The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contagonist[edit]

Contagonist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Neologism; as the article states "The term contagonist was coined by Dramatica.com" and I can't see usage in reliable sources. TheGrappler (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable neologism lacking any significant coverage in literary sources.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because this is a neologism that is the product of original research, and no reliable sources could be found through a Google search. Cullen328 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:34, 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 00:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free Penn State[edit]

Radio Free Penn State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Radio program on a college radio station. No evidence of notability. Having notable guests doesn't make a radio program notable. GrapedApe (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shows appearing only on student radio are virtually never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree entirely with Lenahan. WKPS is a 100 watt station that, like a lot of university stations, relies on cable to reach the campus. The "hey, look at what we did" achievements can be mentioned in the station article. Mandsford 17:48, 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 00:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exotics Racing School[edit]

Exotics Racing School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Article was a candidate for G11. Is now a substantial recreation of the original article with no sources to help establish notability Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Spam. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the Las Vegas Sun reference is solid. I found a passing reference in USA Today. The article can be improved to eliminate spamishness and to add more sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep COI issues will still need copyediting and I can understand the concerns over spam claims. To justify this article for retention we seem to have two points left that it must still achieve:

• Adequate multiple third-party refs? LV Sun is one, can we get another? What's the USA Today ref and can that be added?
• Does it pass WP:MILL? Although running a racing school is probably more fun than most of us get in our day jobs, it's still just what racing schools do. Is this a notable racing school that has achieved more coverage than is due simply by being a business carrying on its normal tasks.

Incidentally, photographs. If this is a hugely COI promotional article, then the least we can expect is for its authors to upload some good images for it! And that means freely-licensed images to Wikimedia Commons, for the benfit of the whole project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam. TwiceThrice-speedied already[1][2]: why is this at AfD? -- Rrburke (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, why is an article that two editors at AfD are inclined to keep being considered for speedy?

COI, yes. However that's a new editor unfamiliar with the arcane nature of WP and we still have to assume GF, even on newbies with businesses. What this ought to come down to is not how did it get here, but is this article an appropriate encyclopedic article on a notable topic? Anything else is a fix-up by editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did I nominate it for SD? How about because it is reposted spam that had already been speedied three times and meets the criteria for speedy deletion? A clueless new user is one thing: an SPA who repeatedly reposts a spam article about his company after being told there's a problem with that is not simply a clueless new user, is not interested in getting the point, is not interested in building an encyclopedia, and is not interested in much, it appears, except using Wikipedia as a platform to advertise his company. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Racing schools has 10 entries. Do we need to purge those too, or is there some distinguishing characteristic that makes some schools notable, others not? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's whether they've received significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those ten, only one, Buck Baker Racing School had adequate refs. Another has one ref, the rest are all now tagged as unreferenced. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General issue raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#Notability_standards_for_racing_schools.3F Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless significantly better sources can be found. The Las Vegas Sun piece is almost certainly a straight copy of a press release from the company: it doesn't appear to have an author, and it reads as promotional puff. WP:NOTABILITY says "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability [...] The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself [...] have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." 4u1e (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:4ule and at least one of the references goes towards establish the notability of the owner rather than the business. If a noted celebrity purchases a coffee shop, that does not transfer notability to the coffee shop. Perhaps the alternative action might be to move the article to Romain Thievin and re-write according to the more noteworthy aspect of the article. If the authoring edittor continues to re-spawn deleted articles then a block is additionally worthy of consideration. --Falcadore (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As failing to gain significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A single writeup in the Las Vegas Sun is essentially local coverage about a business that opened in the City. I see no wider coverage of any sort. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 06:53, 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 Non-Admin Closure, withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding delete votes ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Rand Limited[edit]

First Rand Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Fails wp:NOTE, possibly promotional. At first, I feared a copyvio, but it does not appear to be the case. Problem w/the refs. Of the 4 refs provided, 2 are from the company website; refs 3 & 4 are the same Google Finance page result. I am not seeing notability established. The Eskimo (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as Nom: I withdraw my deletion nomination for this article. Ref's have been added as well as inter-Wiki links, and, quite honestly, after reviewing the list of banks in Africa and Europe, I believe my understanding of the notability threshold for banks was incorrect, and is perhaps lower than for corporations. Whatever the case, I would support admin closure as keep, as I am uncertain if it is correct to simply remove the deletion tag myself. The Eskimo (talk) 18:12, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSTC HMCS Acadia[edit]

CSTC HMCS Acadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Non-notable cadet training facility lacking in reliable sources and significant independent coverage per WP:MILMOS/N and WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the HMCS Acadia article, trimming appropriately in the process. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: doesn't seem notable, nor covered significantly in reliable sources. I'm not entirely against a merge, but I'm not sure about the viability of the suggested merge target as it seems essentially just a dab page that really only exists because this one exists. I'm open to changing my mind after clarification, though, of course. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment HMCS Acadia is not a dab page, it's a WP:SETINDEX page (a ((shipindex))), it's supposed to be a compact list with a short definition accompanying each entry. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I really understand the difference between a dab and an index page (they seem to serve the same purpose to me), but that's my failing, I guess. Anyway, I'm still not really convinced that it is an appropriate merge target. If there has really only been one ship of the name, why would there be a need for an index page? Surely the merge target would be the actual ship that bore the name in the first place (i.e CSS Acadia)? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to WP:LIST "They are different from disambiguation pages in that they are fully-fledged articles meant to document multiple subjects, while disambiguation pages are for navigation purposes only." eg Rail transport by country Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per AR. I share his view and his willingness to reconsider the merge. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Ships are notable. Shore establishments are notable. The Canadian Navy gets to decide that this is indeed one of its shore establishments. According to Google, people are more likely to be searching for information about this Arcadia than the WWII ship. It would defeat the purpose of the Wikipedia if it were not listed as one of the ships of the name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AFAIK this isn't either though. It is a cadet training facility named after the ship. Anotherclown (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently not. It appears to carry the name and honours of the original ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That put the cat amoung the pigeons... IMO this isn't clear from the article, but if it can be established that would be enough to make it notable. Can you please add that to the article with a reference? Ultimately the major issue with this article is that it currently lacks reliable sources and significant independent coverage, so if this could be included then its no longer an issue. Anotherclown (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the article says. I was looking for a reliable source at the official page. It says On July 29, 1978, HMCS ACADIA was officially recommissioned at CFB Cornwallis It has the HMCS in front of its name, and the same badge as the original ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading between the lines that would seem to be the implication, but I'm still unclear on one aspect: are Sea Cadet facilities commissioned shore establishments in the Canadian Navy or do they have some other status? Anotherclown (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cornwallis Park, Nova Scotia. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:13, 7 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 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 close. Wrong venue; discussion is now taking place here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poltergeist IV: In The Shadows[edit]

Poltergeist IV: In The Shadows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

film doesn't exist; article exists only as a redirect to another article with no mention of non-existent subject Minaker (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:09, 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 redirect, withdrawn by nom, NAC Gigs (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Coy[edit]

Randi Coy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Not notable outside of this one reality show. This article overlaps almost completely My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance. Redirecting it there was challenged. Gigs (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect - I was the one who challenged the redirect under the mistaken impression that this was an ongoing show and all of this contestant content would be extraneous there. It's not in this case.--Oakshade (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:09, 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.

Keith Pepperell[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, default to keep. There are some good arguments here on both sides. However, given the number of keep arguments from single purpose accounts, I think this would be a contentious close, even 13-1 in favour of keep. The reason I make this close is that I notice that a concerted effort has begun to rewrite the article at Talk:SemEval/Proposed_Revision. Once a new version of the article has been created, any editor can bring the new version to AfD if they think it prudent/necessary. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SemEval[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)).

