia lists and basically nothing else. That's probably a pretty good argument (a counterpoint that List of countries is in the same boat is not entirely persuasively for reasons not worth going into), but it was not developed fully (Quigley probably came the closest) and it certainly did not achieve anything like consensus.

I genuinely had no idea how this ought to be closed when I decided to shut 'er down after a quick glance, but the "no consensus" conclusion seemed pretty inescapable after weighing all of the relevant factors. As I said it isn't satisfying, but that happens.

Because I spent way too much time on this and am annoyed—and because the previous close resulted in unsubtle suggestions that thumbs were pressed on scales—forgive me (or not) if I "editorialize" briefly (the frustration is very much directed generally and at no one in particular). Appropriate given our policies/guidelines or not, I find this list semi-ridiculous, and more importantly the entire process surrounding the deletion discussion über-ridiculous. en.wikipedia is an encyclopedia project with a ton of gaping holes in it, and the fact that we (that means me too—no doubt) spent as much time and effort as we did dealing with this thingy is frankly embarrassing as hell. Good day, and good luck to all of us with whatever this is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS--For a bit of hilarious perspective, I think, check out (if you haven't already) what the article looked like when it was created by none other than the Wiki-notable Simon Pulsifer (also notice the redlink at the bottom of that version—Wikipedia lists were mad different back in 2004 before the Biographies of Living Countries policy came into effect).

List of statistically superlative countries[edit]

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

This list is totally unencyclopedic. There are at least a million other items of similar quality which could be added to it. Kill it before it takes over the world. It has already started to spawn (see List_of_statistically_superlative_objects_by_country). Honestly, I expect this nomination to be defeated by the arguments A) “It's interesting” and B) “It's all referenced”, but I feel the need to at least try to save the world from this mind-numbing dross. The answers are of course A) “Only if you're interested in worthless trivia” and B) “IT'S STILL WORTHLESS TRIVIA”. I apologize for insulting everyone who has contributed to the article, and for shouting. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for your apologize. Truly a rare gift for a Wikipedia rare visitor who is more active in deleting articles, instead of expanding them ;) GreyHood ^Talk 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The page is perfectly encyclopedic, and interesting, indeed. There is however a potential problem with the scope of the list. And instead of so straight and quick deletion proposal, one should have brought this problem on the talk page first, to find a decent solution for it. One such solution may be limiting the scope of the list exclusively to the statistics present in Wikipedia's List of countries, that is to non-trivial and noteworthy statistics approved by the community (at least so far as the lists in question are not deleted). In fact, most of the page currently is composed of links to various Wikipedian list of countries, and the page provides useful summary for them, and there is really no need to remove this summury. GreyHood ^Talk 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the List_of_statistically_superlative_objects_by_country, I created it in order to pipe off non-general and non-statistical records, which some users started to add to the original list. I won't strongly object to deletion of that spawned list. Of course its scope also may be restricted in some reasonable way, like the similar connection to the lists of objects, but still the number of noteworthy objects likely would be dozens and hundreds times higher than the number of noteworthy statistics, and the list could become unmanagable. GreyHood ^Talk 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another possible solution is not modifying the list at all, until it really becames too big, and then splitting it by topic area, like with the old Template:Lists of countries which became too big and eventually was splitted into several templates (see Category:Country list templates). However, I would prefer to have a multi-topic list of countries intact, since it gives certain general picture of a country and an option of multidimensional country comparison. GreyHood ^Talk 22:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite having contributed to this list, I agree with the nominator that it is nothing more than a big list of trivia. It doesn't even allow to do any meangingful comparison since it includes both the worse and the best of each country. For instance, Zimbabwe has 10 entries when the UK only has 5 - what are we supposed to learn from that? Laurent (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we expect to learn anything from the number of entries? (Btw, I'm against the addition of the number column.) We can learn from the statistics, however - being top or bottom at something is considered an important characteristic of a country. Look at most of the Wikipedian articles about major countries - editors typically try to mention the things the country in question is good at. And we can learn from the current list that China is a major producer of many agricultural and industrial products, Russia has a large territory and strong energy sector, the United States has a great prominence in financial sector, Germany is good in sports etc. GreyHood ^Talk 19:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The number column has been removed. GreyHood ^Talk 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a collection of endless trivia with no cohesion. It's basically a directory of "things" a country is best/worst at. Oh, and can we please include an entry for the country with the longest average toenail length? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The criteria for inclusion has been set in the lede of the list. "The country with the longest average toenail length" won't be included unless somebody creates the List of countries by average toenail length and such list is accepted by community. GreyHood ^Talk 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The criteria for inclusion has been set in the lede of the list, in such a way so as to include only notable and non-trivial statistics, approved by the Wikipedian community. Now the list is mostly an extended version of the Lists of countries (with rankings), sorted by the name of the country which is at the top or (in some cases) in the bottom of some ranked country list. GreyHood ^Talk 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, now the list is in now way "unencyclopedic", since it is set to include only the information approved as encyclopedic in the other parts of encyclopedia.
- The list is no longer potentially endless, since there is a finite number of lists of countries and maps with rankings on Wikipedia. GreyHood ^Talk 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure whether re-branding the article as List of Best and Worst Countries in Lists in Wikipedia will work. It makes it very clear that everything references back to Wikipedia and that usually isn't allowed because of WP:CIRCULAR. I thought about this before I nominated the article and my opinion is that we would really need some outside source which discusses “best and worst countries in lists in Wikipedia”. But I'm the nominator and there are widely different views on what should or shouldn't be allowed in List Articles. So maybe someone else can provide an opinion. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how we rename it, the article will remain a big list of random trivias. If this article exists, then why can't we also have a "List of best and worst humans", "List of best and worst dogs", etc. and then we end up with a Guinness Book of Records, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. Laurent (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Best and worst" is misleading, since it may sound as a violation of neutrality. Otherwise, I think this is quite an interesting idea to create the List of statistically superlative people or the List of statistically superlative dogs with the similar inclusion criteria as for the list of countries. Why not? This would be interesting, encyclopedic, handy and quite volume-limited lists. GreyHood ^Talk 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Lists of countries and many technical lists don't require any outside sources, and generally there is no need in single outside source for a list if the criteria for inclusion are clearly defined and the idea behind the list is notable and encyclopedic. And again, now the list of statistically superlative countries is mostly an extended version of the Lists of countries (those with rankings), sorted by the name of the country which is at the top or (in some cases) in the bottom of some ranked country list. In fact, we may even insert the similar table or several tables by topic right into the Lists of countries or into the List of international rankings, changing their format. GreyHood ^Talk 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The artcile is informative and encyclopedic.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article provides valuable and encyclopedic information. (Same goes for the list of statistically superlative objects). In my humble opinion, most of the ratings can be found in other good wiki articles, so unless you can justify deleting the "List of countries by Gross National Income" article or other similar ones, do not try to do it to this one.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP/Delete. I as a contributor to this page, would have liked to keep it for these reasons: the page contains useful information about nations which is difficult to find in one page in other places which is the nature of an encyclopedia, the page has a high traffic volume proving that it is popular on the net, the page is designed to be fun and many school children use it to learn stuff and the page though not proper for a 19th century Encyclopedia Britannica is very much a wikipedia article. Besides the history of the article shows that its size has been very much stable as hardly few entries have been added to it since the past several months, certainly it was not becoming the Godzilla swallowing the world. There are longer articles on wikipedia than this one.

These were my arguments for keeping it. But since today I visited the page, its character has changed. Some one has removed a large portion of entries in the name of triviality. This is wrong. For example the opium production in the world affects the lives of millions of people, kills hundreds of thousands and probably causes hundreds of billion dollars of economic damage to the world. Calling that trivial is none sense. On the other hand the best performance in swimming is trivial. So if the article is going to become a "sanitized" one made palatable for consumption of a few then it should be deleted. I am in favor of its old format, with possible splitting up to different pages if its size goes over 150K. But it is to become a propaganda page in line with "ideologies" of a "few" then its deletion is a better choice.--119.156.25.46 (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the opium hasn't been removed completely, just commented (put into the tags "< !--" and "-->"). The entry is clearly worth of inclusion when compared to the other entries, but according to the criteria for inclusion which I have set (or proposed), the opium production in Afghanistan may be re-added if somebody creates the List of countries by opium production, or finds or draws a map of opium-producing countries (at least the top ones). However, if the majority of editors will agree that the proposed criteria are too strict, and that we may include new entries that are obviously important and in the same league as the entries already in the article - well, OK, it will be easy to de-comment such entries. GreyHood ^Talk 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ideologies" of a "few" has nothing to do here. The article just needs some reasonable criteria to limit its scope. I had hoped to discuss such criteria before single-handedly implementing them, but my proposal was ignored and people kept voting "delete" because the article is possibly an endless list of trivia, so I decided better to limit the scope of the list right now. However, you may propose different or less strict criteria if you like, and de-comment the old entries. GreyHood ^Talk 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, these criteria mean that we're relying on Wikipedia itself both for accuracy and notability for each of the items. Wikipedia just isn't that accurate and isn't a good measure of notability. I just don't know if there are any criteria would work. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the accuracy of the items we may provide external references if there is any particular need. As for the notability, there is no any universal measure of notability, and all content here on Wikipedia presumably follows the lines of the notability in Wikipedia. As long as a list is on Wikipedia and hasn't been deleted, the information in that list is presumed to be notable and encyclopedic. GreyHood ^Talk 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Useful" is a relevant factor for lists. The title is hideously awkward, but I cannot immediately think of a better. The sources are in the linked articles; they can be copied over, but I think it would just make the table harder to read. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful for any purpose of information that I can think of; indiscriminate collection of information in which such gems as "Best performance at Sidecarcross World Championship" are given equal importance to statistics such as "Highest Human Development Index". Sandstein 08:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From DR: People create games based on this list, which is one example of how this information can be used.
On equal importance: if something is listed together with something else, that doesn't necessarily mean that those items are given equal importance. Let's put aside the statistics for a moment - this is a list of countries, but the fact that some smallish countries are listed beside the world powers don't make them all equally important. GreyHood ^Talk 20:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listing notable accomplishments in various fields. Perhaps the Agricultural ones could be in their own article, listing all the accomplishments in that field per nation, and then split off the sports related things, and then other things as well. Get a world view about how different nations are exceeding in various things. Dream Focus 12:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs some more sources, but otherwise it is interesting and everything is notable. So why not have it? A lot of encyclopedias have interesting facts like this listed in one spot.--NavyBlue84 16:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: The discussion was re-opened at this point as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 15#List of statistically superlative countries (closed). The outcome of that deletion review was that the AfD should be re-opened for at least another seven days. The AfD is eligible for closure 168 hours after the following timestamp: --Mkativerata (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this article is a textbook violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no possibility that any meaningful comparison can be drawn between such wildly random properties like "Best performance at Paddle Tennis World Championship", "Largest sisal producer", "Most frigates in operation" and "Highest number of World Heritage Sites". This entire list is meaningless, incoherent WP:TRIVIA, and deciding which of the millions and billions of possible statistics to list is unavoidably original research. Reyk _YO! 03:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been already shown at the DR, that the only point of WP:INDISCRIMINATE which may apply in this case is the Excessive listing of statistics. The main concern of that point is the neatness of the article and its readability. Nobody questioned those so far, and as WP:INDISCRIMINATE suggests, the table format is already used to enhance neatness/readability. As for the volume of statistics, the criteria have been set already in order to make the scope of the list finite, and if some editors still find the volume of statistics "excessive", there is always possibility to impose stricter criteria and delete more not-that-notable entries. This can be done by editing the article and by discussing its improvement on the talk page; this is content dispute and not a good reason for deletion. There is no point in deleting the entire list when the problem can be solved by deleting some parts of it.

The idea that a sprawling, incoherent mess of an article can be excused because it has borders, pretty colours and neat little national flags is abhorrent to me. It's like chrome-plating a turd. Restricting this list to properties that can be meaningfully compared is not the answer because we already have lots of lists like that, which would make this one redundant. Reyk _YO! 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me any other general list which will contain the information on countries which top the most notable international rankings, and I'll agree that this list is redundant (Actually, I've already proposed myself to insert most of valuable information from this list either to the Lists of countries, or to the List of international rankings, but this may result in making the representation format less handier). GreyHood ^Talk 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On comparison: this list doesn't compare "wildly random properties", this is a list of countries, and it provides reader with some means to compare countries. Since the countries of the world differ very much in many ways and are expected to be good or bad at different things, it is quite natural to see very different types of entries in this list.

