< 6 January 8 January >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.H. vs State of Florida[edit]

A.H. vs State of Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure juvenile appeals case that arguably should never have been brought, was brought on the wrong grounds anyway, and features a majority opinion that contradicts itself and a dissenting opinion that appears to identify the wrong person as the victim. The only meaningful conclusion to come of this is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for photographs stored online, which is common sense to most. A textbook example of bad caselaw that fails WP:NOTABILITY. JamesL910 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The individual merits of the case have no bearing on whether this article should remain on Wikipedia, therefore assertions as to whether the suit "should never have been brought" have no weight in this discussion. Now I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that often times decisions like this are necessary when it comes to establishing precedent for future cases. However, the Notability concerns would need to be addressed before I could support keeping this article, (see WP:HEY) -- RoninBK T C 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was that Wikipedia is not a caselaw repository, and that individual cases should be both notable and significant to warrant inclusion as an articles (as opposed to merely being references in other articles). As it is, it's not notable, the only reason I even know of this case being that it was briefly referred to in a legal commentary I read, and it appears to be relatively insignificant legally, for the reasons stated. Yes, it can be argued that this case sets a precedent, but I would argue that there are far more prominent and less ambiguous cases establishing what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. Admittedly I do not know for sure if such is the case in Florida, and perhaps someone who is more familiar with the law there could confirm or deny whether this is the case. If anyone from Wikiproject Law objects to the marking of this article for deletion, I'd be happy to hear their reasoning. JamesL910 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm agreeing with you on Notability. I'm only saying that the other assertions in your nomination statement are not valid reasons for deletion. -- RoninBK T C 09:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 20:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network: Block Party[edit]

Cartoon Network: Block Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, this article has no sources, ciations or references. JJ98 (Talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Block Party[edit]

Cartoon Network Block Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced, this article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 23:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was good article and now I find out it has been deleted because two people kind of thought maybe it should have been. Here's an idea: if you didn't like the article don't look at it. People had obviously worked hard on this and it was actually useful unlike 99% of the articles on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.143.160 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I commend Peridon, Whpq and Erpert for their reasonable comments in the face of anonymous, WP:ILIKEIT-style actions. AfD is about the strength of your argument, not the strength of the emotion behind it, and most commentators here have a lot of the latter and very little of the former. Taking only into account those comments where the user has provided a policy-based argument, and ignoring the rest, there is clear consensus for this article to be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Organic Lawn Management (band)[edit]

The Organic Lawn Management (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Protochronism. apparantly already been some kind of merge so only a redirect is now required Spartaz Humbug! 14:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian script[edit]

Dacian script (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's simply no such things as a simple Google Book Search can prove. Moreover even normal Google Search gives nothing but mirrors of WP text. There is a fringe Romanian revisionist movement called Protochronism that attempts to make Dacians the most advanced culture of antiquity, but their claims are utterly rejected by mainstream Romanian academia (see our article about the movement). Specific attempts to identify a "Dacian script" in some 19th century forgeries such as Sinaia lead plates or Rohonc Codex were dismissed by linguist and thracologist Sorin Olteanu on his personal website, and by paleographist Dan Ungureanu in the mainstream cultural magazineObservatorul Cultural.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Racconish Tk 07:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