SemEval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

No indication why this series of workshops is notable or significant. "Sources" provided deal more with the methodology of the topic at hand, and do not appear to be supporting arguments for this topic to be notable. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SemEval-1. — Timneu22 · talk 21:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Automatic semantic analysis is an area that is becoming more and more important in natural language processing research, and the availability of datasets is central to this effort. SemEval has been important especially in making datasets available for a variety of semantic processing tasks, often being the first to point out an important new task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.244.46 (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — 24.155.244.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: SemEval is an important series of conferences that have been influential in the development of the field of computational semantic analysis. This page is the only place that summarises all information about the SemEval events that have run to date and provides a comprehensive overview. Pages exist for similar conference series such as TREC and MUC. 14:08, 9 November 2010 (GMT) northernLinguist — northernLinguist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SemEval has five published proceedings, is cited by hundreds of papers and has led to several special journal issues (referenced in the article). I believe that this demonstrates notability. Francis Bond (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: SemEval is the primary semantic evaluation forum in the field of Computational Linguistics, with 100 papers at the last iteration alone; it is the primary activity of ACL's Special Interest Group on the Lexicon (SIGLEX), and an ongoing activity which has been growing every year PimmyP (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — PimmyP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep per this article and several of the references therein. Therefore, passes WP:GNG. -Atmoz (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does that demonstrate notability? It's the organization talking about itself; a source, to be sure, but that doesn't show how or why it's notable. It seems like the concepts being discussed at these events are notable, but the events themselves aren't notable enough to stand on their own; hence, they can/should be merged into Association for Computational Linguistics. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Association for Computational Linguistics, the sponsor. —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Association for Computational Linguistics, If for some bizare reason if its kept on its own it needs to be stubified as its pretty darn spammy The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SemEval is an important series of workshops in the field of Computational Linguistics and there is too much information to merge with the ACL page. Francis Bond (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much volume, you mean. —Tamfang (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly there alot here but very little of it is within the WP:MOS, what little prose there is can be merged. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you be more specific? I don't see anything in WP:MOS that argues against putting information in tables, if that is what is bothering you. Francis Bond (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the comment refers to the high number of inline hyperlinks and such. If you look at earlier revisions of the article (like when this AfD was created), the article was truly horrific, MOS-speaking. It's slightly better now. — Timneu22 · talk 01:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It look identical to me, not to mention WP:EL, WP:JARGON, I cant read the damn thing. Not to mention a single source as the nom talks about the topic. It appears to be straight WP:OR and WP:SPAM masqauading as an article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't disagree. It's still pretty bad, just not as bad. — Timneu22 · talk 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems to me that all of the external links fall into this permitted category Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. The only original research is a synthesis of existing material, which is part of writing an encyclopaedia article. All the links are part of a summary that tells us more about the workshops, and lead to more information for those who want more. This follows the guidelines in WP:SPAM If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Do not simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them.. Technically the link is followed by the facts, but that is just because it is in a table. So I am afraid I can't agree that it is either original research or spam. I agree that the article is fairly technical, but that in itself is not an argument for deletion, only for more editing. Francis Bond (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So who's looking for an encyclopedic understanding of a series of workshops? —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not difficult to find entries on series of workshops. Two related examples are Cross Language Evaluation Forum and Text Retrieval Conference. Perhaps this article could be improved in readability, and it gives a lot of information, but in any case its fault is providing more pointers and information than other related articles. EnekoA (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)— EnekoA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
              • There are articles on football teams, but not – so far as I know – descriptions of each scoring drive in each Super Bowl. —Tamfang (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If there is third-party coverage in reliable sources to show that the workshops are notable as events, then keep the page. Scholarly work by workshop participants, which is what the current reference section offers, is not, however, evidence of the notability of the workshops themselves. The references cited are excellent sources for understanding word-sense disambiguation, but this page purports to describe SemEval workshops as such, not the scientific/scholarly understandings that grow out of them or otherwise relate to them. I would say that best references for the workshops as workshops would be non-scholarly sources such as newspapers or semi-scholarly work such as Science Daily or Chronicle of Higher Education. Cnilep (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Association for Computational Linguistics- seems notable enough for a mention there, but not for a full article. And I stand by earlier comments I made elsewhere that this read(s) like an advertisement; that can be fixed, but once fixed it seems like the information would best be merged into the aforementioned article, hence my decision. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC) On further reflection, I think that this article is worth keeping. I took a very careful look through the sources, and they demonstrate more notability than I would have thought. The article still needs some work on writing, but that's something that'll improve overtime, especially once the Wikignomes make their way over here. Special thanks to Francis Bond for getting me to take another look; now I'm convinced. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment here's some short summary of the WPs that people are talking about here.Alvations (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. As mentioned above, appears to generate significant work in the field. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Guys, i did some wikifying of the page, take a look and see whether the users who cannot stand tables finds it alright. thanks Alvations (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable evaluation campaign. - Francis Tyers · 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SemEval is an important part of the computational linguistics milieu, comparable to other shared tasks which also have their own Wikipedia pages, e.g. MUC and TREC. This is valuable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin.cohen (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is one of the more important and influential series of events in the field. --Zeman (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SemEval (and SenseEval) is undoubtedly one of the most important and well-established forums for the development and evaluation of semantic technologies. While the workshop itself is naturally most well-known amongst academics and researchers, many of the developments that arise from it are of import to the general populace. As significant aspects of our technological landscape are coming to be transformed by the sorts of technologies fostered by SemEval, the subject-matter of this page is of increasing historical and cultural significance. Any recommendations for this page's improvement should therefore be heeded and acted upon in order that this important information remains available. Focus should be on the history of the workshop and its major contributions to the broader field, with more technical concerns remaining the business of the workshop itself. Justin Washtell (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Justin Washtell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject appears to be notable, however the article right now basically a bunch of meaningless marketing doublespeak and spam. The lead is completely incomprehensible. For a bunch of people who are all about words and semantics, you'd think their WP article would be a bit more coherent. Also, way too many inappropriate external links. Major cleanup required. SnottyWong ^prattle 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• commentpersonally I am yet to be convinced is indpendently notable form Association for Computational Linguistics. Its run by them and likely got press because its connected to them. Just as a Conference by American Anthropological Association is notable and gets press for being a conference held by them. But We dont have a Article on every conference of theirs. thats what needs to be proven by those to argueing keep to as why it is independently notable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - SemEval is a major feature of the NLP and CL landscape. It is very useful to have this page as a consolidated description of the history and processes to use as a reference for students et al. Merging it into the ACL page is quite inappropriate. (I actually think it's quite comprehensible and spam-free.)JimBreen (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)— JimBreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - SemEval is very well known to anybody working on computational linguistics in general and word sense disambiguation in particular. This article might deserve some rewriting, but an article on SemEval in Wikipedia is definitely needed. Benoît Sagot (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Benoît Sagot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Let's look at this in a larger context. Human language technology as a field runs quite a number of annual competitions (some of which are called "shared tasks," or even "conferences" if there is an attached meeting). I personally find it difficult to keep them all straight, especially since each competition has a history: not only are new techniques tried each year within a competition, but the competition's tasks, task definitions, evaluation measures, datasets, etc. evolve from year to year. It would actually be really helpful to have a Wikipedia page for each competition, with a Wikipedia category covering all of them (or perhaps covering AI competitions more generally, with others including the Loebner Prize and Netflix Prize). I'd use these pages for reference and would send my natural language processing students to go browse the whole category. It would be a terrible organization for Wikipedia to try to cover a dozen different detailed competitions on one page (let alone the ACL page). I am not commenting here on the current quality of the page, just saying that I would like to see a page for each competition. Such pages ought to link to explanations of the various topics they mention, which might spark some necessary activity in improving Wikipedia's general coverage of the many topics in computational linguistics / human language technology / natural language processing / speech processing. Eclecticos (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google Scholar seems to find it quite notable with over a thousand hits for its current name, and more than two thousand hits of its old name of "Senseval". Google books is the same way. Dream Focus 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how many of those hits did you check? On the search I ran, most of them just mentioned it in passing; those that went into more detail seemed to be more oriented towards the organization that ran it, the Association for Computational Linguistics. Did you find anything that made it stand out enough from the organization? Because I didn't. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a notable enough aspect of it to be mentioned everywhere. In the article they mention the workshops being taught. For the scientific community, it is clearly something notable. Dream Focus 10:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • [3] So are American Anthropological Association Meetings but we can't have an Article on their meetings Solely on beucause they are a "big deal" in Anthroplogy. I still see no arguement as to to have it indendent from the orgiaztion that hosts/organizes the meetings The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do not really understand why this article should be deleted. It is definitely *not* an ad, and explains clearly the contribution of each task to overcome the state of the art in the field (e.g., why coarse-grained WSD should be performed, why word sense induction is proposed, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robykiwi (talk • contribs) 06:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but wow, does it need cleanup. The article should be describing SemEval, not every single action it has taken. There are references enough to show its notability, but a majority of that article has got to go. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any suggestion of what to include for a wikipage for workshops? any leads to some sort of MoS or templates?? Alvations (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I think Message Understanding Conference has a good template for a basis of the article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Words and their meaning are important to our lives. Research about word meanings and what makes us human is therefore important. SemEval/Senseval is not just a series of workshops, it is a research initiative to facilitate worldwide communication between research groups in various countries and to establish a set of standard evaluation metrics. It has a deep impact in the field of Computational Lingustics. A Wikipedia page would be a good starting point about this initiative and about the effort and resources available for disambiguating word senses. Even if the page is deleted, it will be re-created again on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Tens of thousands of researchers have an interest in the subject of word meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LinguisticBlue (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — LinguisticBlue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep I believe notability has been established, and the article should stay, but I do agree that there needs to be considerable revision. We should consider for whom this article would be valuable. The highly detailed descriptions of each task would only be valuable to people familiar with the conference, and probably belong on senseval.org (or whatever is the official site for SemEval). At least the external links to task descriptions should be in the External Links section, and as a more general link (e.g. http://nlp.cs.swarthmore.edu/semeval/tasks/). Most likely only people at least somewhat familiar with computational linguistics will come across the article wanting to know more about SemEval, so some jargon is fine, but these words should be linked to their namesake WP articles for proper description. Goodmami (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)— Goodmami (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• 'Reply Lomon's suggestion, here's the current SemEval page that looks more wikified and more like MUC page...Alvations (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I strongly believe that Semantic processing is at the heart of language understanding and the article should not be deleted. The information available in the article gives a comphensive view of what SemEval is all about. Freewind77 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)— Frewwind77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Consider - I created the page so i have the least credibility to vote, i shall leave some non-publishers' cites and references to credits SemEval notability:
  • Chinese Academy of Science active participation in Semeval
  • Stanford publications in SemEval
  • Microsoft participation in SemEval
  • Bing (Microsoft SE from Powerset) participation in the most recent SemEval
  • [=http://www.research.a-star.edu.sg A*STAR] participation for SemEval tasks
  • and much more if you look through the SemEval page or read through the proceedings and see who attends these workshop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvations (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Heartbroken. weak keep: a recurring scholarly conference with sufficient (IMO) echo in independent publications. I see no problem in having separate entries on the events and on the organization behind them. But. Even trimmed down from 40+K to current state, it's "too much and nothing certain", so concerns about notability and credibility of its content (not subject) are still valid. Rescue flag is more than appropriate. East of Borschov 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would really love to improve the page, is there some other information that i should put up? SemEval has tasks and proceedings, i tried putting up the tasks for every SemEval workshop but it was well-accepted. i do agree that the current page is "nothing certain" but not really too much.Alvations (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: I've put up a draft of a trimmed article: Talk:SemEval/Proposed_Revision. What do you think? It's an attempt to make this article more similar to Message Understanding Conference and Text Retrieval Conference. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:36, 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) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lapps in Finnish folklore[edit]