I maintain my position that there is no meaningful comparison to be drawn between statistics like "Highest lowest point among all countries" and "Winner of most Bandy World Championships (women)". Reyk _YO! 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison of the two suggests that one country is prominent in some sport, and other has a prominent geography. An opposition of the two is mostly pointless, but the combination of such facts can tell us, for example, that China is the largest producer, US is the largest consumer etc. Pretty interesting way to create a general image of the country, and pretty encyclopedic: read almost any Wikipedian article about a (major) country, and you will see that editors try to put into prominence the information about things that country is prominent at. GreyHood ^Talk 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIA is irrelevant here. It deals with Trivia sections of non-list articles, rather than with specific standalone lists. GreyHood ^Talk 20:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go back to WP:TRIVIA and look at the six words in bold at the very start of the guideline. "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." I also suggest that, if you think the spirit of that guideline can be dodged because this list is an entire article rather than just a section of one, that you have a good long read of WP:WIKILAWYER as well. Reyk _YO! 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies. Again, basically the guideline writes that information from the trivia lists should be transformed into good prose as the article is further developed. The first six words are not a good summary of a guideline - there is a nutshell for short summaries, read it please. Thank your for your WP:WIKILAWYER reading advice, but I think that obvious misinterpretation of the letter is not a good companion of supporting the spirit. GreyHood ^Talk 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is irrelevant here. Deciding what should be included into Wikipedia and what should not be included is exactly what editors are expected to do, otherwise the whole of Wikipedia would be OR. GreyHood ^Talk 20:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you misunderstand. When you start generating arbitrary inclusion criteria like the ones at the start of the article, you are beginning to advance positions that are not advanced by any of the sources- and that is original research or synthesis at best. Reyk _YO! 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why arbitrary? What positions do I advance, when I just take together all the ranked lists and maps available on Wikipedia, and sort them by a top country? GreyHood ^Talk 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I'll add that your relentless badgering of all delete !voters is getting tiresome. We were not convinced by your badgering of earlier voters, nor by your badgering at the DRV. What makes you think we're going to suddenly be convinced when you badger us with exactly the same faulty arguments you've made previously? Reyk _YO! 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, show that my arguments are faulty. So far I see mostly the misinterpretation of some WP policies, and the persistent ignoring of the fact, that absolutely nothing prevents us from fixing the problems with this article instead of deleting it. I believe that if all those problems were brought to the article's talk page instead of AfD, they would long have been solved without all those tedious discussions. Unfortunately, I also can say that it is getting a bit tiresome for me to read and answer the same type of arguments all over again. Perhaps this is a wrong way of conduct, but I'm a rare participant of deletion discussions and haven't time to acquire better manners. GreyHood ^Talk 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SALAT, detailing the appropriate topics for stand-alone lists, provides that "lists that are too general or broad in scope [...] have little value". WP:INDISCRIMINATE also bars "long and sprawling lists of statistics" especially where such lists fail to provide sufficient detail to put those statistics into their proper context. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:SALAT - here is the full quote: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. This list's scope already has been limited and can be limited even more, and this list can be sorted by country or by topic/field which is as good as sections.
WP:INDISCRIMINATE is discussed above. Providing details to put statistics into their proper context makes sense only in case of non-list articles. This standalone list has a clear purpose and certain criteria for inclusion. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is relevant here only so far as editors find the volume of statistics "excessive". The problem should be solved like all other content disputes and cases of overgrown articles; it is not a good argument for the deletion of the entire list. GreyHood ^Talk 21:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user looking for the world's largest producers of pears would expect to find the answer at pear; a user looking for Argentina's exports would look at Argentina. What additional encyclopaedic purpose does this list? What possible user query could be answered by this page? Hence WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Re WP:SALAT - this list cannot be broken into non-arbitrary sections, hence it can't satisfy the stand-alone-list critera.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user looking for largest, greatest, smallest, statistically superlative countries would get this list, as well as user who looks for international rankings sorted by top country. Additional encyclopaedic purpose, as it is quite often on Wikipedia, is creating a good general reference page to the most notable statistic superlatives. Above and below I've already given an example of how some people created an on-line game based on this list, which means it is interesting to readers and has some application. As you can see, the list can easily be broken into sections by country or by field, but arguably this will make it less handy. I won't argue against switching the format of the list, but I think it is not a good place and moment to discuss it here and now. GreyHood ^Talk 01:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records or The Complete Book of Lists. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument. The Guiness Book of World Records is irrelevant here. As well as the technical list of Lists of countries, this list doesn't aim to become The _Complete_ Book of Lists. Like in case of all Wikipedian articles and lists, we should try to include only notable enough end encyclopedic information, not all records and not all lists. This list's scope has already been limited, and nothing prevents us from following Wikipedian policies here. GreyHood ^Talk 21:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research, trivia, too broad in scope, indiscriminate, listcruft, take your pick. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA are irrelevant here, see above. The scope has been limited, and the further contraction is possible, which makes the deletion of the entire list pointless because the problem can be solved by deleting just some entries and setting stricter inclusion criteria. WP:INDISCRIMINATE relevance depends exclusively on the scope problem, see above. WP:LISTCRUFT relevance depends on WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA relevance, which means that we again have only the problem of scope here. GreyHood ^Talk 21:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopaedic, violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bob A (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it unencyclopaedic, other than WP:INDISCRIMINATE? For the latter, see above. Further limiting the scope and deleting some entries is the solution, not a deletion of the entire list. GreyHood ^Talk 21:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you expect to see a list like this on a serious encyclopaedia, like Britannica or Brockhaus? Bob A (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't, because as far as I know, Britannica or Brockhaus contain few to none list articles, and it is an advantage of Wikipedia that it has many lists. GreyHood ^Talk 01:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both an excessive list of statistics and synthesis, because it takes each 'superlative' from its own source and not one source that reliably covers the subject. Quigley (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessiveness can be dealt with by editing, not by complete deletion of the list.
On WP:SYN: there is no any general requirement for WP:LISTS to be based on one single source. More to say, many technical lists of lists don't need sources at all. This list is no more WP:SYN than Lists of countries or the entire Wikipedian collection of lists in the Category:Lists of countries. In this case it is possible, however, to cover most of the entries in the discussed list by few reliable general sources, such as the CIA World Factbook, NationMaster, FAOSTAT and perhaps several others. No problem with that. GreyHood ^Talk 21:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is focusing on the article's current state, and there's a consensus that as written there's too much in the way of trivia. I agree: it can't be retained in its current form. However, the discussion has yet to consider whether a process of selective trimming and removing the trivia could bring the article into compliance with policy. It's essential that this is done before deletion would be appropriate. AfD isn't about what the content is today; AfD is about considering an article's potential in the light of the sources.
It doesn't help that this list doesn't have the right title for the subject and we might want to think about what the list should really be called. My own view is that there's potentially encyclopaedic material here, but it may also be redundant with other lists we already have. I wonder whether the correct outcome is a redirect to the List of international rankings.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the present state of the List of international rankings, it seems redirecting the List of international rankings to the List of statistically superlative countries has more sense in terms of usefulness. Also, I think that perhaps the List of statistically superlative countries can be renamed into something like List of top international rankings by country or List of international rankings by top country. GreyHood ^Talk 22:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT, unclear inclusion criterion. Not to mention ambiguous title: "statistically superlative", what does that mean? Apparently any random subject where a country is in some way exceptionnal is enough. That is too broad in scope, and meaningless altogether. Repeated entries galore! I mean, did you know that China is the country with the largest population? With the largest ethnic Chinese population? The highest proportion of ethnic Chinese in the population? The largest number of Mandarin speakers? The largest number of Cantonese speakers? It's also the largest country in Asia that is not also part of another continent? The country with the largest wild population of pandas? The largest wild population of Chinese alligators? Pick a country, any country, and start counting its "statistical superlatives". You can come up with an arbitrary number of them in no time.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALAT is irrelevant, see above. The title most likely will be changed, we've already started the discussion. The scope may be broad - OK, lets make it even more limited and restricted, but why delete the list? And couldn't you see that even according to the criteria already set for the list, most if not all of your example statistics shouldn't be added to the list? Adding "an arbitrary number of them in no time" hardly ever occured for the last year, and many attempts to add trivial statistics were reverted as non-notable. GreyHood ^Talk 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You think seem to be the only one to think WP:SALAT is irrelevant. The article still serves no purpose. Make separate list articles if they don't exist already. There's no point in a completely arbitrary collection of "statistical superlatives". We have a bunch of List of countries with specific purposes. This one has none. But if WP:SALAT is not the right guideline according to you, how about WP:NOTDIR? You can't get more loosely associated topics than this. --137.122.49.102 (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article serves to identify which countries are at the top of the international rankings present on Wikipedia. A minor thing, but still an example that there is a point in this collection of "statistical superlatives": people create games based on this list. Then, the collection is not arbitrary, at least no more arbitrary than average Wikipedian article which usually tries to reflect the most notable facts about its subject instead of collecting all possible data. Here we also have an attempt to collect only the most notable statistics. If there are some flaws in the collection, this can be fixed by editing the list. As for the WP:NOTDIR, let's quote its first point which you apparently are talking about:
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
Core topic: notable international rankings. Sorting by top country is a format, not a topic. Listing all possible superlatives is not an aim. GreyHood ^Talk 00:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB. I kindly advice the following for the people here:

Before voting, make sure you have carefully read
- The current inclusion criteria in the list, at the top of the page
- Previous votes in this discussion, answers to them and other comments
(Reading the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 15 also may be of some help to those who haven't participated in it.)
As S Marshall have pointed out, we should consider not only the current state of the article but also the ways of improving it, since AfD isn't about what the content is today; AfD is about considering an article's potential. GreyHood ^Talk 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors should also note that Greyhood is the only user to have made a keep argument since the relisting, and not be misled by the fact that his contibutions have a higher word count than everyone else combined. (They're not bad contributions, mind, being both polite and referring to policy, and he's entitled to make them, but it's a mite disconcerting to realise all this argument is only against one user.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not misrepresent the situation, please. The keep votes made before the relisting still should be taken into account, and there were plenty of people on the DR discussion that were against deletion of this article. I'm not the only proponent of keeping the list, and all this argument is not only against one user. I've just been the most active editor here so far, and judging by your reaction, I was a bit too much active ;) GreyHood ^Talk 00:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though that way of arguing has been contested before, WP:INDISCRIMINATE indeed is the right policy to cite to delete this creation. Because what it means is "List of statistically superlative countries under any criterion", and that's just not acceptable. Please also note the following quote from WP:NOT: "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.", which is linked to WP:BEANS. So it is not the case that excessive statistics would be the only violation that could possibly apply. --Pgallert (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflicted, but placed here in order to keep the chronology of posts) Well, DustFormsWords, the numbers aren't really relevant. It's the arguments. The fact that GreyHood is the only person saying what he's saying doesn't mean that he's wrong.
Where GreyHood is wrong is when he says "there were plenty of people on the DR discussion that were against deletion of this article", because DRV is not about that. Decisions about whether to delete belong at AfD. The DRV decides whether the AfD was correctly conducted. There was a widespread view at the DRV that the AfD needed to be more thorough and rigorous, with !votes on both the "keep" and "delete" sides needing to be disregarded for being little more than a statement of opinion with a vague handwave towards a policy. (To my amazement, users who have contributed since the DRV are still doing this.) But that does not mean that users at DRV were opposed to the deletion of this article. What it means is that they were opposed to its deletion based on the previous debate alone.
Quigley's remark, above, is very pertinent and needs to be taken seriously. Quigley is right to say that the article as presently written is a novel synthesis, which means it cannot be kept in its current form. However, could this be solved by selective trimming?—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right of course that DRV was about the correctness of AfD closing. But naturally, the merits of the article and arguments for its deletion simply had to be discussed there as well. That's why I'm right in asserting that there were people on the DRV discussion that were against deletion of this article, at least against deletion on the basis of arguments presented up to that moment, including the application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While I agree that this policy may be applied here to show the drawbacks of this article and to demand its improvement, I do not agree that it is a good basis for deletion. GreyHood ^Talk 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to Quigley was that there is no any general requirement for WP:LISTS to be based on one single source, that many technical lists of lists don't need sources at all, and that there is a possibility to cover the entire collection of lists by a very limited number of general sources. Where am I wrong? GreyHood ^Talk 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposal to discuss the following scheme, which may lead to improvement of this article and perhaps several other articles as well. This is also an attempt to answer the last question from S Marshall.

1)We go to the Lists of countries and expand it with the lists mentioned in the current List of statistically superlative countries, specifying which country is at the top of a list. This would result in a purely technical list of Wikipedian lists of countries, sorted by topic area. No any WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:SALAT.
2)We go to the List of international rankings and expand it with the lists mentioned in the current List of statistically superlative countries, specifying which country is at the top of a list. This would result in a purely technical list of international rankings on Wikipedia, sorted by topic area. No any WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:SALAT.
3)We rename the List of statistically superlative countries to the List of top international rankings by country. We drop the table format, because the sorting by topic area would be already accessible at the Lists of countries and the List of international rankings. So we make a simple plain list sorted by country. No any WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:SALAT, just another version of a technical list of ranked lists of countries sorted by top country.

A technical question: is renaming of an article appropriate during an AfD discussion? Does it mean that an AfD discussion should be renamed as well? GreyHood ^Talk 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased you asked the question rather than just doing it! Please don't rename the article during the AfD, it's potentially disruptive because it can break templates that are supposed to direct interested users to this discussion. There's no urgency to rename it. If there's a consensus that it needs to be renamed then that should be done by the closing administrator at the end of the discussion (although I'm going to propose a different solution in a minute).
Your answer to Quigley is that WP:SYN doesn't apply to a navigational list. (This is quite logical. It can't be a synthesis if there's no thesis!) However, I think there's more to the article's present content than a navigational list. As it grows and changes, this list is acquiring a thesis over time.
I think the subject you're actually writing about is achievements by country. In other words, the list shows that most countries are at the top of some league table, somewhere, and some countries are at the top of quite a few league tables in different categories. I do think that's potentially an encyclopaedic subject, and this list provides an index to it. The list could be of value to someone doing research. In that sense it's navigational. However I can't see any objective criteria for including an item on the list. I think you're trying to address that with your latest suggestion.
I agree that a revamp along the lines that you suggest would be a big step towards making this material suitable for the mainspace, but I don't think we're quite there yet, and I think the best outcome now would be for the closer to userfy this material to GreyHood. Let GreyHood make the changes he suggests in his own time and then move this list back into the mainspace -- when it has a more suitable name, clear criteria for inclusion, and otherwise addresses the various problems this AfD has identified -- in his own time.—S Marshall T/C 17:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't accept this your userfy proposal if the article was not already deleted/restored. The deletion resulted in loss of many links to this article from other Wikipedian articles and templates, which were deleted after the article was deleted. But now the harm has been already done, and there is indeed some point in userfying the article, ~~deleting it from the mainspace,~~ fixing and reshaping it in the user space, and posting it again to the mainspace under different name. I have already copied the article into my userspace, and I'm not going to be very active at this discussion anymore. GreyHood ^Talk 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, I am not sure that I'll revamp the article in a short time, and it has been shown during this discussion that the article was found useful both by Wikipedia editors and outside. That's why I think the result of this discussion should not be delete, but rather revamp and rename, with preserving the current version of the article in the mainspace. ~~Then, if the article is not revamped in some reasonable time, it should be quick-deleted.~~ GreyHood ^Talk 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're suggesting that wether or not to delete this is based on what the article would look like later on? I don't think that's a very good keep/delete argument, since the criteria for keeping or deleting. If a topic does deserve inclusion, then it's worth keeping, even if it's article is terrible (unless said article has content that cannot be preserved like copyright violations). If a topic doesn't deserve inclusion, it's article should be deleted, regardless of the article's quality. NotARealWord (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll retract that part of the proposal. I have suggested it just as an attempt to reach some consensus and avoid further tedious discussions, but now I see that it only brings more controversy. GreyHood ^Talk 20:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My initial position was that the article needs improvement, but there was no point in deleting it. Basically I agree with the approach to deletion/keeping which you have described, but unfortunately so far this discussion focused mostly on the current state of the article, and the article was actually deleted without conclusive proof that it can't be amended. For many editors, there seems to be a problem here with understanding what is the point of this article, and whether the scope can be reasonably restricted. This problem is enhanced by not very good title, which can't be changed during the AfD because of technical reasons. GreyHood ^Talk 20:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure pages can be moved during an AfD. Like when list of spoilers was moved when it's AfD was still ongoing.