See also, for the lack of any dispute, the opinion of the archaeologist, member of the Romanian Academy and editor in chief of the main Romanian archaeology journal (SCIVA), Mircea Babes (this is just a note in a larger article exposing the pseudo-science involved in protochronism): "As long as these decipherers only feed us with hallucinating texts, while keeping for themselves the key of these alphabets and the vocabulary of the urlanguage, any serious debate, able to expose their imposture, remains impossible" (all emphasis in original; translated by myself from Observatorul Cultural).Anonimu (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the article, I am too skeptical of the theory, however, it is a notable, yet controversial subject, like most of Dacian history for that matter. However, there are people like Dan Romalo who spent their carrier (30 years!) researching the script and the lead plates, and even if they plates ar forgeries, they deserve respect for their efforts. Here are some pertinent articles showing the view from other side: [1], [2]. The author, Sorin Olteanu, a great linguist which I know personally since we collaborated on Wikipedia articles, and whom I respect, is in a bit of a holy war with Mr. Romalo as you can see in the link presented above as evidence. I suspect Anonimu is an extreme follower of Mr. Olteanu and unfortunately not at all objective and neutral. And the most important thing! The forgery is not proved scientifically yet! Only linguistic analysis has raised suspicion, and is the opinion of one linguist. Regardless, forgery or not, it is a notable subject, not yet elucidated. I think the readers need to know and decide, and not have the opinions on one side or another impose to them.--Codrin.B (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any links to pertinent English based material? What is that 'Observatorul Cultural' link? What credentials do you have for this journalist? --Codrin.B (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing "so-called" into a sentence does not indicate neutrality, in fact the Manual of Style guideline specifically discourages using words that give the implication of doubt. Words like this are not magic bullets that counterbalance POV or undue weight issues. There is a way to present controversial issues like this in an neutral manner, but this article clearly fails in that task.
I would also caution against using personal attacks in the AfD debate. Whatever your opinions of Anonimu and his/her editorial position, that is not the subject of this debate. This discussion is only about the Dacian script article. There are other noticeboards for dealing with allegations of vandalism. -- RoninBK T C 09:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to say. The user's counter-argument is just a rant full of personal attacks. Instead of focusing on finding sources for the subject (which he can't, as there isn't any except protochronism blabber), he goes on with metaphysical interpretations of my username and my userpage. Most ludicrous is his use of "sock puppet" as a pure personal attack (as I'm not being called a sock puppet of someone, I supposedly am an intrinsic sock puppet), failing (or ignoring) to grasp the very sense of the word (as a note, I'm contributin' since Sept 2005, and the accusation of "sockpuppeting" never surfaced).
The small part that is not about me being some kind of an illuminati is just some collection of fallacies: from argumentum ad misericordiam (an engineer with no formal training in history, linguistics, or paleography "spent his career" "researching" the script, so it must be important!), to the strong argumentum ad ignorantiam he makes (nobody proved the 2 or 3 supporters wrong, so they must me right, even if academia utterly fails to mention their miraculous discoveries). The user even fails to read the links he provided, as the only one which could be considered reliable, simply fails to state a claim about the nature of the script, just nothing it uses Greek and medieval Latin and Slavic letters (the author could not make such outlandish claims in a peer-reviewed journal; note that this is the only article in a peer-reviewed journal about the tablets, the rest of academia probably being under the influence of some occult organisation!). The other site is just a collection of internet text (Wikipedia included!), and the only texts to make the outrageous claim about the "Dacic scripts" are not incidentally those taken from the above author's personal website.
Simply put, except Codrin.B civility, there's nothing to discuss here. A "Dacian script" is not only not mentioned in any scholarly work, but the mere dispute about its existence is absent from academia.Anonimu (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's keep the discussion to the article itself, and save the personal attacks and rebuttals of personal attacks for WP:ANI -- RoninBK T C 10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have also other merge options: Dacian language already mentioned by Hrafn, Sinaia lead plates, Rohonc Codex, Proto-Romanian, and maybe others. I think the real concern is not the existence of sources but the relation between all these different articles. Racconish Tk 10:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the merge, since I think the article can have a stand-alone pertinent analysis of any Dacian script claims, past, current or future. It is currently trying to review two such theories, independent of each other. The previous version was also pointing to the Greek and Latin inscriptions. But if it has to be merged, I vote for the Dacian language option since it is way a way more neutral action. Merging it with Protochronism is a radical move, and not a neutral point of view, and is just one point of view. On top of it, the people who researched Sinaia lead plates and Rohonc Codex are not just Romanian nationalists, as the currently radically modified version of the article states. They are from many nations. And if the protochronists believe these are not forgeries, or at least have the courage to keep an open mind, I wonder how should we classify the people who attack these writings/scripts with so much hate and aggressiveness, not worthy of intellectuals. Maybe Agressive Protochronism Haters? Anyone wants to take as stub at this article, for neutrality and objectiveness sake, to balance things out? But hey, be careful to not bring original research to the table :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any salvageable information here can technically go anywhere, but Dacian language seems to me the most plausible redirect target. -- RoninBK T C 11:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Or Origin of the Romanians? The article on Dacian language currently says:"Whether Dacian in fact forms the substratum of Proto-Romanian is disputed (see Origin of the Romanians)" and does not refer to protochronism.Racconish Tk 12:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the sources that cover it.Anonimu (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those on the Rohonc Codex and the Sinaia lead plates to start with. Is this really the issue here?Racconish Tk 12:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of these is written in the Greek script, the other (likely a hoax) is obviously from an entirely different historical period. Neither is relevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article on Sinaia lead plates says: "They also include text written in some unknown scripts that do not resemble any known written alphabet". The issue is not if these are hoaxes or not, as they are notable enough, but where best to address them.Racconish Tk 13:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having a look around the Net. The top result in Romanian for "scrierea dacă" (Dacian script) is an interview with Sorin Olteanu (the linguist mentioned above) who roundly dismissses the whole idea: "scrierea dacă este pură invenţie" ("the Dacian script is pure fabrication"). Really not much else. Some stuff about the Sinaia lead plates and that's about it. Enăchiuc and Peţan, mentioned in the article, seem to be associated with Dacia Magazin (check out its website for some Dacomanic fun), the organ of the "Dacia International Revival Society" whose editor is Napoleon Săvescu. According to his own Wikipedia article: "His most famous theory says that the Romanians are not the descendants of the Roman colonists and assimilated Dacians, as mainstream historians say, but that they are the descendants of only the Dacians, who spoke a language close to Latin." Dipping into the magazine confirms this genuinely appears to be his belief (see the "Open Letter to the Youth of Romania" in the first issue, where he claims the Dacians are the ancestors of all the Latin peoples). --Folantin (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Napoleon Savescu's magazine published the work of Enăchiuc and Peţan, doesn't make them protochonists. While I am very suspicious by some of Mr. Savescu's claims, his theory about the Dacian-Latin connection is a theory that has merit. There is no clear explanation of why Dacians ended up Latinized in such a short period, while other populations in the area didn't. Good theory, bad theory, it is clearly notable, since his haters write more about it then the proponents. I am again making an appeal to objectivity, neutrality and an open mind. And I am not talking about making WP a democracy. Obviously it's impossible. But no more Inquisition please, we are in 2011. No burning of black cats. There are many theories about the Dacian language. And I welcome you all to this collaboration proposed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia--Codrin.B (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you on about? This is clearly little more than fringe nationalist fantasy. So far there is no evidence it is even notable fringe nationalist fantasy (and I've searched in both English and Romanian). You've been asked time and time again to come up with evidence from reliable sources to back the article, but you have failed to do so. --Folantin (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Sǎvescu seems to be just an even more extreme proponent of the ideas of the old Romanian nationalist historian Nicolae Densuşianu, whose book Prehistoric Dacia (1913) has been described as a "fantasy novel" and was a major influence on protochronism. Although Densuşianu attributed the lack of surviving inscriptions in Dacian to the "fact" that Latin and Dacian were dialects of the same language! (See Lucian Boia History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness p.97). --Folantin (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Sinaia plates, Aurora Peţan is also one of the authors with a protochronist agenda and Dan Romalo is not even a scholar, so what are we talking about?
Codrin, there's nothing to explain about Dacians (or Celts or anyone else) learning Latin or Greek in few generations. Was it hard for South Americans to learn Spanish or Portuguese? How hard was for you to learn English? How hard is for Romanians to learn Italian or Spanish when they go to work there? And how do they speak Romanian when they come back in the country? Daizus (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. But I am just not convinced of the certitude with which some of you guys call them hoaxes. What reliable references you bring to the table? Sorin Olteanu's site in Romanian, that's it? He is a great linguist, but on a holy war with Romalo, so very subjective. I love Olteanu's work and cite it in many articles but how much exposure he has to international reviewers? You guys have to face it, there is not enough scrutiny and exposure internationally, just a holy war in some Romanian circles. Neither sides have enough reliable sources to properly pass WP:IRS without forcing it. To your other point, how come the Germans, Greeks, Illyrians (Albanians?!), Israelites, Egyptians, some of the Persians, did not get Latinized?! Or even the Slavs who some say were already in the Balkans at that time. When people spend the time to link Dacian with Baltic, even Slavic and even Bactian, why is it the end of the world if someone links it to Latin, a more likely candidate then the others. It is just food for thought and not endorsing anything. And about Romanians learning Italian or Spanish, they all speak Romance language, so be careful, not be appear protochronistic, linking Latin to Latin :-)) --Codrin.B (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daizus, I will continue the debate just for the sake of keeping an open mind, and invite everyone to think outside the box. No other reason. Your answer is very detailed and pertinent, but look below for my observations --Codrin.B (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's the other way around. There are no reliable sources arguing for their authenticity. One should not create content about blue-skinned seven-eyed dwarves with green pointed hats. Probably no scholar refutes their existence, and so what?