Lapps in Finnish folklore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

I have deProded the article, because i think it need full discussion. Prod rational was:

I have proposed that this article should be deleted for the following reasons:

• There are no references or links within the article
• The article has reference numbers "[1]" that are dead, and not relevant with the article, which may be proof that this was copied from another article.
• The article is *very* poorly written, to the point of being nonsensical.
• If the article was better written, it could have been merge with another article, such as Finnish folklore, but since its not, its better to start from scratch.
• Using derogatory phrases as "lapp" in stead of preferred "Sami", which are no longer in use by academics.
• It makes no reference to who the Sami are within Finnish culture, describing them as "lappalainen" with no decription as to why they are important within Finnish culture.

For these reasons, I propose that this article be deleted. Dinkytown talk 21:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prod rationale. Completely unreferenced and poorly written. Appears to be original research and duplicates topics covered by Finnic mythology/Finnish mythology. Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a (poorly written) essay, not an article: delete as OR. Jonathunder (talk) 14:03, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Betschart[edit]

Wade Betschart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yes, lots of regional coverage but there's some coverage in national news as well. Worth a stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please point me to a national news article that mentions Betschart? I can't seem to find anything non-trivial. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - insufficient non-trivial coverage to establish notability. cmadler (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT, and I'm with Eagles247; I'm not seeing national news articles describing the subject in significant detail.  Ravenswing  17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT is an inclusionary standard. "Failing" WP:NSPORT is not a ground for deletion. A college football player warrants an article if he/she has received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. This is a close case, but as noted below, I don't think the coverage quite reaches that level in this case. Cbl62 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The lead section of NSPORTS is "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways." (emphasis in the original)  Ravenswing  20:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The language you've quoted confirms that NSPORTS is an inclusionary guideline, not an exclusionary one. A college football player who "fails" NSPORTS is not excluded from Wikipedia. It is one of the ways to be included. In the discussion leading to the adoption of NSPORTS, the sponsors repeatedly assured me and others that it would not be applied as an exclusionary standard. A college football player who never plays professional football still gets included if he/she has non-trivial coverage (i.e., more than passing references in game coverage) in the mainstream media sufficient to satisfy GNG. In any event, we agree that Mr. Betschart doesn't meet either of our standards. Cbl62 (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I strongly disagree that news coverge has to be in the "national" news media to satisfy general notability standards, I don't see enough significant news coverage focusing on Betschart even at the regional/state levels, as opposed to routine coverage of the Wyoming football team. There are a couple newspaper stories from the Casper Star-Tribune (circulation c. 30,000) that focus at least in part on him,[4] [5] but they fall a little short IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 19:49, 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) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jackson (wide receiver)[edit]