Keep I do not think this page should be deleted. Wikipedia's ideals clearly call for a body of knowledge accessible and informative being free of cost. This knowledge can be in different presenting formats, such as this page, making the knowledge more comparative. I have not read anywhere that the information on this page is wrong or baseless. So if the page contains data why delete it. The page is clearly amongst the popular articles of wikipedia as evident by its usage stats. I think the rigid structure does not help. Information must be fun and presentable. Wikipedia's goal was to build a database for those who could not afford it and I do not see how deletion of a comparative list helps that goal. --119.153.97.89 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started off thinking this was trivial crap and ended up finding it really interesting. Not least Egypt (Largest date producer - but that's all) and Somalia (7,000,000 camels for goodness sake!) and the very smug Scandinavians (so frightfully free and democratic and gender neutral etc etc etc). If only all the tedious sporting trophy nonsense could be deleted. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:07, 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) 01:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ramos[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 20:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'd just have to re-do the article in two months anyway; not sure what deletion would accomplish, exactly. Subject is notable under our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, along with all the other elected state legislators nominated for deletion. I added the template with the ProjectVoteSmart and FollowTheMoney links filled out - which SHOULD have been added BEFORE the election. I have no problem with these articles per se, but when they're little more than material from the campaign site while ignoring nonpartisan material.... However, I have a much bigger problem with WuhWuzDat's apparent attempt to make trouble (and cause everyone else a lot of extra work) by trying to get these articles deleted. Can we all please focus on our mission of being an encyclopedia? Flatterworld (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the personal attack in the above comment. You have no knowledge of my intentions here. WuhWuzDat 20:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't born yesterday and I didn't fall off a turnip truck today. Anyone who creates a whole series of AfDs has some 'splaining to do, Lucy. See more general discussion here. Go ahead and resent what you call a 'personal attack ' - I deeply resent being forced to spend time dealing with this sort of thing. Flatterworld (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your birth date, and whatever experiences you may have had with large vehicles hauling root vegetables, no one "FORCES" you to do anything here, this is a volunteer effort by all of us. If you feel forced, perhaps you have been spending too much time here. WuhWuzDat 06:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following your practice, I suppose I should claim I consider that a 'personal attack' and threaten you with being blocked. Whatever. Flatterworld (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ashford[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 20:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'd just have to re-do the article in two months anyway; not sure what deletion would accomplish, exactly. Subject is notable under our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Milkovich[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets our criteria for notability, and there's no good reason to delete when we'll just have to redo the article in two months. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:05, 8 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 13:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger Suite[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This previously deleted article (old entry), was recreated. It is an unreferenced and possibly promotional software article with no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising, I'm having a hard time just understanding what exactly this thing does. ~~Part~~ Most of the page is just lifted (!) off of the official web site. Does not appear to be notable. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yummy spam. Not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ~~as copyright violation~~; this is directly cut and pasted from the official website. So tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since that comment, the copyright violation version was replaced by another text that at least is original. The AfD message was removed in the process; I put it back. Were this a business or organization, the current version should still be speedily deleted for failing to make a subminimal claim of importance. This is utility software for Windows network administrators. The current version is entirely unreferenced, and as such contains unreferenced statements disparaging this product (for slowness of updates) and the parent business, claiming that it is in financial trouble. Still should be deleted, and probably speedily deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 10 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 13:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bioefficeology[edit]

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

Non-notable, newly coined neologism. E. Fokker (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO and WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guoguo12's reasoning, plus WP:OR. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term was coined during an environmental design class taught by Dr. Robert Schutzki in the fall of 2010.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try again in five years, when it has replaced other terms as predicted. —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is obviously not a widely used term that is out there in the lexicon of the english language. It appears to be a neologism WP:NEO, and as such is unsupported OR. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:50, 8 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 13:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Prophet (India)[edit]

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

Non-notable person per WP:PEOPLE. No reliable sources. Vipinhari || talk 18:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notable WP:BAND. Heck, maybe even speediable as WP:CSD#A7 for not even making a claim of notability. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per WP:BAND. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As above, not notable at all Ashman05 (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:51, 8 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 all. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Canada[edit]

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

Useless page. WP:CFORK, for one, unnecessary duplication of extant Wikipedia content (Index of Canada-related articles, List of Canada-related topics by provinces and territories) for another. →ROUX ₪ 18:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This outline is substantially different from the two given links. It's a navigational page, and it serves its purpose well for those who choose to use this style of navigation. Deleting it because of your dislike for outlines isn't in the best interests of our readers (many of whom do not find it useless, as is evidenced by page view statistics), and the readers should always be our first priority, despite personal editorial preferences. -- œ ^™ 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks to be very well organized and helpful in the manner it was intended. The outline is much easier to navigate then the Index of Canada-related articles that only list articles alphabetically. I would say the Index could go and leave the outline (but actually see that its nice to let our editors chose what style they would like to utilizes). As i would guess some like the index with ABC order and others like the Outline with TOPIC order. Moxy (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Outline of Canada and Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Outline of Canada.Moxy (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as if the comments from editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Outline of Canada are in any doubt. This skates really close to WP:CANVASS. → ROUX ₪ 22:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note at the relevant wikiproject is in no way canvassing. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note at the wikiproject whose only reason for existence is to create these ridiculous pages, over any and all objections that have been raised, guarantees a flood of votes that are quite predictable. Notifying Wikiprojects which actually cover a subject area is quite a different animal; such Wikiprojects are dedicated to good content. The OOK wikiproject is dedicated to making and keeping outlines at all costs. → ROUX ₪ 01:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notice mentioned was posted at WP:CANADA, which is where I saw it. There's not enough people even visiting the WPOOK page for it to matter as "canvassing"; but any relevant WikiProject applies to what Quiddity has observed; perhaps WikiPRoject Lists and maybe WikProject Disambiguation should be notified too....Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per OE. These are navigational pages. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, which widely rejected the notion that there was anything fundamentally wrong with "navigational" pages. Not all outlines are perfect (not all articles are perfect), but IDONTLIKEIT counts for nothing, and is akin to the "I hate infoboxes" perspective. (Personally, I dislike the "index" articles, unless they're maintained by a bot, but that's just me). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And right here we have the fundamental problem with these nonsense pages and the walled garden in which their proponents operate. Despite clear policy-based reasons given in the nomination, you persist on calling it WP:IDONTLIKEIT. → ROUX ₪ 22:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Outline" or rename to "List of Canada-related articles by topic". I previously supported deletion of the outline, but seeing the other two alternatives above, I see that this is a useful way of presenting the same content. However, the title of the article should be clear as to what the article is (a list), rather than a vague "outline" (which sounds, to me, like nothing more than the stamp of WP:OOK). I don't see any benefit to using the wiki-term "outline" rather than the simple English words "list of". -M.Nelson (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS, does anyone know why List of Canada-related topics by provinces and territories uses the word "topics" rather than "articles"? In my opinion, that one would be better off renamed to "articles". -M.Nelson (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) The name "outline" is based on the standard type of Outline (summary) (see definitions #4 and #5 at wiktionary:outline), and also derived from the Propædia of which the core is titled "Outline of Knowledge". Plus, read the short History section at the RfC, to see that all these pages were originally titled "Foo basic topics", which some people objected to.

2) The majority of these generalist lists were originally all grouped into List of topics, and List of basic topics (circa 2001-2005). See the Portal:Contents page, circa 2005. So most items that are a "list of articles" have been renamed or created after that period. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since these are being governed by rules such as WP:LIST and discussions such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, we should call it a list outright (furthermore, um, it is a list...). While there are WP policies guiding lists, there are no WP policies guiding "outlines". I've amended my !vote to say that while I support a list, I strictly oppose an "outline". -M.Nelson (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this section: there are dozens of Featured Lists that don't have the word "list" in their titles. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples on that page of lists without "list of" are single articles, not entire categories of articles. By using the word "outline" we're creating a whole new category (or perhaps subset) of articles, distinct from WP:LIST etc. Outlines should not be distinct from any other navigational lists (as there is no policy guiding this new category), and there is no reason for the different wording that creates this distinction. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They all used to have barely-distinguishable titles (Some still do. See: Lists of mathematics topics (a "list of lists", previously Featured), List of topics in mathematics (an "outline"), and List of mathematics articles (an "index"), which were heavily discussed a few months ago), and the effort to rename them as distinct groups has led to more awareness of their existence. Outlines (aka "basic topic lists") have existed since 2001, but the last few years of effort to improve and expand them, has led to some of this backlash.
There are no guidelines or policies governing "indexes" or "glossaries" or "lists of lists" either, and a few editors also have strong negative perspectives towards those types of list. Only 1 editor has issues with the existence of "lists of lists", afaik
Personally, I think some of them are a bad idea (eg Outline of Google), but this one, and some of the other outlines of major topics are educational by themselves, and unsurpassed as a navigational method through a topic (Eg. outline of cell biology, which was primarily created by User:Earthdirt a biologist/highschoolteacher). -- Quiddity (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In as much as I agree that these Outlines lists are nothing more than duplications of other lists, I'm well aware that actually getting one deleted is about as difficult as swimming up a waterfall. So, count this as the token agreement for Roux's position, at the very least. Reso lute 20:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, there's overlap/duplication, but I much prefer the Outlines format to that used in List of Canada-related topics by provinces and territories. The Outline is a useful navigation assist - worth keeping. PK T(alk) 21:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the fact that there's this page of guidelines helps to support retaining it. PK T(alk) 22:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like this essay better: Wikipedia:Delete the junk. (Yes, I know that essay is talking about a different specific scenario, but the title fits my opinion. In both cases, they are just essays, not guidelines or policies.) Reso lute 22:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for finding the use of the page written by Outlines supporters to justify the existence of their hobby unpersuasive as to its lack of bias. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as WP:INFOBOX is written by editors who support those. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly irrelevant to this discussion. → ROUX ₪ 01:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's still an essay, the majority of which was written by one editor. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplication. If you prefer this form as a navigational assistance then do the hard work of getting community consensus so that there aren't three or four parallel methods with none of them up-to-date and three or four times the work to maintain them all. Also, Outline of Canada sounds like it has something to do with the shape of the borders.Dingo1729 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep There is no valid reason to delete any of the outlines, which serve the useful fucntion of organizing topics by subject/hierarchy and bear no similarity or duplication to alphabetical lists. An alphabetical list and a layout by topic area are two entirely different things. In helping with the Outline of British Columbia, the building of the hierarchy helped reveal holes in the coverage of British Columbia topics in ways any of the list pages referenced here cannot compete with - partly because certain topics were redlinked, indicating the need for said articles, which would not have been revealed by the alphabetical lists. For readers, also, they provide a condnsed overview of subject matter/articles that is not readily available on title articles like Canada or British Columbia. I've seen a lot sillier things tolerated on Wikipedia, whether original research confabulations or compilations of trivia, pass deletion discussion for no reason other than someone found them interesting, and someone else found them useful for linkability. This is far more than that; it's a digest of topics, not a list, and for people wanting to know the basics about Canada without having to wade through the main Canada article or surf categories, it's very very very useful. Point me to something that contains the "duplication" of what's on the Outline, I'll give you a banana. But don't point at one of the lists, because this isn't duplication; it's organization, not alphabetization.Skookum1 (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks just like how other Outline pages are formatted, which is different from the two other pages suggested. It is also named like other outline articles. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Looks like' is irrelevant. 'Contains the same information as is what matters here. → ROUX ₪ 07:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I mention below, I don't think Outlines should exist in Articlespace (or Indices for that matter) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think all Outline articles should be moved to another namespace, like Portal: or Wikipedia: or a new "Outline:" namespace. And all index articles as well (Portal, Wikipedia or "Index:" ) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have discussed that, on various occasions, most recently at section 2.19.2.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists. Any idea that tries to address "these aren't proper articles, damnit!", needs to account for "lists of lists" (eg Lists of people) and "year articles" (eg 1957) and glossaries (eg Severe weather terminology (United States)). More background and examples are here. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they don't. Moving the goalposts again; this is an AFD for a specific page.→ ROUX ₪ 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion How about moving all "Outline" articles to the Book-namespace? If a "Book:" is a list of articles in an order that can be printed to create a book, isn't that similar to what an Outline lists? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea, that I'd previously hoped might work, and I did investigate. However, outlines are generally far too large. See details on the general problem here. I had even used the Canada topic as a specific example, see Book_talk:Canada#Size_estimate. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplication Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfectly reasonable outline as it is, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge is a strong movement. This AfD is uncalled for. Davemnt (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a member of Wikipedia's set of outlines. Wikipedia has an outline on every nation of the world. Please keep the set intact! The country outlines share a common format, with the material on each country presented in the same order, to provide a familiarity for ease of browsing (the second country outline you browse uses the same format as the first one you browsed), and to make it easy to compare countries. There would be an awkward gap in the set if we deleted this page, not just because we'd be missing a country, but because a branch with sub-branches would be gone. On the knowledge tree, Outline of Canada fits between Outline of North America and the outlines for the provinces of Canada. So far, for the provinces we have Outline of British Columbia and Outline of Saskatchewan. If you delete this outline, it would be like having the 50 outlines on the American states without having an Outline of the United States. Plus, there are some other reasons for keeping the Outline of Canada:
- In Wikipedia, it's the most comprehensive list on Canada
- It provides the best topical overview of Canada on Wikipedia, and maybe even on the World Wide Web.
- It is well on its way to being completed. For examples of well-refined country outlines, see Outline of Japan, Outline of Iceland, Outline of Thailand, and Outline of the United Kingdom (to name just a few).
- It has editors dedicated to making it even better.
- It's like a table of contents for Canada on Wikipedia, and part of the outline subsystem of Wikipedia's content navigation system.