I don't think the article talks about dwarves. Let's not exaggerate. And it sounds like the chicken and egg problem to me. You prove it, no you prove it. Childish. Let's just keep both sides available for the reader to review and decide. Most people won't believe in seven-eyed dwarves articles, so no need to help them by removing information. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it talks about dwarves! I don't have to prove anything, I'm not arguing anything about Dacian language or alphabets. There are no two sides here - there is not a single reliable source arguing about the authenticity of these scripts. As pointed to you already, "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Daizus (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. There are reliable sources saying there are hoaxes. But I don't see the point in mentioning or quoting such sources because of 1.
Just give one please. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Constantin Preda, "De la tracomanie la dacomanie", Academica (2004), 44-45.
3. If you can't understand linguistic arguments, it doesn't mean there's some sort of religious background behind them. The Sinaia script is a mixture of Greek with Cyrillic and other exotic characters. Once deciphered, the language shows words borrowed from Bulgarian (*reko = "river" < reka) or French (sekorio, edo = "help"). That is evidence enough for any intelligent reader.
I didn't say I don't understand linguistics nor that I am an expert. I know the criticism about having letters and words from the future, although I don't think is impossible to have people in the past who used some symbols that were attributed to later people. It had Greek letters? That could easily be explained by the known Greek influence on Geto-Dacians. When you say Bulgarian, you mean Bulgar Turkic or modern Bulgarian, since there are Dacian and Thracian words in the modern one (which has mostly Indo-European roots so other connections are possible). And sekorio is French for sure? And if is, we can't have words that are written the same in other languages? But my point was, linguistics alone cannot dismiss a set of physical tablets. There are other scientific means to assess their origin and age. And if you can't, just keep them and wait for other discoveries, technologies and let people know about them in interim. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you imagine linguistics is a sort of "anything goes", then clearly you don't understand it. Are the Cyrillic letters to be explained by a Christian Slavic influence on Dacians? All words change in time! If the so-called Dacian words look almost identical with modern words (and words from this language like viro, strato, filo are also used in Esperanto), then it's not about common PIE roots, it's about a modern invented language (like Esperanto). What is the PIE root inherited both in French (secour) and Dacian (sekorio)? And yes, linguistics alone can denounce such fakes. A "Mayan" tablet written in a English-Spanish mixture is a fake!
4. In the Roman Empire there were two official languages - Latin and Greek. Germania or Persia were never conquered by Romans. Moreover there were Germanic kingdoms and a Sassanid Persia. Albanian language was heavily influenced by Latin, it survived in a relatively small territory, and most of the Balkans were actually Romanized (for Illyria, see also about the Dalmatian language). But the point missed here is that romanization is one thing, the survival of a Romance idiom is another. As I argued on a talk page, we have evidence of Dacian soldiers in Egypt writing letters to each other in Greek. Do you think the other Dacians were bad learners?
I didn't say they conquered all Germania or Persia, but clearly portions. What about Germania Superior, Germania Inferior, Noricum, Assyria, Panonia, Mauretania, Syria, Iudea and a myriad of other Roman provinces where Romans stayed longer then Dacia? None of them Latinized, so different from each other, in such varied geographical locations. Why not? They were not smart enough? Or Trajan had private teachers for every Dacian but he didn't like the Cappadocians? Well maybe Asia Minor and Africa were more under a Greek influence. Really? Then why are the Jewish not speaking Greek? And why did Free Dacians (I know, contested, all Dacians disappeared instantaneously in 106 AD, kidnapped by aliens, let's delete this one too) get latinized when both free and occupied Germans did not? These are questions that open minded people should ask themselves without being protochronists or caring about some crazy theories from Mr. Savescu. But to not allow people to even wonder why not, is terrible and sad. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The provinces of Germania, Noricum, Pannonia, Mauretenia were Latinized (to different degrees). Assyria was province for few years! Syria and Judeea were Hellenized (to different degrees). The "Free" Dacians were never Latinized, but those who were colonized / migrated in the Empire. This line of argumentation is anachronistic, you're looking at the languages spoken today. Many Jews from Israel settled there in modern times, how is that relevant for the ancient history of their language in that territory? Let's not mistake open-mindedness for ignorance ;) Daizus (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. It's highly unlikely Dacian was Latin or closely related to it. Dacian is sometimes linked to Albanian or Baltic languages because there are some similarities.
Highly unlikely because?!... --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Latin is a centum language and Dacian a satəm language? Daizus (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Romanians working in Germany learn German, those working in Canada learn either English or French, and so on. There's no "Latin to Latin" link here. Daizus (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you didn't realize I was joking there. Not need to explain. :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The very lack of references for some "artefacts" known for more than 100 years should be enough proof for their irrelevance (even more, considering the extent to which some Romanian historian patriotically "bended" sources to fit the official theory - see the way some of them decided that any individual with a Christian name mentioned in mediaeval Dobruja must necessarily be a Romanian). As for the your belief that the population couldn't learn Latin in the short time of Roman rule, you don't have to resort to pseudo-science such as protochronism, there's a respectable theory that says (part of) the ancestors of Romanians came from the Roman Balkans (I'm not saying the theory is right or wrong, but at least if you support it you aren't unanimously qualified as a quack by the academia - no matter what Romanian schoolbooks may want students to believe).Anonimu (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that all descendants of the Migration Period in Balkans are very happy that Romanians like you exist.. I wonder what do you think about your own origin. Or I better not. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue with the personal attacks I'll have to request admin intervention. BTW, since all the decipherements of the "Dacian script" reveal a language that is farther from Romanian than is classical Latin, doesn't that suggest that Romanians are after all descendants of Roman colonists?Anonimu (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in "The Golden Age of Transylvania", by "Maurus Jokai" (Mór Jókai), translated into English, we find the following (set in the 1600's):