Brandon Jackson (wide receiver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A search of the Newsbank database shows more than ten feature articles about Jackson published in the Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express, and other mainstream publications. Even if he never plays a game in the NFL, such non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media satisfies general notability guidelines. The following are examples of feature stories on Jackson: (1) "Tahoka student takes byte out of competition," Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, May 10, 2004,[6] (2) "Football field no place for ankle monitor, San Antonio Express-News, August 13, 2005, [7] (3) "Should playing be an option? - Robbery arrest may not keep football star off field with Lancaster," Dallas Morning News, August 10, 2005,[8] (4) Upon further review, prep star deserves chance, Dallas Morning News, December 7, 2006,[9] (5) Ex-football star gets minimum sentence - Lancaster: Supporters testify '05 robberies were one-time mistake, Dallas Morning News, 2007,[10]> (6) Run may catch up to athlete - Probation hearing today for ex-North Mesquite standout accused in burglary, Dallas Morning News, August 25, 2008,[11] and (7) "Police chase could cost former North Mesquite football player his second chance," Dallas Morning News, August 25, 2008.[12]. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This coverage is by local newspapers that all college football players receive if they start. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles about the criminal incident do not appear to relate to this person, so I have stricken them. It's not 100% clear, but with a living person, better to be safe than to inadvertently connect the wrong person to allegations of criminal wrongdoing. I have also substantially expanded the article using correct sources on his accomplishments. I continue to believe there is sufficient coverage to meet general notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for my same reasons in the last AfD. I would argue also that the Dallas Morning News is not a "local" paper as it has one of the 20 largest paid circulations in the United States.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• By "local" I don't mean "small," I mean that the only reason he is appearing in a major newspaper like that is because he played on a college football team close by. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there's no presumption of notability because he never played in the NFL, and I don't see the multiple non-trivial sources needed to satisfy WP:GNG; most of the sources just mention him briefly, or quote him talking about someone/thing else. There's not enough actually written about him. cmadler (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT, no evidence of national news articles describing the subject in significant detail.  Ravenswing  17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 21:22, 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) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Pittman[edit]

Billy Pittman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep key player on 2005 national championship team. Lots of coverage--no question.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such as? And being a "key player" is not make somebody notable. Grsz¹¹ 02:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pittman was the leading receiver on the Texas Longhorns 2005 national championship team. He was the subject of a huge amount of press coverage, including feature stories in national media outlets like Sports Illustrated[13], USA Today,[14], Associated Press,[15], and the Chicago Tribune.[16] His story of overcoming Bell's Palsy to become a football star was one of the big story-lines of the 2005 season. Cbl62 (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Coverage of him personally (not trivial mentions of him as a member of the team) in outlets like Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and the Chicago Tribune clearly establishes notability. cmadler (talk) 13:36, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Missant[edit]

Charles Missant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it seems that his most widespread news coverage comes from being cut by the Jets, he's also showing some good coverage for his professional play in Europe. Granted, playing pro in Europe is not a "free pass" (at least, I think it shouldn't be), there is enough coverage in my opinion to warrant a stub for this player already.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Playing pro football in Europe does not create a presumption of notability the way playing in the NFL does, and I just don't see sufficient non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. If someone finds such coverage and adds it to the article, I will reconsider my decision, or if he attains sufficient notability in the future the article can be re-created then. cmadler (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I strongly disagree that news coverge has to be in the "national" news media to satisfy general notability standards, I don't see enough significant news coverage focusing on Missant even at the regional/state levels. If Paul McDonald or others can point to coverage that I may have overlooked, I will reconsider my opinion. Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 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 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Paris[edit]

James Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has never played in a fully pro leage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has not competed at appropriate level for WP:NSPORTS notability (Malta Prem League is not fully professional), coverage is general sports journalism only. Nothing of significance in his career.--ClubOranje^T 04:15, 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 merge to Superfund. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section 104(e) letter[edit]

Section 104(e) letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Declined WP:PROD. This does not seem to be a notable topic. It's a letter the EPA sends to warn someone that they might be in trouble, if I take the meaning right. The source cited in the ref section does not in fact verify the content, mentioning only the "Section 106 order" which is a different document. A link was added to a very long page from Cornell Law School that might mention this somewhere, but I am not seeing evidence of significant coverage in multiple sources independent from the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with CERCLA or Superfund. The phrase "Section 104(e) letter" is meaningless without a context. There are many federal statutes with a §104(e), and there are many warning letters issued by federal agencies every day. I could see having an article named "CERCLA Section 104(e) letter" if there was press coverage of the subject. Here, the article is an orphan, and the reference to Cornell's Legal Information Institute is just to the full text of the CERCLA statute, which does not count as significant coverage. Racepacket (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. Do a google search for "104(e) letter". Try, e.g., [17]. 128.59.187.129 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment please add this to the "law" related deletion discussions. 128.59.187.129 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a user arguing to keep the article, the onus is on you, not others to back up your claims of notability. Simply asking us to consult Google is not sufficient. I could use Google to prove that the house I live in exists, that does not make it automatically notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Books reference is to a book about CERCLA. In that context, the author has used the shorthand of "§104(e) letter", but out of the context, the phrase is meaningless. If someone wants to canvass the literature and develop an article discussing when §104(e) letters are sent and what questions they typically ask, a decent article could be constructed. However, absent the CERCLA context, all of this is meaningless. Without much more, this article should be merged. Racepacket (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. I would note that anyone can do this, procedures are outlined at WP:DELSORT —Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Superfund. Such letters aren't independently notable of (and would not exist without) the Superfund law itself. If for some reason, someone expands the Superfund article to the extent that there need to be content forks to keep the main article manageable, there is a very slim chance that someone could make the case that this article would be a place to make the division, but right now, there's absolutely no reason to split this off into a separate article when the main article (already an esoteric subject) is barely more than a stub with no indication that an expert is going to spend the time to make it into a useful article. THF (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just edited the page, and it now contains three sources: (1) The United States Code [i.e., the page from Cornell Law School]; (2) the "Superfund Glossary" published as a Congressional Research Service Report [i.e., the original source for the article]; (3) the Google Books source that I mentioned above. [Yes, I'm the IP who posted keep above, and also the individual who created the article.] I invite you to look again at the article and see whether notability is apparent. Incidentally, I want to acknowledge to Racepacket and Beeblebrox that my original response gives an impression of rudeness that I didn't intend. I was just in a rush. I shouldn't have asked you to do my work for me. Best, - AGradman / talk / how the subject page looked when I made this edit 21:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing where the CRS mentions this. There is an entry on the Section 106 letter... In either event I still don't see significant coverage in sources independent from the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without addressing your second point (which is fair), I just wanted to clarify that the CRS report entry appears as follows:

Notice letter. EPA's formal notice by letter to PRPs, also called a Section 104(e) letter, that CERCLA-related action is to be undertaken at a site with those PRPs being considered responsible.

• delete I'm not seeing this as an independent article at all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Superfund. It's a minor aspect of the implementation of that law.  Sandstein  06:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - per Cbl62. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Strong[edit]