The Transhumanist 22:24, 8 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 13:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossfire (magazine)[edit]

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

This is a student publication at a university, but no independent reliable sources have been provided to establish notability. I recommend that the page be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails the general notability guideline. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and per general precedent against articles for student activity at a single school. Even the article implies it was never notable and admits it's in decline now due to lack of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 9 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 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice (student newspaper)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Subject is a newspaper published twice-monthly by and for the ~1460 students of Avondale College that fails the general notability guideline. The only reference in the article at this time is a primary source. Searches indicate most available sources are the newsletter's website and facebook page. If the article creator can add sources between now and when this AfD is due to close, I'll be happy to withdraw the nom, but right now it's not looking good. AussieLegend (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to creating content and was wondering why this publication is any less notable than some of the other Australian Student Newspapers? Go check them all out, only a few of them have references from notable sources and some of the ones that do have notable references have done so in a sketchy kind of way. This is my first attempt at creating content for Wikipedia and I would like to learn what I need to include to have this article stay, could someone please tell me?Trent McCrow (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize that this is not the answer you were hoping for, I've just nominated Crossfire (magazine) (from Deakin University) for deletion, because that article has similar problems involving a lack of independent reliable sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that on the grounds of notoriety and references a number of the student newspapers currently on Wikipedia should also go under this deletion process. What I would like to know is if there is a notable former editor or if a story was covered elsewhere would this suffice to keep the article? Ie. What does an article require for it to stay on Wikipedia? Trent McCrow (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per the general notability guideline, which I've linked above as well, subjects require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Note that notability is not inherited, so a former editor being notable does not make the newspaper notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided to suggest that this newspaper is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, no proof of notability. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 18:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've now read some more of the guidelines in relation to notability and believe I can find some things within seven days. Trent McCrow (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student activity at a single school, neither notable or verifiable. Trent McCrow seems pretty sure they can fix it somehow, but I really can't imagine how that might be possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan. Note that if for some reason this is kept, it must be renamed since there are a large number of schools that publish The Voice. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Newbold[edit]

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

politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows significant, independent coverage by reliable sources. Will soon hit additional threshold of WP:POLITICIAN. Not a good idea, in my view, to delete now. Cullen328 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'd just have to re-do the article in two months anyway; not sure what deletion would accomplish, exactly. Subject is notable under our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brenner[edit]

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

politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he was just elected to state legislature. Cullen328 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Cullen - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Patmon[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is notable since he has been elected to a state legislature. Cullen328 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Anielski[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she's notable as a state legislator elect. Cullen328 (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, she merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'd just have to re-do the article in two months anyway; not sure what deletion would accomplish, exactly. Subject is notable under our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since she's won, and state legislators are notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dovilla[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable independent sources available through Google News. Not a good idea in general, in my opinion, to delete articles about new state legislators. Improve these articles, don't delete them. Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally agree that members of state legislatures are inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN. DIDouglass (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'd just have to re-do the article in two months anyway; not sure what deletion would accomplish, exactly. Subject is notable under our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SUPERKEEP: please apply this !vote to all recently elected state legislator AfDs.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Gonzales[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a former mayor, current city council member and newly elected to the state legislature. How is the encyclopedia improved by deleting this article instead of expanding and improving it? Cullen328 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per WP:POLITICIAN. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:19, 10 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 WP:POLITICIAN is a subject-specific guideline that presumes notability for "members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". In this case, the person was elected to his state legislature on November 2, and is scheduled to be sworn in to office as one of the members of that legislature two months from now. Although one could make the point that a state representative-elect is, technically, not yet entitled to a stand-alone Wikipedia article, there would be no question of the application of policy in January. Anyone may ask for deletion review, and nomination may be made again in January if the scheduled entry into the legislature does not take place. Mandsford 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Duffey[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because newly elected members of state legislatures are clearly notable under WP:POLITICIAN when sworn in. There is no benefit to deleting this set of articles now. Instead, improve them and expand them over time. Cullen328 (talk)
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stinziano[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I believe that being elected to a state legislature makes a person notable. Improve rather than deleting. Cullen328 (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'd just have to re-do the article in two months anyway; not sure what deletion would accomplish, exactly. Subject is notable under our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Henne[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is improved by having articles about state legislators. This entire set of articles are the rough beginnings of articles that will be useful to their constituents and other interested readers for years to come. Improve these articles, expand them and add reliable sources. Don't delete them. Cullen328 (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Slaby[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is a long time prosecutor and judge, and has now been elected to the state legislature. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Roegner[edit]

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

Politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she won an election to a state legislature, which, in my view, is a notable accomplishment. Cullen328 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McKenney (Ohio)[edit]

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

politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Wikipedia editors need to be writing articles about newly elected legislators, not deleting the ones that have been started. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are normally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Since this person has won election, he merely needs to stay alive for two more months to achieve that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'd just have to re-do the article in two months anyway; not sure what deletion would accomplish, exactly. Subject is notable under our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:55, 8 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 13:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henoc John Mukendi[edit]

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

Contested PROD; non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG, as the subject has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Guoguo12 --Talk-- 14:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable 16year old kid footballer, fails WP:NSPORTS, fails WP:GNG, was WP:G5 candidate as a creation by User:Alex latham sockpuppet.--ClubOranje^T 09:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Zanoni (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Without any first team appearances for Liverpool or other significant coverage, he clearly fails all relavent notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 12 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, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony fennell[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate sufficient notability, merely listing a few commercials in which the actor has appeared, and no mention of any substantive roles, However, SD templates are being deleted by an Anon IP (not the account used to create the article), so perhaps more discussion is called for. Anaxial (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - An anon IP removing a CSD is almost certainly the creator trying to game the system and the csd should be restored and the editor warned. Further, to this, no supporting references supplied or found. --Triwbe (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Earlier versions of the article claim movie roles, yet IMDB does not list him in those movies. Earlier versions also claim appearances in TV shows, yet googling for his name and the names of the shows find nothing. So at best he has appeared as an uncredited extra. No sources, no evidence of notability. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tagged if for speedy deletion because it doesn't even seem to assert notability. Grafen (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sources at all, no notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Now subject to puerile defamation. JNW (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No sources cited. A Google search produces Facebook, linkedin, bebo, imdb Wikipedia, etc etc, but no reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, possible hoax. The person of this name on IMDB is an assistant cameraman on two movies made in Texas when this UK Anthony Fennell would have been about 14. Unlikely that's the same person, and not notable even if it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:34, 9 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 13:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choroszucha identity[edit]

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

Original research r.e.b. (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject of the article was posted last month to Richard Choroszucha's personal homepage, and then added as a Wikipedia article shortly thereafter by a user named User:Rchoroszucha. This is clear original research. Needless to say, there are no relevant Google scholar or Google books hits for "Choroszucha identity" (or variants thereof). Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Salix (talk): 16:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I've probably seen this in standard vector-calculus books. It's a product rule. There are lots of product rules, and they all say the same thing except that each is adapted to the particular situation. It says just what you would expect it to say. If it's a valid novel contribution, Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum; there are journals for that. Naming it after a person should be done only in publications that follow that initial publication, unless an author wants to be bold and name it after himself in his initial publication in a journal; for all I know maybe that actually happens sometimes. But Wikipedia is not the place for that; we're supposed to write about things that are already out there. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I think I may not have seen this one before. I think the part that I might not have anticipated without thinking it through was the particular form of the matrix, referred to as the "matrix form of the cross product". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After Michael Hardy's explanation, I agree Wikipedia is not the place for this yet. Thank you.Rchoroszucha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete searches indicate this is original research, and as has been said above, does not belong on Wikipedia. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per MH. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Pakistan[edit]

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

This article started off as nothing more than a partisan screed and was quickly prod'ed. A well-meaning editor has tried to clean it up, but in the process has left an article that says nothing. I would redirect it to Pakistan, but there is no useful content to merge to the main article, and the main article does not contain a "Corruption" section. I believe that leaving this article to be expanded would just invite more partisan bickering. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and the current content is a stub which seems easy to expand in accordance with our editing policy. I shall provide a further demonstration. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all this will wind up being is a laundry list of criticisms of Pakistan. Corruption exists in every nation of the world, but I fail to see the topic itself as worthy of an article. There are no doubt many sources that will tell stories of corruption in Pakistan, as Warden is no doubt preparing to regurgitate into the article as we speak. But sourcing isn't the issue here; giving undue weight to critics is. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Politics of Pakistan. I agree with User:Tarc in that "corruption exists in every nation of the world". However, the meager amount of information in the article can be merged into a larger article instead of deleted. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 14:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. User:CMBJ has drastically improved the article. Thanks! Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other similar pages, such as "Corruption in India" - clearly this article is not good enough at the moment and requires much more work and preferably some additional sources, but the subject matter is notable and there are similar articles already established. Ashman05 (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Guoguo12; I originally seconded the prod when this was nothing more than POV, but with some information a merge to a larger article is best to keep this from becoming a political bickering ground and keep the sourced info. This definitely has potential, but would be best suited to inclusion in a main article for now. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has well exceeded the Heymann Standard thanks to the hard work of editors (esp. CMBJ) adding content; it is now well suited to be a stand alone article and would even be cumbersome to merge now. Thus, I change my !vote to keep. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This article seems to be similar to the history section of the Pakistan article. I don't think any info could be taken from this article and merged into the Pakistan article. However there are 3 good sources that could be used in the Pakistan article if nothing else! I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering that a plethora of credible literature highlights the Government of Pakistan as being among the most corrupt governments in the world, it seems that this is an excellent topic for inclusion in a modern encyclopedia. — C M B J 21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After review, I have changed my mind to merge with Politics of Pakistan. I agree with User:Tarc. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 23:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the results of this study by Transparency International:

General government: "Bribery has become so much part of the system that in all the seven sectors under study the demand was directly made by the office / person involved, a negotiator or middleman was hardly needed."
Public utilities: "Corruption was faced even after obtaining [electrical utility service] by 96% respondents. Billing department employees & Meter readers appeared to be the most involved persons. Corruption in billing has two aspects. Consumers also tries to adjust their bills through illegal means & on the other side inflated bills are made deliberately to harass the consumers."
Taxation: "With the exception of two respondents, the remaining 254 remembered some sort of corruption being faced, tax officer appeared to be the most involved. 32% had paid for the reduction of tax assessed. Nearly 14% said that their assessment was absolutely fictitious, and they had to pay bribery for proper adjustment."
Public hospitals: "Obtaining of medicines appeared to be the most corrupt area. Health staff such as Dispensers, Technicians even Sweepers were mentioned as the main actors of corruption by 65% respondents, 24% mentioned about the Doctors also being involved. All respondents were of the opinion that without tips & gifts no attention was given and this sort of bribery is exhorted as a normal process. On an average Rs.905 was spent as bribery per respondent."
Public education: "The experience of 70% respondents for admission has not been of fair practice, 42% said that some sort of donation was made compulsory prior to admission, followed by usage of influential relative or friend i.e sifarish."
Courts: "96% faced some sort of corrupt practice by the court officials & clerks. Even witness demanded money for appearance. Judges have also been quoted to take bribe. One respondent said he paid One Lac in a murder case to the judiciary."

Corrupt public utilities. Corrupt hospitals. Corrupt colleges. Corrupt courts. There's no way you can describe all of this in Politics of Pakistan. — C M B J 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every nation can have its own corruption article if it doesn't already. Corruption in Canada and Corruption in the United States both list links to notable corruption cases covered in Wikipedia. After Colonel Warden reduced it to a stub, I don't see a reason why it was then nominated for deletion. It can be expanded into an article. People have already started to add notable cases to it. I'd be surprised if any nation didn't have corruption happen in it at sometimes. Click the Google news and Google book search at the top of the AFD, and you can easily find some results. Dream Focus 23:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that fitting in a corruption section to Politics of Pakistan would be appropriate. Perhaps a shortened version with a redirect to the main corruption article might be appropriate. I have noticed that in the corruption articles that User: Dream focus mentioned, the one on the USA is in list format with some problems. Not saying that it's a bad article, just that I don't think these types of articles rank very high in someone's priority list. Just saying. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 01:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have attempted to rectify the article with the nominator's concerns in mind. — C M B J 05:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chatter 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable and often in the news. If the article has partisan POV statements in it, then just delete those statements. SnottyWong ^chatter 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable by any standard; it is a topic who saw a whole book dedicated on it in 1965 and other newer entries directly about the whole subject. POV problems are not solved by deletion but by editing, per deletion policy. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep well known ,highly notable phenomenon in Pakistan one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. The current president Zardari is called Mr 10% and is a billionaire. Article could use some expansion though.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:27, 9 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. Tone 13:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Collier[edit]

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

As the article currently stands it is an unreferenced WP:BLP. There are sources out there to confirm that she exists and has had the roles mentioned in the article but they are either trivial mentions, not in reliable sources, or not independent of the subject. Even with sourcing I do not believe the subjects meets WP:Notability (people) or more specifically WP:CREATIVE. Of note, there is a ballerina with the same name who probably is notable, so if anyone wants to write about her... J04n(talk page) 12:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 14:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:00, 8 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) 16:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Poór[edit]

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

Contested PROD; non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence to support the claim that he has made an appearance in the Hungarian league. In any case, this player also fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable 16year old kid footballer, fails WP:NSPORTS, fails WP:GNG, or speedy under WP:G5 now that I think about it as a creation by User:Alex latham SOCK --ClubOranje^T 08:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Zanoni (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Battlefield 2. Tone 13:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Play4Free[edit]

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

Unremarkable future software not set for release till next year per WP:CRYSTAL. Mo ainm~Talk 11:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any sources from any news related stuff. I still hope to have a look for any refs in the future though, but not now. Minima c (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 11:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main Battlefield article, it's a case of when not if the game receives enough coverage for a standalone article. Someone another 14:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is being marked for deletion as "unremarkable" and as a future event when there is even /less/ information available for Battlefield 3, and that product has its own page. (User talk:ShadowFox3735) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main battlefield article. ShadowFox3735, see WP:OTHER --Nuujinn (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battlefield 2, of which it's supposedly a remake. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 9 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 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Green (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD; player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable footballer who has never played in a fully professional league. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, not notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that he has ever played for a professional league club. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not played at notable level to pass WP:NSPORTS criteria, no coverage outside the ordinary for an amateur player and has not done anything significant in the footballing world --ClubOranje^T 06:16, 10 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 08:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFcon[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 Transformers fan convention. Divebomb (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For following reasons:

Article has been around for a few years but only has primary sources cited in references. Likely fails requirements for keeping.
TFcon is simply a redirect on TFWiki. Considering that, and how TFWiki has an article on a usenet group, this convention seems to be not-so important.
Looking at their dates, a lot of Google news results are irrelevant and unrelated to the topic of this article.