CHAPTER IX
THE PRINCE AND HIS MINISTER
A Few years had passed since Apafi rose to his princely rank. We are in the period when, in consequence of the sudden death of Nicholas Zrinyi the party of Hungarian malcontents had lost their standing and most of them had gone to Transylvania, which country was rejoicing in Home rule, owing to the rivalry of the German and Turkish monarchs.
. . .
At this moment Teleki entered the Prince's apartment with an important air, took some writing from a silk envelope, opened it and placed it in Apafi's hand. The Prince appeared to read it with care and knit his brow as he did so. Suddenly he called out, "They certainly are Dacian letters!" "What!" said Teleki, astounded, with wide open eyes. He could not comprehend how the Prince had found Dacian writing in the letter handed him. "Yes, I am positive. I remember reading, perhaps in Dio Cassius, that the Romans had medals struck with a Dacian inscription and on the obverse the picture of a headless man. Here it is."
Now, obviously, this is a historical novel, these are not transcribed conversations. But, certainly, that the Dacians had their own writing system pre-dating use of the Latin alphabet has long had a hold on popular culture and would seem to me worthy of more than a redirect. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not in an article about this novel? Daizus (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It's easy enough to dig up more references to its popularity among amateur historians, etc. (i.e., more popular culture). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Historical fiction used to establish the notability of a concept unknown to academia? Are you really sure you want to keep such arguments in an AfD archive?!? The idea has no popularity outside protochronist circles, the same that support the idea first brought forward by Napoleon Savescu that "Pelasgians" (i.e. Dacians) colonized Japan and Central America (sic!!!).Anonimu (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peters had a very sensible and interesting point. Very neutral and informative. Why do you have to go to such extremes with your examples and your language to attack people? Unknown to academia? Whatever your academia is (certain, hand picked PhDs in linguistics and history, no other intelligent self educated people will count here for you I assume), is obviously screaming out loud against the unknown concept, some through your own voices. Why are you here, deleting the article if it is unknown? Because you, a great academician and beholder of the absolute truth and authority know about it, since is very notable and annoying to some people who spent their carriers around some theories and are very angered when others suggest a radically different one. It would mean that their academic lives were wasted if they admit another theory. And that's unacceptable. So let's be the Inquisition to shut up anyone who would threaten our research and vested interest. Make sure our books sell, and theirs don't, cause they are protochronists and we are great and cool. Very sensible intellectuals. And of course such ideas from Mr. Savescu are going way to far. Central America, come on! --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That ancient Dacians created a civilization created a culture extending form the Atlantic to the Pacific (across Eurasia) is a basic tenet of protochronism, not an extreme example. Academia as in peer-reviewed journals, as in WP:Reliable sources, as opposed to self-published quacks. "intelligent self educated people" have no value to Wikipedia or scientific research, unless their "intuitions" are certified by academia... I'm sure even you wouldn't agree a mechanical engineer performed a heart bypass on you just because he has spent ten years studying the dog's heart. Wikipedia has a basic guideline about WP:Notability that says that if a subject is unknown, then it has no place on Wikipedia.Anonimu (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to refer to it as a "concept." BTW, I've been having a bit of trouble finding pictures of the "Dacian triptych" which has a dozen or so lines of Dacian writing on it. (Those I believe would have already been in Latin script.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the "Dacian triptych" is the one from Alburnus Maior. In Latin. Daizus (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, I rather suspect that the reference to Dio Cassius's Roman history is accurate. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as it stands now, the article just says the "script" is a protochronist fantasy, and given it's short length, it can easily be included as a separate section in the Protochronism section. Protochronism has hundreds of fantastic theories and conspiracies that make the Da Vinci Code an almost reasonable story. I don't think is reasonable to create an article for each one of them. We should just create a section in the Protochronism article, and if these guys keep shelling Wikipedia with their fantasies, create an article Protochronist theories that reunites them all. It's not about deletionists vs inclusionists, it's about Wikipedia's scientific credibility... just check Google, all sources talking about a "Dacian script" are WP mirrors. Nowadays WP (with Google's help) is creating popular culture, so we should assume responsibility for it. If for more than 100 years scholars decided that a theory doesn't deserve more than a phrase or two in hundred-pages books (as opposed to notable pseudo-science theories, such as flat earth, geocentrism or the phlogiston) , why should WP create a dedicated topic about this theory?Anonimu (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You guys rewrote this article several times to say Protochronism 50 times in it, against my attempt to freeze the work on it and get third party, neutral opinion cause no one is objective here. And now you are saying, let's merge it to Protochronism since all it does it talks about it. Somebody, shoot me now!! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not sure how this article is now "neutral". It doesn't mention the opinion of Sorin Olteanu of the Vasile Parvân Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest that "Dacian script" is "pure fabrication" and there's not even anything to discuss [4]:"There is not even talk of uncertainties or questions of interpretation (what point of view are we looking from) etc., but purely and simply Dacian writing does not exist." --Folantin (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the "Dacian alphabet" is a nationalist fabrication. It can be merged into Protochronism without any kind of loss. The continued existence of the article serves only as a trollbait, inviting further attempts to suggest or imply that the notion has any kind of credibility, and that its status as a fabrication is "only an opinion". --dab (𒁳) 17:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about something that doesn't exist. Nobody has even come forth with any evidence that "Dacian script" is even a notable nationalist fantasy. --Folantin (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no SYNTH problem. Archaeologist Mircea Babes, grade 1 researched at the Romanian Academy and editor in chief of the most important Romanian archaeology journal, includes the idea of a "Dacian script" as just another protochronist fantasy. See his view on the dispute, or better said the reasons why the script is not even a notable dispute, in my first !vote.Anonimu (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FRINGE, an article on an notable false theory is perfectly acceptable. Racconish Tk 18:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the evidence this is a notable fringe theory worthy of its own article then? --Folantin (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You actually contributed some...Racconish Tk 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. I contributed Olteanu's opinion that there was so little substance to the idea there was not even anything to discuss. --Folantin (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what he said. I did read your source.Racconish Tk 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where did he say it was notable? He said: "There is not even talk of uncertainties or questions of interpretation (what point of view are we looking from) etc., but purely and simply Dacian writing does not exist." --Folantin (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if anyone doubted the artice was a troll magnet, I think recent events drive home the point. No, Racconish, this is not notable. All we have seen is that the notion exists. It gets two (2) hits on google books. "Dacian alphabet" does, that is. "Dacian script" gets zero. Any notable fringe theory will get at least a couple of hundred. The picture of the vase you insist on transcluding has never been mentioned in the context, all that can be said about it is that perhaps some Dacian attempted to imitate the Greek alphabet without actually being literate. Can we please call it a day, redirect the title, and mention this thing at Protochronism. Please stop wasting everybody's time with this. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already changed my vote to 'keep or merge' and agreed with you and on the fact 'alphabet' is more accurate than 'script'. I just think we have enough quality sources on this wrong theory to call it a notable wrong theory.Racconish Tk 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Talk:Dacian script#Merge proposal with Protochronism so far shows 6 editors supporting the merge, 1 against. Racconish Tk 08:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we counting the votes here or on the talk page? Also, with the exception of you, Racconish, who came in good faith to save the article and then were almost pushed to change your vote, and with the exception of Daizus who had a very sensible and respectful position which I admire, the other 4 votes come from individuals who acted with incredible aggressivity and hatred. They engaged in edit wars, canvassing, personal attacks. They are deleting WikiProject Dacia left and right, removing content, removing categories how they see fit. They obviously have a very dubious agenda, not worthy of Wikipedia, and they have the balls to accuse me of canvassing. How can someone count their votes when they acted with so much bias, hate and immaturity? --Codrin.B (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we've already established that no substantial scholarly attention has been paid to this issue. Go to Google Books. "Dacian script" gets zero results. "Dacian alphabet" gets 2 results. --Folantin (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in principle - that there's a lack of sources - but a simplistic search of google books is not guaranteed to reveal all sources, given that most work on that area will be in other languages than English, and in different formats. I've spent a couple of hours browsing through a bunch of historic articles & reviews in various journals which make no mention of any native script. A lot of the region's history has been written in German, but I'm not confident in German. A (scornful) review in the Journal of Roman Studies suggests that Pârvan wrote a couple of books which ought to touch on the subject; I haven't yet found a way to get full text of these books in any of the archives that I can access. This says "The Dacian state ... has several highly distinctive features, including the absence of cities and the rejection of literacy". bobrayner (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I've already looked for Romanian sources online. This appears to be the province of protochronists and fringe amateur historians like Sǎvescu. As for German, "dakische Schrift" (or "dacische Schrift") gets zero results in Google Books as does "dakische Alphabet".Folantin (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a quick follow-up, I've been looking for French and Italian sources (searching "écriture dace", "écriture dacique", "alphabet dace", "scrittura daca", "alfabeto daco" etc.) and the results are effectively non-existent. This indicates this is definitely not a notable concept. --Folantin (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And your reasons are? Have you found any sources to say this is a notable topic outside fringe amateur history, for instance? --Folantin (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Malta Ambulance Corps Limerick Unit[edit]