Derrick Strong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed Google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about the mass-nominations, one user created all of these articles two years ago and I was looking through their contributions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. College football players who have received non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media meet general notability standards even if they don't play in the NFL. In this case, Strong was a defensive end for a Big Ten team (Illinois). He later played three years of professional football for the Rhein Fire in the NFL Europe,[18] and also in the Arena Football League for the Columbus and Philadelphia teams.[19] Only a really extraordinary college player at the defensive end position (as opposed to an offensive backfield position) receives extensive news coverage of his college career. Strong received such coverage, including feature stories about him in mainstream media outlets. Examples include: (1) Healthy Strong ready to bust out, Chicago Sun-Times, September 18, 2003; (2) Coming on Strong: Illini assistant says junior; line's futures bright, The Herald & Review, Aug. 22, 2002; (3) Illini defensive end seeks Strong performance, The Pantagraph, September 21, 2002; (4) Illinois has Strong will to keep on fighting, The Pantagraph, November 4, 2003; (5) Strong pass rush keeps Illini positive, Chicago Sun-Times, September 27, 2002; (6) End feeling strong as ever: Illini expecting big season from lineman, The Herald & Review, August 13, 2003; (7) Strong powers defense: Caravan gets 2nd shutout in a row, Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 7, 1999; (8) Scary thought: Mount Carmel's Strong getting better, Chicago Sun-Times, November 19, 1999; (9) Son of Chicago firefighter Strong, rest of Illini fighting to focus on football, The Pantagraph, September 2001; (10) Flared Tempers Spawn Shoves, Punches: Strong Reacts Angrily To Rooking Teasing Tradition, Herald-Journal, Aug 18, 2004. Cbl62 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NFL Europe is not considered a professional league. All of the references you provided above are from local papers and every college football player who started for a team gets that kind of coverage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Arena Football League in which he played is, however, a fully professional league. See Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#American football/Canadian football. And the references provided are from multiple daily newspapers, including several articles in the Chicago Sun-Times, which is one of the Top 20 daily newspapers in the United States. See List of newspapers in the United States. There is nothing in the general notability guidelines that says that coverage in newspapers such as this "don't count." They do count and should count. Just as the notability of a Chicago alderman or businessman may be established by coverage in the Sun-Times, so too is an athlete's notability established by coverage in major daily newspapers of the region. There may be grounds to discount coverage that is limited to a single, small-town newspaper in the person's home town, but that's not what we have here. Further, it's simply not true to say that "every college football player" who starts for a team gets the kind of coverage received by Strong. It is a very, very small percentage of college players who get this kind of widespread media coverage. 22:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - I did not realize that he played in a game in the CFL, thereby meeting WP:NSPORT and WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Ville[edit]

Zach Ville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even without researching press coverage, it appears that Ville played several years of fully professional football in the Arena Football League with the Grand Rapids Rampage,[20], two years in the NFL Europe with the Rhein Fire,[21] and in the Canadian Football League with the Saskatchewan Roughriders.[22]. Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 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 withdrawn - per Cbl62. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Harden[edit]

Michael Harden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aside from any issue of news coverage of Harden's college career, it appears he played in the NFL for the Seattle Seahawks during the 2005 season. See here and here. Doesn't look like these mass nominations were carefully researched. The first three that I have dug into (Derrick Strong, Zach Ville and Harden) all played professional football. Please consider withdrawing the ones that have not been carefully researched. This could waste my whole day. Cbl62 (talk) 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edorian McCullough[edit]

Edorian McCullough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears to have played professionally in Europe. Google News shows around 300+ articles on the subject matter and a cursory review of the articles seem to show notability of the individual for his college playing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Playing in NFL Europe does not satisfy WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has been substantially re-written and has 33 sources, about half of which are feature stories on McCullough. He played for one of the top college football teams in the USA, the Texas Longhorns, and played on the Frankfurt Galaxy team that advanced to the 2007 World Bowl. It appears that WP:NSPORT has taken no position on whether the NFL Europa qualifies a player for presumed notability. In any event, he has been the subject of extensive, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. There have been more than 15 feature stories about him in The Dallas Morning News alone. The Dallas Morning News is not a small-town newspaper giving attention to a local athlete; it's one of the 20 largest circulation newspapers in the USA. See List of newspapers in the United States. Cbl62 (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Quite obviously satisfies WP:GNG. cmadler (talk) 13:20, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Verma[edit]

Ashish Verma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

This young environmentalist does not appear to be notable. Sources seem to be self-published blogs. Salih (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, totally non-notable aspiring activist with no claim to fame at all.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:51, 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 00:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Carroll[edit]

Colm Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Fails WP:NSPORT as he has not played in a fully professional league (the League of Ireland isn't fully professional per WP:FPL). Youth international caps don't attest notability, and the coverage available is nowhere near enough for WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Played at the highest level in Irish soccer. Mo ainm~Talk 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He fails both WP:GNG, and WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as he fails both WP:GNG, and WP:ATHLETE. --Carioca (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom - one appearance in a semi pro league is not particularly notable, no coverage outside ordinary run-of-mill sports journalism.--ClubOranje^T 08:41, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crains Run[edit]

Crains Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Also nominating:

• Terrington Place
• Heincke Woods
• Sherwood Forest (Miamisburg)

Four totally non-notable neighborhoods of the small city of Miamisburg, Ohio. They appear to be recent housing developments, not even real neighborhoods. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, just a group of non-notable subdivisions.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Miamisburg, Ohio per past practice and outcomes. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neighborhoods are not inherently notable, none of these pass the GNG, most are unsourced, and none are notable enough to be worth merging into the Miamisburg article (no GNIS entries even). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't propose merging: I don't see this content as worthy of being moved into another article. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without a merge or redirect. Projects are too small to be considered as neighborhoods or notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 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) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brushcreek Motorsports Complex[edit]

Brushcreek Motorsports Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Borderline speedyable (makes no real assertions of notability; no references whatsoever). None of the events that it hosts appear to be notable either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Referenced in multiple places in adams county, including its own website, google maps and the Adams county travel association. I've personally travelled there. Maybe not interesting to someone not involved in Ohio motorsports but hardly not notable. http://www.adamscountytravel.org/motorsports.html http://www.brushcreekmotorsports.com/id50.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.179.214 (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources. Being listed in a local travel guide does nothing to meet our notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Brushcreek coverage on Mod Fury dirt modifieds http://modfury.com/2010/07/23/brushcreek-motorsports-readies-for-10th-annual-american-heritage-classic/ and on the Ohio Valley DTR http://ovdtr.com/2010/06/06/kids-night-full-of-action-at-brushcreek-motorsports-complex/ - This track is a pretty big deal in DTR circles. I think it would be best served by improving the main article than by deleting it entirely.

http://www.whowon.com/sresults.asp?SanctionID=265&StoryID=300036 News article coverage as per WP:Reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.10.193.23 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails basic WP:N. I've not been able to find anything notable about this specific venue. Shep^Talk 03:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage in Reliable Sources could be found. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 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. Courcelles 00:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SemEval-1 and related[edit]

SemEval-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SemEval-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Senseval-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Senseval-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Senseval-3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

If this is about a workshop, I must ask: are workshops notable? I don't think so. Even if they are, there's no indication of importance or significance, and no reliable, independent, third-party coverage provided. See also:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SemEval. — Timneu22 · talk 17:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appears to just be a list of links to workshop sessions, with explanations. No evidence given of notability of this particular conference.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nomination, no sources supporting notability of these workshops and the content of each duplicates content already at SemEval. ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The concepts considered by these conferences should be summarized in a prose form and added to articles on computational linguistics or natural language processing. This is legitimate academic work, but presenting the conference schedule in a table does not help the average wikipedia user. Racepacket (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Let the conferences' sponsor get its own website. —Tamfang (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The editor is in the process of breaking up the SemEval article as I suggested it is too long. This discussion should not be separate from the SemEval discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffbond (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These are essentially lists of external links to workshop/conference web sites. Such information is no doubt helpful to workshop participants and those in the same field, but it not the sort of information that encyclopedia users are looking for and is specifically ruled out by the aforementioned policy. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect to SemEval assuming any information is actually needed in the parent article. Each of these are plausible search terms. Main article needs major cleanup, but that is a seperate issue. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be using Wikipedia for webhosting Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youvan's Apologetics[edit]