Also, totally against merging to BotCon since they're not really that related. NotARealWord (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning of nominator. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For following reasons:
1. 2nd largest Transformers convention in the world
2. Over 5000 attendees every year
3. Hasbro Canada part of convention for the past 5 years
4. Not that it is completely important by nominator has a hidden agenda
70.52.74.224 (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — 70.52.74.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment
  1. You're not addressing the relevant notability issues.
  2. What do you mean by "hidden agenda"?
- NotARealWord (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What "hidden agenda"? --Divebomb (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For following reasons:
1. Featured in Shout Factory Transformers Seasons 3 & 4 Documentary "The Autobots, The Decepticons & The Fans" including video from the convention as well as a mention in the "Special Thanks" featurette credits.
2. Exclusive "Transformers" Toys produced in Association with Impossible Toys, Just i Toys and Fans Project
3. Exclusive Transformers Art Produced for Convention by Artists Joe Ng, Don Figeroa, Matt Moylan & Alex Milne
Tanath1138 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — Tanath1138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment -That still doesn't address the notability issue. Plus, fan groups like Fans Project are probably non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talk • contribs) 2010-11-10 17:59:23
  - Comment - Added links to Canadian Television articles from national Canadian Television Networks as well as links to large Transformers Websites not affiliated with TFCon whom consider the event news worthy.
    Question as to why other Fan Convention articles, like Auto Assembly from the nominator's home nation, are not up for deletion?
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanath1138 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those Transformers websites are message boards. They're not gonna help with notability. NotARealWord (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Well, for one, I am not British. I have no idea what may have led you to that conclusion. Also, the Auto Assembly article has links to BBC coverage of it, proving it is notable, which is why I didn't nominate it. --Divebomb (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm unclear as to who determines which media outlets are legitimate, be they internet based or television based. To suggest that the local BBC coverage, in the case of Auto Assembly, somehow provides a wider and more legitimate coverage for an event than a sindicated program that airs throughout North America makes little sense to me. --[{User=Tanath1138}] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanath1138 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Duplicate !vote For following reasons:
1. TFcon is an established event in not only the Transformers and Action Figure Collecting communities, but of the Toronto Convention communities. As TFcon has been held for nearly 10 years, and other Toronto conventions of similar size, eg. Ad Astra, are considered relevant, why is TFcon's article in jeopardy?
2. TFcon has become a unique and special gathering for Canadian Transformers fans, as well as fans from other countries. TFcon remains one of the most important sources for Canadian fans to ask questions and learn about issues relevant to the Transformers brand in Canada, as opposed to the United States / Global branches of the brand. Thus, TFcon is relevant as a unique source of regional Transformers information and as a unique aspect of the culture of the Transformers fandom community, especially in Canada.
3. TFcon is also the largest fan-run Transformers convention in the world, further cementing it as a unique cultural event in the Transformers (and Action Figure Collecting) fandom. What goes on at TFcon can have, and has had in the past, an impact not only on the attendees, but on the fan community as a whole.
4. As previously mentioned, TFcon has been recognized by numerous media outlets, including local and national television stations, radio stations and their associated blogs, and various online outlets. Besides its relevance from their perspective, TFcon generates a considerable amount of media relating to the events of the convention, including panels and interview sessions. This information (often posted publicly online) contributes to the general body of knowledge of the Transformers community, and TFcon is relevant as the source of this knowledge.
Comment: The length of the article regarding TFcon on another, unassociated wiki is irrelevant to whether or not an article for TFcon belongs on THIS wiki. As the two encyclopediae are run by different organizations, with different goals and ideas for what information to provide to the public and how, the one should be used to determine the content of the other. Tanath1138 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — Tanath1138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Acknowledgement ≠ extensive coverage. Also, much of that comment sounded like an advertisement. NotARealWord (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For following reasons:
1. TFcon 2004 Documentary (then titled TransformersCon) appears on Metrodome's 2004 release of Transformers Season One
2. TFcon 2004 Convention Panel with David Kaye appears on Madman's 2006 release of Beast Wars Season Two
3. TFcon 2005 Convention Panel with Garry Chalk appears on Madman's 2006 release of Beast Wars Season Two
4. Not only is TFcon footage included on the above mentioned Shout! Factory Season 3/4 set, but it was also released on the Matrix of Leadership 25th anniversary set.
5. Space Channel, Electric Playground, Breakfast Television and other media outlets have covered TFcon
24.138.190.214 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — 24.138.190.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - I think only the Electric playground thing you mentioned could establish notability. I don't think the Transformers brand can establish its fandom's activities as notable. NotARealWord (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think the Transformers franchise, be it Hasbro themslees or the DVD producers or writers or filmmakers or actors are very relevent to this discussion. The various DVD companies saw fit to travel to TFCon, like they do Botcon, to produce these featurettes because they know it is a legitimate event. This continued approach from NotARealWord of stating that nothing can help establish notability(not external websites, not televsion entertainment programs, and not the licensed DVD producers or Hasbro's invlovement itself) seems counter productive. [{User=Tanath 1138]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanath1138 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Primary, unreliable sources, no outside notability by reliable sources to be found. When Page 1 of the google search already starts hitting junk like youtube, and Page 2 are fan photobucket links, it is rarely a good sign. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A google search for Auto Assembly turns up a lot less than a TFCon search does. Yay or Nay on the TFCon article deletion, I would suggest that articles on Fan Convnetions should all have to follow the same rules and meet the same requirements.Tanath1138 (talk
  - Comment Google search results are really irrelevant here. Auto Assembly gets BBC coverage, which is really as notable as it gets. ----Divebomb is not British 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing is lacking on this one, and I can't find better sources anywhere. Tarc's point is also worth examining. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Define sourcing? If you are only looking to the internet for sourcing and ignoring the DVD material mentioned, as well as TFCon's two appearances in Toyfare Magazine(2007 & 2009). If the internet is the only source of notability in the world then many articles will fail to meet the criteria set out.Tanath1138 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - Setting the documentary aside, none of the other DVD materials meet the criteria of reliable sources, since they do not discuss TFcon itself - they take place there, but they are not about TFcon. I don't know enough about the documentary to judge - who produced it? Did it air anywhere? Was it a TV documentary that they included on the DVD, or one made for the DVD? I would want more detail about the toyfare magazine appearances, as well - were they about the con itself or about something happening at the con? The two are not equivalent. As for the last point - we're not talking about many articles, we're talking about this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tarc makes a great point about scale of notability. I have found a few routine news announcements and press releases but no substantial coverage. The point about the transformers Wiki convinces me the most. Might be worth Applying SALT as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, the Transformers Wiki point is hopelessly useless, since A. we only cover official stuff and TFcon isn't official, and B. the Usenet group NARW brings up as a comparison was in fact, the Transformers fandom back when Usenet was actually important. Second of all, I don't think salting will be necessary. ----Divebomb is not British 16:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol Delete no third-party converage. Grsz¹¹ 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "No third party coverage" is innacurrate. The question is if the TFCon page has sufficient third party coverage to remain included on this Wiki. Relevent information, including links to TV coverage and the fact of inclusion on multiple DVD's would constitute some third party coverage. And just who is the "lol" directed at? Tanath1138 (talk
Delete- per Tarc's argument. The substantial coverage in reliable independent sources is lacking. Reyk _YO! 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Added links to Mississuaga Newspapaer article from 2008, 680News Article from 2010 and City TV Breakfast Televsion Guest list for July 15th 2010 - Unfortunatly the Video is no longer archived on the City TV Website, but the program contents are still listed.Tanath1138 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep For following reasons:

Extensive coverage on Television

TFcon segment from The Circuit on Space Channel [1]
Electric Playground Television Feature [2]
City TV Breakfast Television Guest Spot [3]
Televised YTV Shorts [4][5][6][7]

Extensive coverage on Radio

680 News article about TFcon [8]

Extensive coverage in print media

TFcon Article in the Toronto Star [9]
Toyfare Magazine Mention [10]

Comment: Breakfast Television is the most watched morning show in Canada. The Toronto Star is the largest paper in Toronto. The Space channel is the Canadian Sci Fi channel. Super Megatron (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC) — Super Megatron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - It's the premiere Transformers convention of Canada, had coverage in media, and it notable. Mathewignash (talk) 00:48, 13 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 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RLPlot[edit]

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

Contested prod. Cannot see notability. The product does not appear to be in any RS beyond what are essentially a short description and a download button. Many use the exact WP article text. No reviews, awards, or acclaim that I can find. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —— HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 14:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evicende of notability, no referencing. One external link to homepage, but that's not enough sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:30, 6 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 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RLPlot[edit]

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

Contested prod. Cannot see notability. The product does not appear to be in any RS beyond what are essentially a short description and a download button. Many use the exact WP article text. No reviews, awards, or acclaim that I can find. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —— HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 14:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evicende of notability, no referencing. One external link to homepage, but that's not enough sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:30, 6 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 08:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shark List By Weight[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced, misleading and of no encyclopaedic value - and the title is wrong too, it's actually a list by length. Are these average or maximum lengths? And who says these are the lengths? In fact the figures quoted are at odds with some WP articles, e.g. Whale shark. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR. andy (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to note: this is now at Shark List By Length! TheGrappler (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Poorly written, unreferenced, would suggest considering for speedy delete Ashman05 (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, but that can be fixed, as can the incorrect title. Of more concern is the apparent inaccuracy, lack of citations, and arguably unencyclopedic nature of the list. Anaxial (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed. The information on which sharks are the largest should be given in shark, and information on average size and record size (of each species) in the article on each species. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary in Wikipedia, as said above. Poorly written and completely unreferenced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly meaningless discussion unless someone "saves" this - nobody would want what is currently there to remain in WP. But if somebody did come along and produce a well-sourced page which showed the comparative sizes of different species of sharks, I'd probably be minded to keep it actually. I certainly disagree that "The information on which sharks are the largest should be given in shark, and information on average size and record size in the article on each species." A page giving comparative sizes of sharks, especially if illustrated by a good figure, would add a lot of educational/reader value; content + context + reader value is what I'm looking for when deciding to keep a list. TheGrappler (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with informing people about their relative sizes in the same places you are informing them of their other features. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all, but with so many species of shark only a small overview could be given in such an article section. There is certainly enough information to spin off a more complete daughter article, in principle. The current page under discussion just isn't it! TheGrappler (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I had in mind was a section in shark about the sizes of sharks, including the largest and smallest species, and information on the size of each species in that species' own article. I don't really see what is gained by a list of shark species by size. Would you want a list of, say, carnivores by size or birds by size? -Steve Dufour (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's valid to compare the sizes of some sharks, in an article subsection, why isn't it valid or useful to perform a more complete exercise on a dedicated page? Lengths can be usefully illustrated diagramatically, so such a page could present the information in a variety of ways. You may not want to use it but it seems a perfectly acceptable exercise in reference material to me. Sharks are a well-defined category with significant variation in sizes between species, which is why the exercise is not a pointless one: "carnivores by size" or "birds by size" might not work so well, due to the very large number of species to be listed. But a list of largest (e.g. top 30) land carnivores would actually work quite well, and would be a welcome addition in my opinion. TheGrappler (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that those lists would be bad, just that there's no real need for them since the information should be given in the main articles. BTW is anyone interested in a list of the world's largest ants or grasshoppers? I didn't think so. It's probably because we humans are especially interested in animals that are larger than us. -Steve Dufour (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction between a summary section in a main article, with a larger, specialist spin-off article which presents the information more thoroughly (see WP:SUMMARY). Actually I would genuinely be interested in a list of ants ordered by size. This is something that I did once try to find, funnily enough: the disparity between the largest and smallest species of ants is really quite impressive. TheGrappler (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Oh, man, kill it now before the cruft squad finds out and we get lists of bears by weight, kangaroos by weight, breakfast cereals by weight, and so on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but this is totally unreferenced in addition to being not notable. (It has been moved to Shark List By Length to reflect the actual content, so that issue is out of the way.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:42, 11 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. Davewild (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabjet[edit]

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

This airline was proposed in 2004, but since then nothing has changed. They still do not operate any aircraft, so the whole article is pure WP:CRYSTAL. There are no reliable third-party sources offering a deeper coverage of the airline, so it clearly fails WP:CORP. The airline may become notable once a definite launch date is set, but surely not for just telling some intentions and plans. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Planned-only companies are inherently non-notable unless there is a specific reason and substantial third party coverage to make such a company especially notable - which I cannot find in this case. Travelbird (talk) 17:32, 9 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 08:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciel Airlines[edit]

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

Just another proposed and failed airline project. It vanished again without having operated any flights. Fails WP:CORP because there is no reliable third-party coverage. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page out of exaxtly the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Planned-only companies are inherently non-notable unless there is a specific reason and substantial third party coverage to make such a company especially notable - which I cannot find in this case. Travelbird (talk)

Delete per nom. SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to White people. Davewild (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White male[edit]

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

This article was brought to light by User:Dbvann on WP:NPOVN where multiple administrators and editors agreed that it should taken to AfD UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those administrators and editors were wrong. "White male" is a plausible search term. Plausible search terms shouldn't be redlinks. You see, to my way of thinking, white male and white males ought to be redirect pages, or disambiguation pages, for the same reason that black males is a redirect to black people: an end-user using that as a search term ought to find some information. If something shouldn't be a redlink then it shouldn't be at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see I've failed to suggest where it should redirect to; sorry about that. It should point to White man.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White man is a dab page which then refers back to White male - that would be circular. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't think that particular issue will be beyond the closer's abilities to fix, though. :)—S Marshall T/C 02:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is highly notable, being covered in numerous works such as Culture and Identity‐Protective Cognition: Explaining the White‐Male Effect in Risk Perception, Alien nation: white male paranoia and imperial culture in the United States, White male identity development: The key model, Affirmative Action and the White Male in America, &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White people, possibly merge some stuff. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to white people. A complete article on this topic would largely duplicate the information found there anyhow. Gobonobo ^T ^C 22:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree, the suggested redirect is clearly the correct way to go hereAjbpearce (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White people as suggested. The current article cannot help but become a WP:POVFORK. If someone wants to write about perceptions of the white male in American culture, there are a number of academic journals that exist for that purpose; some of them are even open access. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:21, 12 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 13:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of worship presentation software[edit]

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

This is really just a chart stating which platforms select church software programs are compatible with. And despite what the article says, there is no technical information to be found. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is hardly even a comparison table, let alone an article. It doesn't actually say anything about the software. JIP | Talk 09:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is unfit to be independent article for sure. But as piece of Church software it would be well usable. Reo ^ON | +++ 13:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expand I'd be up for merging if it came do that, but I really think that it should be expanded to be more technical and of more use. I remember when I was hunting for software for me church something like this would have been really useful if it compared features across products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdlow (talk • contribs) 06:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've not addressed the fundamental question, per content and deletion policy, of where this article can be expanded from. Where are the sources that cover and document this subject? Please name them. Uncle G (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comparison articles are almost always deleted. I can't imagine, to answer Uncle G, that any such sources can be found. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 9 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) 05:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pippan[edit]

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

It's unclear to me how this scholar qualifies for a biography here per WP:ACADEMIC. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient scholarly output so far. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This is a CV consisting basically of original research. External links to university CV and homepage broken. No WP:RS whatsoever. Uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:57, 8 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) 05:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kori Davis[edit]

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

Contested PROD without reasoning. Football player fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG criteria. Was a youth trainee with Norwich City but never stepped up to 1st team, moved to amateur leagues and only ever trialled with professional clubs without ever playing competitive fixture. Now plays in 3rd level or lower leagues of New Zealand (where even the top league is not fully professional) ClubOranje^T 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like 3 guys on holidays who decide to have a kick-about with a New Zealand local team! - nothing notable now or in their footballing career.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 06:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 06:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much as above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable footballer who has never played in a fully professional league. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all and fails WP:ATHLETE. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:11, 7 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) 05:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Jenkins[edit]

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

The article has been flagged since September as not meeting general notability guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability and is only supported by 1 minor source. The article topic fails to meet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NBASKETBALL and also fails to meet notability guidelines in any other sport. Ashman05 (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Playing in a development league does not entail automatic notability. I would say the same thing for NBA D-League players who have never competed on any other semi-professional or professional level, too. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:07, 8 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aquinas Diocesan Grammar School[edit]

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

It's an 18-year-old Northern Ireland grammar school...not notable. Either redirect to the town or simply delete. Raymie (t • c) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - grammar schools are High School-ish equivalents and as such are almost always kept. Take a look at Category:Grammar schools in the United Kingdom]. 18 years is enough time to develop a history and source coverage (e.g. inspection reports). TheGrappler (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "-ish" about the equivalence. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness there is a mild -ish: grammar schools educate 11 and 12 year olds, High School might only start at 15. But since grammar schools also incorporate the High School age range, the -ish isn't relevant for deletion discussions. Grammar schools are more important, if anything, for that reason. TheGrappler (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the established consensus that schools at this level are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies: I knew a bit too little about the issue. Consider it closed. Raymie (t • c) 01:27, 9 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. No support for deletion apart from the nominator and at least one independent editor thinks the article meets the notabilty guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mermelstein[edit]