Order of Malta Ambulance Corps Limerick Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ORG (local chapter of organisation) and plagiarism from PHECC and Emergency Medical Technician Heggyhomolit (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Goeld[edit]

Rick Goeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

US fiction writer. One of his books, Searching for Steely Dan, is self-published at lulu. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The-Hub[edit]

The-Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. I removed all the fluff and there's not really anything left. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RedSpotGames[edit]

AFD discussions for this article:
RedSpotGames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real notability shown for this company. sources provided show no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and none found with significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:corp. New article recreation at RedSpotGames (with caps) instead of redspotgames (no caps as they write it) appears to be an attempt to bypass the salting of the real title, which if memory serves correct was also recreated as a subsection of Dreamcast-Scene as another attempt to bypass the salt, with a redirect created with caps. (Speedy deletion from G4 declined, see talk page, different enough from original article.) duffbeerforme (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no significant coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are several videos of their game fair shows available:

^--Cube b3 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the editor here.[6] In the meantime, 68.185.90.190, I'd appreciate it if you focused on whether this article's topic is notable. In particular, I've provided a list of secondary sources which seemed to address the main complaint about the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maturion is possibly a puppet as he is a dcemulation.org user. He likely came here from the topic linked above. http://dcemulation.org/?title=User:Maturion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.90.190 (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a DC Emulation user as well, it is a community of very passionate Dreamcast users, just like the passion wikipedians have to write articles, this is significant to us and DC Emulation alone is a community with over 10,000 members [1]--Cube b3 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming I am a puppet because I am registered at a particular forum is pretty poor. And no, although I am a registered user over there, I didn't come from this forum, nor did anyone ask me to join this discussion. By the way, don't you have any other points that justify the deletion of redspotgames except that we all may be puppets? The reasons for the proposed deletion are all disproven:

I'd call that MORE than enough independet, reliable sources with enough significant coverage. The article may need some editing, though.--Maturion (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The games have received that coverage. The company, independent from the games is in question. I'm not chiming in with a keep or delete as this topic doesn't interest me, but just be clear that game coverage with a mention of the publisher/dev is not the same as independent coverage for either company. --Teancum (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duffbeerforme: Can you please be a little more specific? Are you saying that these sources don't provide significant coverage? Are you saying that they're not reliable or that they're not independent? I'm not sure what your specific objection is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mixture. Articles about their games with just a passing mention of redspotgames (gamespot, gamepro, 1up, computerandvideogames, gamesradar, kotaku), reproduction of press releases (computerandvideogames, kotaku), trivial announcements (wired, 1up, computerandvideogames, inside-games), plain trivial trivial (engadget), blogs (gamespot, tgdaily, computerandvideogames, gamesradar), user comments (gameinformer), themselves talking about themselves (youtube). There is some more overlap where I think the sorces belong. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duffbeerforme: Both articles from Computer and Video games are not press releases.[7][8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I can see what you mean in that most of these articles are fairly short. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that are actually mainly about redspotgames itself:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/21/redspotgames-looking-to-continue-publishing-for-dreamcast/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-XRNuVFKiE
Comment: Just quoting User:duffbeerforme: While it may look like I'm after your articles I'm actually targeting articles related to redspotgames
--Maturion (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube ref is redspotgames talking about themselves, not independent. joystiq is on the trivial size, is promotional and is on "media of limited interest" (WP:CORP, audience). As for the quote ([9]), I was at that time as wikipedia is not a means of promotion and that's what all these articles came across as (combined with the history of recreation of articles). duffbeerforme (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop telling nonsense, please. They've been invited to a TV show to tell more about themselves. That's not a video from redspotgames. Actually, 3sat is one of the most popular TV channels in Germany and can be received by 80 million households in whole Europe. Joystiq is not on the trivial size, even if you claim so, something different is the case. It's the 1,534th ([10]) most visited website in the world, meaning that it gets at least several hundred thousands if not millions of pageviews a day. The website of Handelsblatt, one of Germany's best known newspapers is on #2,694 [11] --Maturion (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meant the joysiq reference, not the site itself. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