Youvan's Apologetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

This is original research - an extended quotation from the writings of Douglas Youvan, copied from his website. (It is not a copyvio, because the site's top page releases its content as PD). JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John: I don't see how the primary website for Youvan's biography could be considered unreliable or OR. It’s not-for-profit; the biography (in progress) can be freely downloaded. I know Youvan’s questions are irritating to most people. That is expected in polemics. In any debate over deletion, do you really believe that our editors can free themselves of faith-based POV’s? Youvan's questions could cause hate and anger in some editors. Very few people are open to a change of faith and they will find any reason they can to delete Youvan’s Apologetics. Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 18:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question: If a journal or newspaper picks up this deletion, or deletion debate, and publishes Youvan's questions in apologetics, does that somehow make this article reliable and not in violation of NOR? Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 18:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier discussion as the deletion began (in italics): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teapotgeorge, top banner reads: "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion." Other editors can determine for themselves if that is an obvious POV to attack someone like Youvan in favor of someone like Dawkings. I thought we wanted wikipedia to be a place for people to find reliable information. TeaPot is on the verge of censorship and defamation. Youvan is a living person. Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 16:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy for "nonsense"... my mistake, on a quick glance it did appear to be absolute nonsense...I can see now that it is just advertising.TeapotgeorgeTalk 16:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC) (end quote) Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 18:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have replied to these points on the author's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you again politely to refrain from personal attacks.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. Nothing on Google apart from this article and the website it is copied from. No reliable secondary sources.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per norm. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect – A delete is not necessary. The opening sentence could be merged into the Douglas Youvan piece and a redirect on Youvan's Apologetics back to Douglas Youvan is all that is needed. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have already merged the opening sentence back to Douglas Youvan, with a link to his website page, here. I would not object to making this title a redirect to that section, but I think this debate is still necesary in order to convince the article author that we cannot publish the full text. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment author has requested deletion [23] DC T•C 21:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think Shoessss' redirect is a good idea, and have suggested that to her. Don't let's delete till she thinks about that. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Author, who had requested deletion, agrees to redirect, so per WP:IAR I have implemented that and withdraw my deletion nomination. Unless either of the "delete" !voters, who I will consult, objects, I request, as nominator, that this AfD be closed as "Redirect". JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too withdraw my deletion request, merge and redirect is eminently sensible.Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Already redirected I do not think that the list of questions that made up this article constituted an encyclopaedic article. The merge might perhaps have consisted of a paragraph rather than a mere single sentence. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel Delete Please cancel my delete vote. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Minimac (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is original research without any reliable sources independent of the author of this research. My recommendation has nothing to do with my own religious POV. I would support the article if reliable independent sources demonstrating notability existed, whether or not it corresponded with or challenged my own religious beliefs. That shouldn't affect AfD debates one whit. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 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 redirect to 2012 Summer Olympics. Redirecting....why redo all this work in a year and a half? Feel free to delete if you disagree (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers[edit]

2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/((subst:SUBPAGENAME))|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Very premature creation of this article. Most flag bearers are not announced until a few days prior to the opening ceremonies (at most), so this list will remain empty or mostly incomplete for many months. Suggest re-creation in early July 2012, when a handful of flag bearers will be known. Major article expansion will take place 24–27 July 2012. But now, in November 2010? Useless. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nom's correct about the timing of when there would be any content to add. The 2008 Summer Olympics national flag bearers article was created two months before that Olympics, and the earliest mention of who would carry a flag was on May 20, three months before the games [24]. Even the 2010 Winter Olympic article wasn't created until February, weeks before the games. This is somewhat like creating a list of the nominees for president and VP in 2012. Mandsford 17:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good-faith article, but fails WP:CRYSTAL. No reason not to re-create once names of individuals have been confirmed (IE in 2012!) Lugnuts (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a load of balls, albeit whoever has written this is obviously keen and trying hard to help, and a little talk-page encouragement may be in order here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear and obvious per WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 22:37, 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) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backhouse Shuffle (Dance)[edit]

Backhouse Shuffle (Dance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Lots of links provided, none mention the subject of the article. Searching on the exact term returns 10 unique hits. A 'thing I made up one day' that fails WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MADEUP. The citations are spurious.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:55, 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) 01:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Baxter[edit]

Rick Baxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Hello, I am writing to delet Rick Baxter, this is soley based on the deletion of current Escondio City Council Woman Diaz. Though Rick Baxter WAS an elected official, is catastrophic decline to used car dealer makes him someone who really doesn't make hi news worthy. Moreover, his page, which is fraught with inaccuracy and pontification to out-and-out lies, further deminish not only his credibility, but the reason he should be deleted from the site.

To continue, if the Escondido Council woman who has overcome so much diversity to be elected in a larger city, that is even the more reason for him to be deleted as he represented a very small portion of Michigan, with less people than that of the City of Escondido itself.

I rely on Wikipedia for the starter point for much of my research and this person is not even remotly significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdjoebrown (talk • contribs) 27 October 2010

Comment: This nomination was not properly completed when it was created on 27 October (steps 1 and 3 were not completed). The article was prodded by JzG (talk · contribs) on 5 November with the rationale "Unsourced biogrpahy of a car salesman." [sic]. I have removed the prod to allow this AfD to properly take its course. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since he did indeed serve as a state representative, he qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN. City council members don't receive the same treatment as state and provincial legislators. Mandsford 17:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see two aspects of this: Notability and BLP.

  On the notability front the challenge may fail. Notability isn't temporary. If something was ever notable, then it's notable forever. Wikipedia has, and ought to have, articles on all kinds of topics that are purely of historical interest. But I don't know how important a county leader is, over in the US, and it may be that this person fails WP:POLITICIAN. I don't need to parse that in any detail, because over and above the nominator's challenge, there's also a BLP issue.

  On the BLP front the challenge undoubtedly succeeds. We simply can't have articles on living people with so few sources, and I've not been able to find any others. With apologies to Mandsford, with whom I often agree, I have to disagree in this case and say delete.—S Marshall T/C 18:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  (Later) Apparently JimMillerJr is better at searching for sources than I am! I'm now much happier with the sources and I've struck my "delete" accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Baxter was a member of both a county legislature and a state legislature, and easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. I have added some sources, but much of what inevitably exists is probably going to be located behind paywalls or dropped off of news sites due to the timing of his officeholding (2002-2008). Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also, while searching for sources I cam across this news piece detailing some background on the history of this article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter was listed as the 64th district member of the Michigan House of Representatives (2007-09) in this [25]. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't give a free pass to county officials, but it is policy on "members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Mandsford 01:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unquestionably notable, Republican State Representative in the Michigan House of Representatives . May need some editing to remove some fluff. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 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 keep. No consensus for a merge exists here. Further discussion may take place on the talk page as to whether a merge is appropriate. Jujutacular ^talk 22:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Llama hiking[edit]

Llama hiking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Unnecessary article duplicating paragraph about llamas being animals of burden in here. Formerly blatant advertisement of an entertainment company in Smoky Mountains, sadly was turned into this, instead of being completely removed. Other pleasure rides using animals are either deeply embedded in the history (horse riding, Sled dog), culture (donkey rides) or sport (Camel racing) - on the other hand there is no article on camel rides offered to tourists in Egypt or other Arabic countries. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed correctly. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The article says nothign that could not be included in Llama. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; no need whatsoever for a standalone article on the concept of taking llamas with you while hiking.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable, being covered by international media, e.g. Llama trekking takes off. If the topic is best covered in the main llama article then this would best be achieved by merger, not by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample results from Google news and Google book searches, this a verifiable thing, and there articles and books written entirely about it. Dream Focus 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^express 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Llama. There is no reason for a content fork to describe a very specific way in which humans occasionally use llamas. This can all be discussed at the main article. SnottyWong ^express 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Snottywong. Hipocrite (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Dreamfocus. Massively notable subject, there are hundreds of news articles specifically about this topic. Just been researching it for a while and theres stacks of hits saying how beneficial they are for children especially disabled children and most especially autistic ones. Didnt see a single sceptical source, so sounds like this is a most worthy topic as well as being highly notable. Opposed to a merge as there isnt enough space in the main article to accomodate the interesting and useful information that can be relayed specifically about Llama trekking, hopefully the recent improvments illustrate this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Snottywong Thruxton (talk) 20:23, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tank kshatriyas[edit]