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

DELETE Does not appear to meet ~~WP:GNG~~ WP:BIO. Subject is a Manhattan real estate attorney who gets quoted for comment by publications, but as far as I can tell after some Googling, he himself has not been the subject of in-depth coverage beyond a "who's who" type profile in the New York Observer last year, and it's telling that no other articles link here. Also, the article has been written for the most part by his firm's PR agency, and if kept, would probably need a rewrite. Mosmof (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual sold more real estate than anyone else @ 15 CPW, which is NY's most expensive development. That alone is legendary. Beyond that, Business Week, The Observer and countless others have featured him. Surely he's very noteable. (and the Observer wasnt a whos who it ranked top 15 real estate NY lawyers, and he was featured.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Yes he is an attorney and developer, and 1 of the most successful in the US representing oligarchs who buy. Clearly thats a major big deal on its own. Stong keep (and Mosmof, mentioning the NY Observer article alone makes it relevant and noteable.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above users are likely the same person, I'll respond to both together. First, you're using "featured" very liberally, to mean "quoted" and "mentioned". What WP:BIO requires is in-depth coverage of a subject, and none of the sources cited qualifies - the NY Observer profile is brief by any reasonable standard. Second, appearing in various publications does not make a subject notable. It could just mean that he has a good publicist and keeps him in contact with the press. Now, if you can find a reliable, third party source talk about how he's always quoted in Manhattan real estate articles, then great. Otherwise, making a claim about how he's always in the papers amounts to original research. --Mosmof (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 07:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A feature surely means being included in the list of most noteable people in NY Real Estate for perhaps the most prestigious NY Real Estate publication. Business Week and Bloomberg were extensive features, as was Observer. Check Google news today and see if he's "always quoted in Manhattan real estate articles" as you say is the criteria. Seems to be a strong yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a further KEEP would come from reading the Subjects talk page and see that this same user tried this same tactic 6 months ago and similarly then was defeated. Check Mermelsteins public record since then. Countless coverage and success. Very noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to try to pass yourself off as a different person, you might want to try a different writing style and a new misspelling for "notable". But anyway, please don't misrepresent what I wrote. I'm saying that "always quoted in Manhattan real estate articles" is not a criterion for WP:BIO (and for the love of Buddha, would it kill you to actually read the policies in discussion?). It doesn't matter how often he's quoted or mentioned. The question is whether he's a subject of in-depth coverage - that, you have yet to demonstrate. Mosmof (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mosmof wasnt aware that your criteria for noteability is in-depth coverage. And yes, Business Week and Observer features would constitue in-depth coverage. You tried this tactic 6 months ago and were defeated. If nothings changed pls lets agree the page should remain intact. His case is now stronger. Are you saying being named 1 of the most prominent NYC attorneys alone isnt noteable ? Isnt selling more than anyone else in NYCs most expensive building noteable ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of god, please learn to read. It's not MY criteria. It's basic rules of Wikipedia - do read WP:BIO, please? And what are these "Business Week and Observer features" that you speak of? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you're ignoring the difference between "mention" and "coverage". Memelstein is mentioned a lot, but I have yet to see a single feature article about him. What do you mean "this tactic"? You mean rules and common sense and trying to reason with you? Mosmof (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mosmof you sound like a broken record. Removing this entry has tried and failed, whats new about trying to remove it and it failed a few months ago ? yes it is your criteria nowhere does it say how many media mentions/features are needed. and I'd argue that the OBserver and Business Week are in fact features. They are. What changes do you propose to keep this live ? (make them here before you make them there). This is 1 of foremost leaders in NY Real estate he's very prominent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and keep. Meets WP:GNG: [11] and [12] are about the subject, and there are dozens of other mentions in the Google News archives that assume notability. But the article as currently written doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia standards, and should be stubified. THF (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See, I looked at the same two articles and saw articles about real estate that happen to mention Mermelstein and his dealings, not articles about him. Most of the other mentions in Google News are pullquotes. With the absence of in-depth coverage, it's going to be difficult to have enough verifiable information to build anything more than a stub. Mosmof (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have rewritten and added details. Is this now OK ? There is plenty of verifiably and important information. Others have suggested edits ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it needs a lot more work than that, but I'm happy to help. But in the meantime, please do read up on Wikipedia policies and WP:MOS. Mosmof (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THis has been raised before by much the same characters and should now be acceptable. Clearly newsworthy and meets news standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done a rewrite using the sources we already had and left out what I thought were extraneous details or plaudits. There's still some biographical details missing and not sure if the article will expand beyond stub level, but it's a little better now, I think? Mosmof (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Kaeja[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, could not find significant coverage in independent sources, only passing mentions on gNews. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep preliminarily as I found independent references at Canadian Council for the Arts and ArtsAlive. If others with more expertise conclude that these references are inadequate to establish notability, I will withdraw my keep. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure that Canada Council can be considered truly an independent source. On the other hand, there are some interesting Gnews hits, though nothing really substantial about the subject. If this turns out to be delete-worthy, it's borderline, imo. Perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Cullen. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm off the fence. I'd say he meets the 3rd criterion in WP:creative and the added Canadian Encyclopedia ref adds some much-needed verifiability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ursula Vernon. Consensus is that the articles lacks the reliable sources required to write an article on the topic but a redirect to Ursula Vernon is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Biting Pear of Salamanca[edit]

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

PROD declined by a user who misunderstood how Twinkle works (they thought the PROD was done by a bot). Said user also claims that the piece has "major influence" and is a meme, but a search for sources turns up absolutely nothing at all as far as reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. I am open to the possibility that this artwork might be verifiable as being a notable meme, but so far no independent reliable sources have been provided. If such sources were provided, I might reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This pear is most commonly seen as a macro, tagged with the phrase LOL WUT. So, a meme, yes, but I cannot speak to its notability, and can't find anything to suggest it actually is notable. Kate (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This pear is a work of art that is widely known and is a meme, and all of its sources are real, so I think it's fine. 68.63.112.199 (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC) — 68.63.112.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Explain to me how the artist's own DeviantArt is "fine". Read WP:RS, WP:N if you haven't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Metropolitan90. Edward321 (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ursula Vernon --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist as a reasonable search term. I can't find a single RS but the meme is strong in this one. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above - you're right, it is a reasonable search term. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:17, 11 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. CSD G4. Nothing changed since relatively recent AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Selection (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A quick search on google fails to bring up anything significant other than this article and IMDB. This film appears to fail the Film Notability guideline. nn123645 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:55, 6 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. I'm closing this as "keep" for 3 reasons....

1. The nominator is a sockpuppet of a banned editor and his rationale did not make sense anyway. We have no guideline/policy called WP:NEED.

2. Most of the delete !votes were based on the fact that the article is a stub and the unlikelihood of the article being expanded. This was countered by the suggestion that there are sources. Those could be used to expand the article if someone wants to do it.

3. There were suggestions to redirect and I almost closed it that way. (and there's nothing keeping that from being done as an editorial decision) but I felt that since this discussion was started by a banned editor that maintaining the status quo was the best call.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Beazley (dog)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

We don't need an article on one of over a billion dogs in the United States regardless of being owned by former President George W. Bush. SeventhBase (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like it or not, the sheer number of puff pieces that get done on presidential pets gives them loads of secondary source coverage with which to meet our notability guidelines. You haven't actually advanced a policy or guideline based reason to delete this. Gigs (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this article says about the dog is that it belongs to George W. Bush. Is that enough for notability? I thought notability was not inherited. JIP | Talk 09:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google of the article's name shows multiple news reports across several years regarding this dog. Simply because the article is a stub is not a reason to delete. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This dog has done nothing notable apart from being owned by a notable person (unlike say, the dogs here). So claim to notability is entirely inherited. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the article doesn't say the dog has ever actually done anything at all. I suppose the article was only written because someone thought everything associated with George W. Bush was automatically notable. JIP | Talk 21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current state of the article is irrelevant to notability. The hundreds of news articles and secondary source coverage is relevant. The dog even starred in a short film, which drew plenty of secondary source coverage. Gigs (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States presidential pets. -- œ ^™ 18:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per OlEnglish, and while we're at it, amend the hatnote at Miss Beazley to point to the presidential pets article as well.—S Marshall T/C 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you say "per someone" when that person didn't even offer a rationale? Gigs (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's easy, I just type and the words appear on the screen.—Seriously though, by "redirect per OlEnglish", I meant, "redirect to the target that OlEnglish suggests". I probably should have been a little clearer, sorry.—S Marshall T/C 02:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was hinting that you might offer a rationale as to why a subject with such a massive amount of direct secondary source coverage somehow fail notability. Gigs (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just to be clear I'm not claiming the subject fails notability.. But can this article ever be expanded beyond a couple sentence stub? I think that the limited amount of encyclopedic content that's worth writing about, along with its refs, can easily fit into the entry at the Presidental pets article, and this can redirect straight there. Problem solved. -- œ ^™ 05:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by OlEnglish, with no prejudice if any editor wishes to write a full-length article. Presidential pets are notable. This is, in the end, a nation of pet-lovers. Ray^Talk 06:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-based reason to delete has been provided. Wikipedia articles are not based upon need - we record information for its own sake, not for some particular purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Per OE and S Marshall. While Presidential pets always get press attention, a section in the article on pres. pets or the particular president who owned them is a better way to present the information. As has been noted, they don't really "do" anything, unlike say, the First Lady, who usually has her own "pet" causes she tries to promote. Unless Ms. Beazly was hitting the bricks campaigning on behalf of Bob Barker to spay and neuter your pets... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States presidential pets, unlikely to be expanded enough to warrant its own article. jonkerz ♠ 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It's a one sentence article about a dog. What more is there to write? If there isn't anything more to say about it, why fight to keep it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. A sentence isn't an article and it's unlikely ever to be expanded. Simply not notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:02, 13 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. Davewild (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Khater[edit]

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

Family issues have risen after the page got created آل خاطر (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? We usually don't delete pages about notable people on request. If the family is as important as the article claims, then we can't delete it. Gigs (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom's reason doesn't make sense (note: nom's name is "Al Khater" in Arabic letters). Should there be new info on the Al Khater family, then it should be added to the article with reliable sources. As it stands, family is notable and the article is properly written and referenced. ~dee^(talk?) 18:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Dee - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:21, 8 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) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SBA Airlines[edit]

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

Obviously failed airline project. The company was founded in 2009, but now the website is down, so it seems like it just vanished, without having operated a single flight. The website was the only reference of this article. Reliable third-party sources are not to be found, so SBA Airlines is just not notable, per WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything other than blog posts and forum posts repeating what was on the web site. I guess they planned this airline on the basis of "if we build a nice website, everything else will fall into place" Gigs (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:51, 6 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) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LeisureJet[edit]

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

Failed airline project without any encyclopedic impact (no aircraft, no flights, not even one year between founding and giving up). Everything that can be found about this company is speculation on its plans and intentions, which IMO should not be notable per WP:CRYSTAL. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing out there about this one of substance. Never even attracted any media coverage that I can find. Gigs (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:50, 6 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. Several examples of third-party coverage in magazines were cited in the discussion. Sandstein 08:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GLPI[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. For example, most of the references I have found for it are not independent of the product. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utterly fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG … just another NN web-based database. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{23:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GLPI is a popular tool, mostly in France. http://www.glpi-project.org/?page=refer&lang=en 82.235.219.34 (talk)
- Comment - If it's so "popular", then how come no one can find any reliable sources that talk about it? Links to the subject's own website do absolutely nothing to establish Notability by Wikipedia standards. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and you think by deleting the article you will improve the situation?
  - GLPI is supported by [13] Atos Origin which is a large IT company
  - and there you will find a company who provide training for GLPI: [14]
  - This article explain the french police uses GLPI [15]
  - GLPI is also packaging for all the major Linux distribution - 82.235.219.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - To date, 1833 entities - known public references - use GLPI in the world. http://www.glpi-project.org/?page=refer&lang=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.85.252 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC) — GoneriLeBouder (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The Adullact article appears to be "independent of the subject" - that's the kind of source we need to establish notability; thanks! It still doesn't really count as "significant coverage" though. A lot of things that don't meet the notability guidelines are packaged with major distros, I think, and the other links there are not independent of the subject; really what is needed here is more independent, reliable coverage. For Wikipedia articles, that is the standard used to establish notability. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little coverage. [16] this was all I could find. Debian has something like 35,000 packages, few of them are notable. Gigs (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [17] [18] [19] [20] ... A "GLPI" search on Google give me 146000 result, most of them a related to the GLPI software! GoneriLeBouder (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - But do those sources help establish notability? I looked at the journaldunet article - it is about linux in general, and only mentions GLPI in passing as part of a list; it is not "significant coverage" - see the general notability guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this article, it is not a stub, not a blatant ad, and meets redaction standards. It is about an established community, and google indeed returns tons of reference and documentation about it. (the third beeing the french wikipedia article which has never been marked for deletion [21]. Kegeruneku (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC) — Kegeruneku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I do think that the problem lies within the US Google coverage. GLPI may not be rated the same way between our countries, please US contributors check FR google before saying GLPI has no coverage, don't forget Google adapts to your research profile ! [22] Kegeruneku (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia can not be used as a source. If it had been a blatant ad, it would have been deleted a long time ago, most likely. Google is good at finding documentation, but that does not establish notability; please, read the notability guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GLPI is own by a french non profit organization [23] Referenced by a lot of important IT companies [24] [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.241.130.121 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 November 2010 — 82.241.130.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Being owned by a non-profit does not help establish notability. Those references don't really constitute "significant coverage" - the pdf just mentions glpi in a long list, for example. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This product may be useful, it may be free, but that has no impact on its notability. And as it stands now, with only one trivial source (and a non-english one at that), it doesn't meet guidelines for notability. The same is true on a French news search, only one result.--hkr Laozi speak 14:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fact that it is a non-english source should "count against" it here in this AfD. WP:NOENG says that if we can replace that source with an English one we should do so, not that it doesn't "count" toward the wp:GNG. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to imply that. I stated that that being a trivial mention is the reason why it doesn't meet WP:N or WP:RS. I was attempting to convey that, along with being a trivial mention, since the source is not in English, it'll be harder to verify if it qualifies as reliable. But that was an aside; my main point is that there is only one source, and it is a trivial one.--hkr Laozi speak 18:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GLPI is the reference for free asset management software, it's used by numerous organization and company around the world. A limited list is available there [26]. I know some large company who use it and don't want to be listed there. In general, people use OCS Inventory with it, any reason why you don't want to remove it too? Indeed there is not some much mention of it on Google but I can quickly find a Wikipedia page with even less reference like the little town where I come from or a random porn star. So why Wikipedia can't accept a page about GLPI? Here again some new references There is regulary news about GLPI on Linuxfr. Books: [27] [28] [29]. You can also find presentation on slideshare [30] or Youtube [31]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.219.34 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GLPI is very popular in France. It's a free and open source software, not leaded by a company but an association. Your problem is just that the software in not well know outside of this country because the GLPI team doesn't promote it ? (as mentionned before, the software is used in different countries, just a look at this link : http://www.glpi-project.org/?page=refer&lang=en). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walid.nouh (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC) — Walid.nouh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No - the problem is that we can't seem to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines for inclusion as a stand-alone article. If such sources exist, let's keep this article! ErikHaugen (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some more reference, American linux Mag French Linux Mag and in an italian magazine. 82.235.219.34 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is so much reference to GLPI on Internet that I think this is just ridiculous and a waste of time. What do you want more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.219.34 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French magazine link is not significant coverage; it is just a passing mention, as far as I can tell. The linux-magazine.com article has potential. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The French Linux mag 116 features an article that explain how to write a plugin for GLPI. The link is just the summary. You've to bye the magazine to get the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.219.34 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Saying it's popular mainly in France is ignorant. On the forums, a quarter of the users are non-english speakers from outside of France. I've talked to German speakers, people from Brazil, people from India, people from Italy, Japan, and the list goes on. You can find this list by just scrolling through some of the users' profiles, or by looking at the list of entities that use GLPI. I also fail to see why you'd want to delete an article. Is the goal of Wikipedia not to document knowledge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.176.48.18 (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When this is closed (assuming that it is deleted), someone should remove the redlinks from the articles listed under WhatLinksHere/GLPI. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want so much this article to be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.219.34 (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Appears to be a well know and well used software package, which clearly establish's notability. It stand's on it's own as a seperate entity, displaying many primary and secondary sources. Keep. scope_creep (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I beg to differ, but the only "references" are self-published sources from the subject's own website, glpi-project.org … please find and add some independent WP:RS citations. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Completely agree - I haven't seen any secondary sources. If you know of any, then I suggest you add them to the article. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, there's this linux-magazine article. ErikHaugen (talk) 06:22, 14 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) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. N. Alam[edit]

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

This article is not verifiable, and I am concerned that the subject of this article is non-notable; this article may also be a hoax about a non-existent person.

The only sources used are closely related to the subject of the article. These sources are hosted on scribd or on a tripod website; the main purported book source cannot be found via searching by title or ISBN. There are no external sources which can verify the existence of this person, and other claims in the article.

The text of the article has at one point contained incredible claims (e.g. first ambassador of the Conch Republic, and mentioned at least one title which appear to be purchasable (http://www.bridgeworld.org/Order_M/application.htm). The subject was referred to throughout the article at various points in the article history by "His Eminency", suggesting a non-neutral POV by the primary authors. Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and salt~~ wow. Serious verifiability problems here leave pretty much nothing salvageable. I share concerns that this might be an elaborate hoax, if it isn't, then it is promotional, but pretty over the top even for a hagiography. I think that the nature of this article justifies pre-emptive salting, so we do not risk hosting material like this in the future. Gigs (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's hoax; as I recall there are some sources which support the existence of the non-profits he controls (I don't have them handy, though), it just gets fuzzy to do anything beyond verifying existence. The same verifiability concerns also carry over into Dayemi Complex Bangladesh. Oh, and should consensus be to delete, don't bother with salting - the article was originally at His Eminency Dr. Hazrat Sheikh Shah Sufi Mohammed Nurul Alam, VernoWhitney (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person is an actual person. All of his contact information is on his website with a real telephone number where you may call if you need to. I have the ISBN numbers for all the books mentioned. Would you like me to list them? I would be more than happy to do so. In fact I am going to do that right now. By many individuals he is considered as "his eminency". But, I didnt realize that I could not use that name therefore I left it as "Alam" which was changed by wikipedia. All the information on the page are facts. The predictions listed about the presidents are letters that were sent to the presidents and there were also letters sent back to Alam from the presidents. I dont think something like that would be in the newspapers which is why they are copies from both him and the presidents showing that they are in fact the real thing. I was told that I could use his books as a reference if I listed something specifically about him such as where he studied. He is mostly known in Bangladesh therefore some articles may be found in newspapers in Bangladesh which were written in Bengali. You could also check his website for that information. All of this information is legit. I do not see the use of putting up information about a nonexistent person. It does me no good nor does it do any of you any good. Niraleah1 (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the issue with honorifics. Such titles do not reflect a dispassionate, objective stance in the article. I have searched for all the ISBNs you have provided, but I am unable to find these books across multiple databases. The books may well exist, but they must be very very obscure. Have you seen WP:V? If there are absolutely no third-party English sources for this article, the subject may not be of interest to the readership of the English language Wikipedia. This is especially important if the subject is a living person, and there is no way to verify the content of the article. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While English sources are obviously preferred if there are reliable Bengali sources they will work too, but there does need to be sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify here that the lack of sources for notability is not because sources are in Bengali, but likely because they don't exist. Having read Bengali news papers from Bangladesh regularly over the last 25 years, I can say for sure that the subject has not received any significant coverage in notable third-party sources/media in Bangladesh. (which is interesting, given the tall claims about the subject's awesomeness!! :) )--Ragib (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am gathering information so that I could possibly add them to the page. This will take sometime. How much time do I have before you guys decide to delete my page? Niraleah1 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About 5 days. Gigs (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: As a Bangladeshi, I can confirm that the subject is not notable as claimed in the article. So, delete per WP:N, WP:V. --Ragib (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Virtually *all* "references" are from subject's own book. Never heard of this guy in Bangladeshi media.... this article is simply an attempt to promote a non notable person. --Ragib (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: As per WP:N and WP:V. Despite the fact that he became so so famous(!), not a single Bangladeshi source mentions his name! I do have pity on him. A person having more than 25 honorary doctorates is not getting importance in the national media (laughing out loud). Two websites and a self-written book - that's all about his notability. I am not sure whether he hired someone to write this article, but he must inform his writer about the fact that honorary doctorate degree does not give the right to write Dr. in front of someone's name. On a serious note, the person might be real but his claims are fake and self-promotional. Therefore, I am suggesting a strong delete. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you like I will take out the "Dr" part of it. But, please I am still working on gathering the documents to prove his notability. Thank you. Niraleah1 (talk) 18:31, 9 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 Amy Dumas. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Luchagors (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This album does not meet WP:NALBUM. The claim is that the band is notable, but the band is only "notable" because their lead singer is famous as a former WWE wrestler, not because there are notable solo musicians in the band. Notability is not inherited. Furthermore, the album appears to be a digital self-release; there is no label information, so it doesn't meet that criterion either. There were no singles, nothing comes up for charts, and no airplay notes are available either, so it fails that criterion. Over half the information is sourced from the band's MySpace (and is not noted as such), and the one Google News hit I got was from a blog local to the band's homebase and had nothing to do with the album. Therefore, the album fails to meet guidelines. An AllMusic review alone isn't enough to meet N when it's the only review. Most other albums have multiple reviews available. MSJapan (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Amy Dumas. Amy Dumas, the band member, is notable, the album is not. As stated in WP:NALBUM, album entries, if not sourced, should be merged with the main article (band, musician, discography, whatever).--hkr Laozi speak 06:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except that she is not notable as a musician, and she is not solely responsible for the album - this is why there is a problem with inherited notability, which is in essence what you say applies and is valid. Policy says otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm supporting a merge (and then a redirect), not a keep. The notability guideline only applies to separate articles, not to merges or redirects. And the guideline states that as long as a redirect is useful, it should exist, as per WP:R#KEEP Criteria 5, a redirect should be created if "someone finds them useful... If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do."--hkr Laozi speak 14:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, I saw what you were getting at, but my point was that I'm not even sure it's notable enough for a merge. Seems borderline to me. MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects and merges don't need to be notable in the WP:N sense. Usually, it's just a guidance tool for readers, and the only requirement is relevance.--hkr (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 October 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, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yeah, its the equivalent of a movie star starting a band and putting out an album in my mind. Although not inherited, coverage of the act due to the fact that she is famous allows the band to be notable, and thusly, the album as well. A quick search leads me to believe it meets criteria; I don't know when I can work on this, but I think it should be kept. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hate to sound snippy, but there's no way around it. "Although not inherited, coverage of the act due to the fact that she is famous allows the band to be notable, and thusly, the album as well" - that's exactly the definition of inherited notability, and you're extending it to multiple levels (which is precisely what the inheritance policy prohibits). The album doesn't meet the album criteria by itself, the band doesn't meet BAND by itself, and you're saying flat out that the act is covered not because it is a band, but because Amy Dumas is in it. So therefore, the coverage isn't really on the band, or the album, but because of and on Amy Dumas as a ex-pro wrestler (not a musician). So where's the basis for a keep rationale as it pertains to actual policy? MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found enough sources for the band for it to meet notability, I found enough sources for the album to meet notability. What I meant was that because she is a notable person, her band was talked about in enough venues to meet notability. I haven't had a chance to work on it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Amy Dumas - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with PhilKnight, this article and the one on the band should be merged into Amy Dumas' article.--NavyBlue84 17:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...anyway, here's some links for both the band and the album:
Amazon editorial review
Stomp and stammer mag interview
Change the record interview
Northern Ireland Culture music review
Atlanta boy mag
Distorted mag
Pittsburgh Music review
Atlanta Magazine
The Fabulous, Freaky, Unusual History of Pro Wrestling
Map Magazine
Allmusic Album Review
What's now Atlanta?
Cleveland Scene Newsweekly
CDBaby
and her book, their myspace/facebook/official page/etc, and the references already on the band page, which I may have mentioned above. I can't vouch for every link above, but that's what I've found. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - links perused and vetted, results posted on this AFD's discussion page. MSJapan (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amy Dumas MSJapan (talk · contribs)'s in-depth analysis of the sources at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Luchagors (album) (2nd nomination) and Theornamentalist (talk · contribs)'s subsequent agreement with that analysis indicates that the album is not independently notable of the artist. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll work on it tonight, let me see what I can get from the sources. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:12, 15 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) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somedit[edit]

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

I dunno what this is, there's no sourcing and no claims of notability. Doesn't seem to have any notability. I cant find a speedy deletion criterion. Corvus cornix_talk 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for an unfinished fan-made editor of a retro video game. And even if it ever gets released, I highly doubt a fan project will ever meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--hkr Laozi speak 04:28, 6 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. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time UK[edit]

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

Olddemdike has asked this article to be deleted per the following comment he/she added on the article's talk page: "This article is so full of lies and disinformation that its hard to know just where to begin to correct it. The problem is that stating the truth could cause quite a few legal hassles. The circumstance of the financial collapse of Time were very unclear, and the questions over the company ownership, and of the relationship of the 30 or so KNOWN companies associated with the group are so murky that ti would be very difficult to make a clear cut proveable case. One day I may try, but until then, read anything on the page with a dose of disbelief. To be honest, given the problem it may well be safer to delete the page" It is unreferenced and it might not meet the notability guideline, but I'll see what the community thinks of this. Minima c (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Let me begin by saying that the reasoning given in this nomination -- an unsourced remark saying that an unsourced article is full of lies and disinformation, while suggesting that I know the Real Truth but for legal reasons it cannot be revealed -- is not very convincing. On the other hand, this is an unreferenced article about a maker of otherwise ordinary PCs. One problem is that the search "Time UK" is dredging with too wide a net; but adding "Granville" to the search yields a paltry 8 entries on Google News[32] and more importantly, none of them seem to be more than announcements of transactions. Unless your source fu is stronger than mine, I'd have to say this probably isn't notable. The article does seem to be inconsistent as to whether this is a going concern or "gone into administration", i.e. bankruptcy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as this was, at one time, the largest manufacturer of PCs in the UK. Sources are easy to find such as Damian Reece (4 Aug 2005), "Buyers queue up for chance to buy Granville assets", The Independent. We might merge with but the repeated restructurings make the exact relationship of these companies unclear. In any case, disentangling this is not a matter of deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Merge to Granville Technology Group. The fact that the legal relationship between them is unclear doesn't mean that we need separate articles on them. In fact, having separate articles simply makes it difficult to know where to put information. They are clearly very closely related. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability, schmotability: currently the article contains zero sources and as such needs deletion per WP:V unless somebody bothers to actually add relevant sources to the article. Sandstein 08:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to to misunderstand or misrepresent WP:V. It has been well established by discussion at WT:Verifiability that the absence of references is not, in itself, a reason to delete. For example, we currently see there that it is consensus that, "tagging a section just because it has no references borders on disruption". Our actual editing policy is to retain what we can and improve it. Deletion in such cases is disruption because it obstructs "progress toward improving an article". Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced, therefore no way to establish WP:Notability. Article has existed for 4 1/2 years, which is quite long enough to wait for sources to eventuate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:16, 14 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) 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Adrian Brooks (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous IP editor. Top Jim (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being from a Quaker family of Olympic fencers seems rather unlikely. Edward321 (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE THIS COMMENT ABOVE - the family comprises Jews who converted to Quakerism in the 1940s - Deborah Beale—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal boudicca (talk • contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Makler,_Sr. reference to fencer father and brother

Derek iman (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC) — Derek iman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Nicoletta adrian brooks credited as author of book in which his photographs are used

Derek iman (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a typo: Daniel Nicoletta's photographs illustrated the book that Adrian Brooks wrote—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal boudicca (talk • contribs)

Paul Makler, Sr does not reference anything. The article does not and seems to have never existed. The book mentioned at Daniel Nicoletta is not an independent source, Brooks is also listed as an author.[33] It does not seem to assert notability, merely that Brooks was part of a non-notable group at one point. Edward321 (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a slight typo above: I believe the article referred to is Paul Makler, Sr. (note missing period above). However as Edward321 notes, like the Nicoletta article, it's not an independent source and doesn't mention Brooks. Top Jim (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book can be found with a basic web search - Deborah Beale—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal boudicca (talk • contribs)

Yes, editor Edward321 posted a link to the book (right above your post), so its existence isn't in question. Writing a book doesn't automatically confer notability, however: can you please supply evidence from WP:Reliable sources on how his writing of the book, and any other works, is notable? Reviews, references from other works, etc. would be helpful. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a hoax. I have been working with Adrian Brooks for 2 years on his memoirs, and I have observed no impropriety with factual matters in that time - Deborah Beale—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal boudicca (talk • contribs)