Tank kshatriyas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

I can find no evidence of notability; the prod left by another user was removed by an IP, so bringing to AfD. A google search, for example, shows nothing but passing mentions in chat forums. Fails WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources cited, and very little about this found on searching. What little was found did nothing to indicate notability, and substantially came from unreliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:07, 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 delete. Courcelles 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MGM World Films[edit]

MGM World Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a compendium of companies' product lines and branding initiatives.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Glen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:05, 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 00:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRAGUE INTERNATIONAL BASEBALL CUP[edit]

PRAGUE INTERNATIONAL BASEBALL CUP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

NO INDICATION WHY THIS IS A NOTABLE TOURNAMENT, or that the author's caps key is stuck. But really, there are zero sources, no indication of significance. — Timneu22 · talk 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not only are there no sources or indication of signficance in the article, there doesn't seem to be much available on the web, particularly reliable independent sources. Ma^t_chups 17:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and matchups. However, TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS FUN!!!! --Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of ALL CAPS deletion discussions. Ma^t_chups 16:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow there's an ALL CAPS deletion discussion project? I am so in. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley A. Wood[edit]

Ashley A. Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Comic book writer of questionable notability. Provided reference does not refer to the subject. Google search on the subject comes back with only 37 unique results - no significant coverage found from independent or reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Article's not even finished... I placed a note on that this article saying it was unfinished. Wiki changed it to "This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template" instead. It seems that you're so gung-ho to kill my Wiki articles you won't even let me complete it before you nominate it. I was gathering information, but I don't want to put tons of work into an article only so you can go right behind me and nominate it for deletion. I'm starting to take it personally when you try to say things like a person does not have "significant coverage" or the source isn't "independent or reliable source" or "isn't about her" I'm I missing something. The first reference is from a very popular public radio show. Or do you believe this young girl has own "Chicago Tonight". I understand Wikipedia has a high criteria but the very first link was to a news and information show. She's one of the main faces of the East Coast Black Age of Comics. Rmavers (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our content and deletion policies are clear about biographies of living persons, as indeed is our Biographies of living persons policy. They must be verifiable. Tell us precisely what sources you are proposing to use for writing a biography of this living person. So far you've cited two that don't even support the content that you're writing, and other people's attempts to find sources have come up empty-handed. So where is your information coming from? Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not remotely notable; a web search turns up nothing but this article, the usual social networks, and various iterations of that TV interview. I'm quite ready to accept that she's a noted indie comics writer in Chicago, but the bar of WP:CREATIVE is a lot higher. Is she regarded industry-wide as an "important figure" or "widely cited by peers or successors?" Is she "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique?" Has she "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?" Nope.  Ravenswing  18:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Click the references now there! She has an entire segment dedicated to her on a major news program. Some of the things they say about her are: "Sold out issues and trips around the world", "stand out in the world of independent comic books" "bestselling local artists". Yeah, she is quite notable. Dream Focus 23:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment: Errr, no. She had a segment dedicated to her on a local newscast, and I'd be curious to know the provenance of the assertions that she's had "trips around the world" or that she "stand[s] out in the world of independent comic books" ... beyond, of course, the fanboy murmurings of the local comics' shop owner. You would think, if any of those were true, that she'd have non-local reliable sources attesting to it or have been featured in major industry organs such as Comics Buyer's Guide or the Comics Journal. Neither, so far, has been the case.  Ravenswing  03:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.cac-tv.com/2009/02/millennia-war-ashley-wood/ The first result from Google is a news bit about her work on Cac-TV. Dream Focus 08:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A video blog from a local comedian counts as a reliable source? I truly hope this is just a matter of you not being familiar with the provisions of WP:RS - in which case I recommend reviewing it - because the alternative is that you are familiar and are entertaining hopes we don't check on these sources.  Ravenswing  16:42, 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 no consensus. Courcelles 00:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sei Fuwa[edit]

Sei Fuwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Claim is made that he was part of the 1936 Olympics, but not backed up by the FIFA team squad list. Maybe he was in the squad, but didn't play? Can't find any other evidence that he represented Japan. Unreferenced BLP for almost 2 years. The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment only: He's not [26], that I see, either, but the "didn't play?" hypothesis is still a possibility, too. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - surely if he was a part of the squad he would be listed by FIFA?! No evidence gthat this person existed/is notable. GiantSnowman 01:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was unable to verify any of the information in the article which supports notability. Jogurney (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. Appears to be no reliable evidence he was at the Olympics. Nothing in cybespace except wikiscrapes. If someone can prove otherwise...--ClubOranje^T 09:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Less adamant delete for the same reason I never created Liam Little]... it appears he was part of the participating squad but did not play at the Olympic tournament.--ClubOranje^T 05:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - Japan's federation page shows him on the team: http://samuraiblue.jp/timeline/19360804/ although, the lack of playing time makes it border-line. 218.225.42.19 (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. He certainly was an unused reserve goalkeeper on the squad at the 1936 Summer Olympics. I don't know if that's sufficient to establish notability, but at least we can be certain such a person existed, his birth date and his membership in the Japan squad. Jogurney (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suspect the pic, bottom right corner of [27] this page is the team photo for that olympic team, and has the article subject slightly left of center, back row. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, in view of source provided by 218.225.42.19. Notability is the big question, I think, Olympic association would be a trivial "keep" if he'd played under the usual sport guidelines. While on national football (soccer) teams I think I've seen an article deleted with someone with only a single national-level appearance, seems to me that the inherent notability of an Olympic team is quite a bit higher than that of a random club in a first-tier national league. So, on balance, I lean keep. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree entirely with Joe Decker on this. Even if he didn't play, just being on the team makes him more notable than a player with a single pro appearance, the default inclusion criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:51, 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.

Claire Nicolson[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sulaim[edit]

Al-Sulaim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I am working on the backlog at Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006. This article has been tagged as Unreferenced for the past four years. It apparently was deleted once before because it did not "focus on the issues." Talk:Al-Sulaim. Now I propose it be deleted because it does not follow WP policy on Reliable Sources. It seems to be an example of WP:Original Research. It has been tagged for more than four years, but nobody has stepped forth to provide the sources. I can't find any in a cursory search of the Internet, so I am Challenging and propose its removal for violation of policy. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: but sources should be added. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sources are there to add? Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on the Talk Page of the author. User_talk:Kfupm2 He or she hasn't been around for a while, but let's allow time to respond. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nice clear source in Google Books: [28] There are also multiple items there for the individual people of the name, many of whom seem notable enough to justify separate Wikipedia articles. I haven't attempted to search in Arabic, but a much larger number will probably be found in that language. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A source has been found and added to the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:06, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Catalonia[edit]

Anarchist Catalonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

It the four years that it has existed, this article has failed to gather substantial references and serious discussions. After numerous interventions and attempts to improve this article, I have deleted everything that is not permissible. Almost nothing is left. Everything else that remains can go into History of Catalonia, Anarchism in Spain, CNT, or other articles relating to the period. BillMasen (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep: BillMasen makes valid pionts about the article not progressing. I think he is being overpessimistic about the current state of the article as "almost nothing left" though. (Click on the "Random article" link on the left menu to get a depressing sense of the average quality/length of WikiPedia articles.)