Comment - I have known Adrian since he lived in Inverness, CA, in 1972 or 73, when he was known as Craig Makler. I heard him read his poetry in San Francisco, I saw him perform in Angels of Lights shows, and I have read most if not all of his published books and one unpublished manuscript. He disappeared from my life in the mid-1980s, and I learned a few years ago that he had been living in India but was then living again in San Francisco. I visited with him there this summer. He has had an interesting and artistic life. This article should not be deleted because of some uninformed comments. Bob W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob1945 (talk • contribs) — Bob1945 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - Folks, please read the nomination at the top: Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. It's about notability, not whether or not the article is a hoax. I'll remove the hoax tag now to help reduce confusion over this. If there's evidence that he's notable per the above criteria, please add it to the article. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fail to see what is in dispute about this article. I've known Adrian since the early '80s, seen him in the Angels of Light (a theatre troupe well ahead of their time), read all his novels (Roulette, Glass Arcade and Black and White and Red all over - all still on Amazon.com) and poetry (unpublished), bought his rugs, seen his art and heard about his time with Gangaji. He is a very interesting man - both extremely creative and intelligent - and, born into a privileged background, has had a very interesting life meeting many interesting people and being involved in lots of things. At the forefront of gay culture in San Francisco. Nina Grunfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Grunfeld) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.201.25 (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC) — 78.144.201.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note that personal endorsements are of no use in WP:Verifying notability. What's in question is not how interesting he is, but his WP:Notability per WP:Notability (people), especially, WP:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Can you please supply evidence from WP:Reliable sources supporting his notability? Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have known Adeian Brooks for over 25 years and have worked with him on several projects and found him to be inteligent,sensitive and imaginative, great with detail and basically a fine writer who i think deserves his own wikipedia page, particularly for his notable work in the 1970s and 1980s thankyou RICHARD HESLOP film maker/artist Richardheslop (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)— Richardheslop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does not matter if you personally know Mr. Brooks. What you need are sources. Something like a website or journal that talks about Mr. Brooks and his accomplishments. The Eskimo (talk) 07:05, 6 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. No comments over 14 days to show how article can meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Industries Development Centre[edit]

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

This organisation seemingly exists, but coverage of it in secondary sources is extremely thin. There is this [34] but it really isn't enough to establish notability or even a clear understanding of what exactly this place/organisation is. There are two organisations with exactly the same name (but seemingly unrelated) in Indonesia and Taiwan, but this article is about an organisation in Pakistan. The article at present, completely lacks references and is very unclear. Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 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. Courcelles 00:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia national bandy team[edit]

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

A national team in any sport may arguably have WP:Inherent notability if it is shown to exist. Per WP:NSPORT, "the article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria". I cannot see any reliable sources verifying this team's existence. Shirt58 (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not finding much news coverage but this site confirms the Mongolian National Team really does exist in that they played Canada, Latvia, and Hungary in the 2010 Bandy World Championships. Redfarmer (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A national team for a sport played around the world. Dream Focus 07:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of national bandy teams or something similar. National teams may have inherent notability, however the content of the article still needs to satisfy WP:V. If there is no (or very little) verifiable information about this team, then devoting an entire article to it is pointless, as it will just be a permastub. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 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. Courcelles 08:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary national bandy team[edit]

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

Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including it in that AfD. The fault is entirely my own. Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definite keep since Ghits come up for the Hungary National Team, including [this YouTube video from 2008] that confirms, as you said in your rationale, they exist. Also, this site confirms they did indeed play in the 2010 Bandy World Championships. Redfarmer (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reason mentioned in the Mongolian article. Next time, after using Google news archive search yourself, if you don't find anything, and sincerely doubt its notable, just nominate one first to see how it goes. Could someone combine all of these AFDs together? National sports team for a sport played around the world, there ample evidence already provided by sources found in the other AFDs that they play each other in a worldwide tournament. Dream Focus 07:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confer 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of national bandy teams or something similar. National teams may have inherent notability, however the content of the article still needs to satisfy WP:V. If there is no (or very little) verifiable information about this team, then devoting an entire article to it is pointless, as it will just be a permastub. SnottyWong ^confer 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:12, 8 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. Courcelles 08:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada national bandy team[edit]

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

Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including it in that AfD. The fault is entirely my own. Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The very first Ghit is for the national team's official web site, which links to a story from The New York Times. I don't have much doubt about the notability of this one. Redfarmer (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It clearly exist, The New York Times article confirming this. Dream Focus 07:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^converse 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of national bandy teams or something similar. National teams may have inherent notability, however the content of the article still needs to satisfy WP:V. If there is no (or very little) verifiable information about this team, then devoting an entire article to it is pointless, as it will just be a permastub. The NYT article linked above by Redfarmer is primarily about the sport itself, the Canadian team is only mentioned in passing. SnottyWong ^converse 17:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree on this one. The official site itself keeps an entire section of press clippings on their team over the years here. They may not have been linked yet but they are very valid. Redfarmer (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may need some work, but the team definetly exists, has a clear history and is notable. The article is in fact in better shape and more referenced that those of Finland or Norway where Bandy is a much larger sport. Ravendrop (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page, including the Canadian result at the most recent world Championship, and a Winnipeg Free Press article about the Canadian team at that championship. Ravendrop (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:12, 8 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. Courcelles 08:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus national bandy team[edit]

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

Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including it in that AfD. The fault is entirely my own. Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of Ghits. Another obvious notability for me. Redfarmer (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reason mentioned in the Mongolian article. Next time, after using Google news archive search yourself, if you don't find anything, and sincerely doubt its notable, just nominate one first to see how it goes. Could someone combine all of these AFDs together? National sports team for a sport played around the world, there ample evidence already provided by sources found in the other AFDs that they play each other in a worldwide tournament. Dream Focus 07:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 17:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of national bandy teams or something similar. National teams may have inherent notability, however the content of the article still needs to satisfy WP:V. If there is no (or very little) verifiable information about this team, then devoting an entire article to it is pointless, as it will just be a permastub. SnottyWong ^talk 17:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:12, 8 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. Courcelles 08:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands national bandy team[edit]

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

Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including this article in that AfD. The fault is entirely my own. Shirt58 (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like the others, sources exist, including this one that shows the Netherlands National Team played in the 2010 Bandy World Championships. Redfarmer (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Or in other words, you need to do more than just provide a source which demonstrates existence. PhilKnight (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confer 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of national bandy teams or something similar. National teams may have inherent notability, however the content of the article still needs to satisfy WP:V. If there is no (or very little) verifiable information about this team, then devoting an entire article to it is pointless, as it will just be a permastub. SnottyWong ^confer 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as other ones for this. Its a national team for a sport played around the world. And obviously it'd get some news coverage in its own nation when it played games. Dream Focus 07:16, 8 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. Courcelles 08:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan national bandy team[edit]

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

Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including this article in that AfD. Twinkle has its its limitations. Shirt58 (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The third ghit is for this news story that discusses the defeat of the Kazakhstan team by Russia in the opening game of the 2010 Bandy World Championships. Coverage definitely exists. Redfarmer (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 17:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of national bandy teams or something similar. National teams may have inherent notability, however the content of the article still needs to satisfy WP:V. If there is no (or very little) verifiable information about this team, then devoting an entire article to it is pointless, as it will just be a permastub. The article linked above by Redfarmer is extremely short (83 words total), probably not WP:SIGCOV. SnottyWong ^squeal 17:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as other ones for this. Its a national team for a sport played around the world. And obviously it'd get some news coverage in its own nation when it played games. Dream Focus 07:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Black Tide. Consensus that does not meet notability guidelines but a redirect is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Garcia (musical artist)[edit]

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

Musician with no independent notability. BLP PROD removed by anon IP editor within hours of nomination, hence AFD nomination. No reliable sources found that give more than trivial coverage. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article as nominated was largely copied from here/here. I've removed the offending text and now there's little to justify a separate article, so unless some reliable sources can be found with which to expand it, a redirect to Black Tide would be in order.--Michig (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 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) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Chinatown[edit]

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

Mere puffery. Hoary (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like it won a 2010 outstanding achievement award from Heritige BC. Not that I think that throws it over any threshold, but I think it would be prudent to have a deletion rationale that was a little more extensive than "Mere puffery".--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in three parts. ¶ On my nomination. The article looked like mere puffery. I said no more, because no more was obviously needed, because I was tired, and because people aren't always thrilled by my longer nominations. ¶ Good catch. That does look like real notability, and I should have looked for and found it. ¶ But we have a new problem: The heritagebc.ca page says for example that this is a landmark publication chronicling the vibrant heritage of Canada's oldest Chinatown. By contrast (or not), our article talks of a landmark picture book showcasing the vibrant Chinese-Canadian heritage. The two passages seem oddly related. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for "flat out copyright volations" and it wasn't copied "word for word", but it is still pretty promotional and very closely worded to the original. Inadequate paraphrasing of a promotional review produces a promotional Wikipedia article I suppose.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It is indeed puffery from start to finish and would require a total rewrite to be encyclopedic. My advice is to pave over it and start again, if enough sources can be found to justify a stand-alone article. Reyk _YO! 08:16, 6 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 Redirected during debate.. Courcelles 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Puerto Rico[edit]

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

Short-lived airline without any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing notability per WP:CORP (in fact, the only source is a tiny snippet just proving that the company existed). The airline is not listed at any fleet directories, so it did not operate any larger aircraft. If it operated any flights at all, then they were flown using minor aircraft (Cessna, Beechcraft, Jetstream etc.), leaving the airline without any encyclopedic impact. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am going to hold off forming a decision, but this article/advertisement [35] shows that "Air Puerto Rico" flew DC-9 jetliners at one point or another. Again, the size of the aircraft they flew really doesn't mean anything notability wise until more sources are found. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this particular airline was in business since 1961, and was involved in a number of accidents per this. Whats weird is that this source calls it a "cargo airline", other sources seem to say it was a passenger airline... basically the information is conflicting. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - My final opinion is to redirect the article to Borinquen Air, which I just found out already exists here on Wikiepdia.-Marcusmax(speak) 21:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, how could I miss that there is already a Borinquen Air article... I've just executed the redirect, so this AfD debate can be closed. Sorry for this, silly me. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silly you. You knew this already! Thank you for the time spent on this matter. QuAz GaA 21:15, 12 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. May be treated as an uncontested PROD in future. Courcelles 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local Licks Live 1991[edit]

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

WP:N Þingvellir (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article would probably mean the deletion of all the articles in this category, though I suppose they could all be merged into a single article. --Elassint (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 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) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baltia Air Lines[edit]

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

This is a company which was founded in 1989, and since then plans to launch flight operations. Up to now, they only achieved to create a website and to buy one sinlge aircraft. There are no comments to find about when flights will start, so I cannot see why this company shall be considered notable. Except for the website, there are no reliable references at all, and this proposed airline did not get any considerable news coverage, so IMO it just fails WP:CORP due to WP:CRYSTAL. Most of the article was written by User:BaltiaAirLines, as an obvious promotion and POV (only contribution by this user), though these contents are removed again by now. To cut a long story short, if I were to buy an aircraft and stated that I planned to launch flights between New York and St Petersburg, it would not be notable here on Wikipedia yet. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admrboltz (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is by no means, easy to buy an aircraft. Further, a google search reveals several articles referring to this company. Looks notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, could you please give a reason why this comapny should be notable? Buying an aircraft - whether it's easy or not - is surely not an inclusion criterium. Notability would be established if this airline operated any flights, or at least once a definite starting date is given. A mere intention (even when covered in the media) does not mean anything here on Wikipedia. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of independent sources to satisfy WP:CORP. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an existing startup airline with offices in JFK International Airport, whose airplane is currently located in Malaysian FAA approved maintainable facility MAS Aerospace engineering MRO facility that is undergoing redesign and proper maintainable. The airline is currently in possess of being evaluated and certified by FAA. So yea, IMO its a notable airline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.70.89.130 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the account of the only keep !vote in the first listing is now blocked as a sockpuppet. jonkerz ♠ 17:57, 10 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. Fram (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Littlest Pet Shop (TV series)[edit]

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

~~Delete per WP:CHRYSTAL and Ten Pound Hammer's Law. Another possibility is a merge into Littlest Pet Shop. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 19:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)~~ TenPoundHammer has rewritten the article. It did exist in the 90's. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 02:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry if I didn't make this clear with my first note, but I am withdrawing the nomination. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 15:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A merge would be a good idea when/if the show is confirmed. --Elassint (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This TV show actually aired in the mid-1990s and had a few episodes out on video. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, Rewrite as well to reflect this. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete pure WP:CRYSTAL, nothing's decided yet. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per Slgrandson. If it did exist in the mid-1990s, that version is certainly notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after rewrite. The crystal ball argument doesn't apply for series that have already been aired, and the current version has sources. JIP | Talk 09:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs rewrite, but definitely notable. Ng.j (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator's well reasoned withdrawal and the rewrite that shows that the article is indeed not crystal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually remember this even though I would have been in my mid teens and shouldn't have ever watched it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 9 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) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer's Law (Sentential)[edit]

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

Confusingly written, but clearly WP:MADEUP and WP:OR. This is not a published theory. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have rectified some concerns, especially WP:MADEUP and WP:OR. Also many links have been added and the form is coming into compliance with wikis standards. Please reconsider delete, or, at least, delay decision while the page develops. (October 31, 2010; 11:43 EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.130.98 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, I have been reading the policies, and I don't think this should even have been nominated: "Before nominating an article for AFD, please: 1) strongly consider if an alternative deletion process (speedy deletion, or proposed deletion) should be used. 2) before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." By the way, I am creator of the page, but didn't log in today. Hey how do I vote FOR my page? I see two votes against? Maybe I have ot log in first?209.105.130.98 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep209.105.130.98 (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~The patent is a step in the right direction, assuming it mentions "Meyer's Law",~~ but we need third party coverage. Has this theory been published in any peer-reviewed journals? Has it been covered in any established publications? Also, it might be an idea to read WP:COI. Writing about yourself or your own work on Wikipedia is usually frowned upon. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 07:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit: Just realised it wasn't a patent, rather filing for copyright...) Catfish Jim & the soapdish

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, unpublished, and (in my opinion) not likely to be published in anything remotely respectable. The "Implications" section is particularly damning. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be original research via synthesis. The references cited relate not to Meyer's Law but to fundamental work in linguistics or biology on which the proposed law builds. Neither of the publications by Meyer cited here are peer reviewed scientific publications. Cnilep (talk) 05:16, 8 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) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Allegro[edit]

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

This was redlinked in the discussion logs, so I'm fixing the nomination for User:Rogermx, and left a note on his talk page to come and provide his rationale for deletion. I would hazard a guess that it's because the subject of this article is an unnotable minor criminal. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan, thank you for fixing the nomination for me - this is my first one. I have found no hits on Google for the subject, there is only one reference source provided, and the content indicates that the subject is indeed a minor criminal who is neither famous or notorious. I suggest we delete the article. Thank you. Rogermx (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites one source. It doesn't give the page number. I've looked through the book as best I can and I cannot find where it actually supports all of this content. It talks about "the guys", rather than this particular individual specifically. I cannot find any other sources documenting this person's life and works at all. As a misrepresentation of the source given, with no other sources apparently existing, this is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references to support any information in the article. --Vic49 22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoto Ota[edit]

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

Unable to find non-trivial reliable sources independent of the subject in order to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. J04n(talk page) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Kiyoto Ota is a notable sculptor mainly in Mexico, see www.lacasaverde.com.mx, www.arts-history.mx, www.difusioncultural.uam.mx, www.kaikan.com.mx, www.uam.mx. He is mentioned in the Lonely Planet Mexico City, City Guide (p. 90) and in the book Japanese Sculptors [36]. See also G-Books search result for "Kiyoto Ota" escultura. In my opinion this information is sufficient to compile a decent article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vejvančický: important artist, famous works in Mexico. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 04:09, 10 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.