I found the topic noteworthy and helpful in gaining some understanding to some literature I'm reading about the Spanish Civil War. On that basis I recommend keeping. But, since I'm coming to this article as a reader rather than an editor I'll just say Mild Keep because I'm not knowledgable enough in this topic area to help improve the article.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable. I think Bill is being overly pessimistic about the current state of the article. I found it interesting re the Spanish Civil War. This is not in my field of expertise but I do wish somebody would expand upon it. It is still a stub but that is not a valid reason for deletion - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable stub/start-class article. It may have failed to gather substantial references in four years, but keep in mind that it's a WP:STUB and there's no WP:DEADLINE. jonkerz♠ 01:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whatever happened to WP:SOFIXIT? Is the topic notable, yes. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 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 Speedy Close. Redirects need to be discussed at WP:Redirects for deletion, so I've moved it there. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Colonialism and the BBC[edit]

British_Colonialism_and_the_BBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

This redirect has nothing to do with either British colonialism or the BBC. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - This is a redirect and should therefore be debated at Wp:Redirects for deletion. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:02, 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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of the Rainbow[edit]

Colours of the Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

"Promo single" that DID NOT chart. The article is not likely to expand at all. A search revealed no independent coverage of note. Fixer23 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second nomination, the first was deleted for the same reasons. Fixer23 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, fails WP:NSONGS. AnemoneProjectors 23:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:14, 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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don: The Chase Begins Again (2011)[edit]

Don:_The_Chase_Begins_Again_(2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

Prod contested. Not as per WP:NF- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete: Non notable, unreleased film. --Ragib (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as being WP:TOOSOON and Redirect to Don: The Chase Begins Again#Remake. When film is completed and recives coverage, consider article return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:18, 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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Griffin[edit]

Elaine_Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

Delete. The subject of the article does not seem to have much Notability, except for having been named one of House Beautiful's top 100 designers. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. One out of a hundred is not Notable enough to warrant an article in WP. Very sorry about this because the author put a lot of effort into the page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:15, 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. this missed being closed, but consensus is clear that there are no reliable sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Futurecon[edit]

Futurecon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

• Strong delete. First annual New Year's Eve party. Not notable. No references/reliable sources. Promotional in nature. Deepsix66 (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Deepsix66[reply]
• Strong delete. I'm not seeing any coverage in reliable sources—which is not surprising for an inaugural event. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It is culturally important to the growth of Toronto sci-fi convention scene, much like other new this year events like SFContario. Also note that given his update history, Deepsix66 seems to be using Wikipedia for WP:BATTLEGROUND. Edfan77 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Edfan77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong keep. Related to a charity for epilepsy and promoted by notable Toronto media personalities. -- Hidoshi (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems as though the article is simply in-progress and this is a case of "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built" rather then a delete. Event features multiple celebrities, including Hugo and Nebula Award Winning author Robert Sawyer who are notable by Wikipedia's standards. Is also a benefit for Epilepsy Toronto and the Sunburst Awards. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
  • — Drivenhome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I agree that it's in progress. However, there's only so far it can go if there aren't secondary sources covering the subject. I searched before I made my recommendation above; had I found sources, I'd have recommended to keep the article and improve it. However, since I didn't find sources, that's why I recommended deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rules clearly state that in practice not everything need actually be attributed to a third party source. Exactly what part of the article are you challenging? Deepsix66 appears to be challenging the nature of the event which is a baseless accusation that doesn't hold up to scruitny and does not require second or third party sources to debunk. This is not a biography and the article is extremely straight forward and simple and makes no exaggerated claims that require third party sources to confirm. As for the notability of the event, I would argue that when notable figures are attending a public event and working with notable charities at the event for a notable cause it makes the event notable. Popularity is irrelevant. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
      • My concern is the notability of the event. Specifically, it does not meet the general notability guideline, which is the underpinning of all the specific notability guidelines (e.g., WP:ORG). With no sources cited, there is no evidence in the article that it is the subject of multiple reliable sources, so it fails the notability requirement as well as the verifiability requirement. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The rules are not a hammer and every article is not a nail. Simply quoting rules does not mean they apply to the article. This is not a biography, it is not making statements of ANY KIND that require a third party source to justify. Its notability is self-evident as the figures at the event and organizing the event are notable within Wikipedia and by its rules. How are you challenging its notability? You're challenging its popularity, but that isn't what's being determined here and that counts as an overzealous delete under "obscurity". Just because you don't like something/don't know about something or don't appreciate something doesn't mean it's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivenhome (talk • contribs) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't wish to get more involved in the continued Emily Schooley fiasco, but the editors voting keep must seek to show that this event meets the requirements of WP:GNG (please click and read that link thoroughly): has it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? All other details are effectively irrelevant and will not carry much weight with the closing admin. Bigger digger (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read the rules exhaustively and I fully agree with the rules. However Deepsix66 has not challeneged any of the information that requires third party sources to verify. Simply stating that that the event is 'just a New Years Eve party' when notable figures and notable charities have already acknowledged their involvement on their official blogs and webpages is not a challenge to the validity of the event. It's ignorance. I have gone through the article, there are no exaggerated claims, there are no false claims, there are no hyperbolic statements in the article and there are no challenges to any of the claims in the article by anyone seeking a delete. As for the 'notability' of the event, having to confirm the notability of an event where notable figures are showing up to promote a notable charity for a notable cause via a third party source is not necessary. The notability of the event (whether it is POPULAR or not) is self-evident. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
    • Notability is not inherited (ie: if a notable person attends an event, that does not mean the event is now notable). Until there are reliable, third-party sources that confirm the event's notability, it does not belong here. If this year's event generates some substantial media coverage (from reliable sources), there may be a good case for notability in a few months, but as it stands the requirements are simply unfulfilled. Also for the record, the affiliation with Epilepsy Toronto is un-referenced and I was unable to find any mention on their website. What is the nature of the affiliation? Is Epilepsy Toronto an official sponsor of the event? If this is the case (and you're affiliated with FutureCon), you may want to ask them to release a press release announcing their sponsorship of the event, as it could potentially lead to some media coverage by reliable sources. Deepsix66 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Deepsix66[reply]
      • Actually notability can be inherited. In fact the majority of notable events do inherit their notability from notable figures. Again, you misinterpret the word "NOTABLE" for "POPULAR". The fact that an event is featuring notable figures and is being organized by notable personalities for a notable cause is enough to justify its notability and does not require third party sources to justify. WP:GNG does not apply to every single article. Again, this is not a biography. comment added by Drivenhome (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        • Why not work to improve the article rather than attack it right off the start? As this is an article I wrote, I will refrain from arguing or voting for it though I am sure my desired outcome is obvious (to have it kept and improved as more sources become available). However, I find it concerning that you are trolling my work - does this mean I will have to switch user names again to avoid having all my submissions put up for deletion? Bytemeh (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Drivenhome, the view that notability is not inherited is broadly accepted - see, for example, this section of the notability guideline for organizations. VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I see. OK, very well, I change my vote to *Delete comment added by Drivenhome (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I do not see coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources for this topic. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of reliable sources, which frankly isn't surprising considering this hasn't even happened yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with storm and fire: This should be a slam dunk. A one-night SF relaxicon that hasn't happened yet, sourced solely through its own web page and Twitter feeds? This isn't a "convention." It's a (projected) New Year's Eve party. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG and probably most any other policy you can imagine.  Ravenswing  18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Once it has happened it may achieve notability. If it becomes an annual event, it may achieve notability. It isn't there yet. Shsilver (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Ravenswing. Edward321 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's a future event and has had very little coverage, even in local media. PKT(alk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]