We start round 2 now: redspotgames is a video game publisher, distributor and promoter based in Munich Germany. Established in 2005, the company is known for publishing new games for the long discontinued Sega Dreamcast video game system, recently redspotgames have also branched off publishing to digital services such as X-Box Live and Nintendo WiiWare. The company has been present at international trade events such as Gamescom, their games have advertised and promoted on National TV shows in multiple countries. German TV show Neus revealed their latest game Sturmwind. Australian TV show Good Game on ABC Australia reviewd Rush Rush Rally Racing--Cube b3 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Company lacks of notability.--79.235.100.74 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — 79.235.100.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edison (mascot)[edit]

Edison (mascot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a non-notable fictional character I42 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep, obviously notable and well-sourced subject, WP:SNOW, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day[edit]

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this page is against the emotions of Muslims Qazisamiesaeed (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 14:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kahkoni[edit]

Kahkoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable constructed language lacking Ghits and GNEWs of substance. Prod removed by author of language. ttonyb (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 22:31, 13 January 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Old Cranleighans" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Cranleighans as well.) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Cranleighans[edit]

Old Cranleighans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, does not appear to be notable, possible copyright violation. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or for the copyright issue, he can get permission from the Old Cranleighans Association to reuse it (which I suspect they would grant). For notability, it would be nice to have some evidence that Old Cranleighans are referred to in secondary sources. Francis Bond (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised, albeit amused, you can delete or amend articles at lightning speed but when the author of them asks for them to be taken down, there's a wall of silence. Please remove the content as it appears on the Old Cranleighan Society website and without my consent to use, which in view of above conversations has been withdrawn, is a clear breach of the OCS' own copyright. Thank you. Mogodonman (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because OTRS permission has been withdrawn and the copyvio text remains under an all rights reserved license at the website, I have deleted the templated text now rather than allow our standard 7-day "good faith" waiting period. I have also purged the history because of the OTRS revocation. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my requests to remove this page which I created, it remains on the site. Please remove this immediately. It is ludicrous RHaworth can remove content when I gave permission in a matter of hours and yet when there is no permission nothing is done to remove it. Your help would be appreciated. Mogodonman (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked it as a speedy delete as an author blanked page. - It should go within a few hours. I have also rescued the text and posted it on the talk page of Cranleigh School where some knowledgeable editor can integrate it. Velella  Velella Talk   22:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ironholds (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AaB A/S[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AaB A/S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy declined. No assertion of notability, no coverage showing up. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see why this wouldn't merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Johnleemk | Talk 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but none of these are in WP:CORP. The paragraph at WP:LISTED doesn't say listing on a stock exchange guarantees notability. And the parent company can't "inherit" notability from the team it owns. The turnover is respectable but not notable - you dno't have to pass too many car dealerships before you've hit $50 million in annual sales. Put a couple of lines in the team's article describing the parent company, if we must; but the comany fails the guidelines in WP:CORP. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this article still is considered for deleting, please also consider deleting this article Parken Sport & Entertainment. And please make a note that says "parent companies in the Danish sports/entertainment business are not notable".--Patchfinder (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable, it's got multiple independent sources. An annual is not an independent source- its self-published. Where are the independent sources? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would really improve this discussion, if you start reading what I write instead of being ignorant. An annual report is off course not independent, but it can be very reliable if the information is verified. User:CactusWriter has added independent sources to the article, which means it now has reliable and independent sources. --Patchfinder (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Wtshymanski? "Where are the independent sources?" Please explain why the included cites to Berlingske Tidende newspaper, Jyllands-Posten newspaper, Børsen A/S financial news, Ritzau news agency, etc. are not independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masshole[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Masshole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a derogatory word for people from Massachsetts. That's all. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mode Lifestyle Magazine[edit]

Mode Lifestyle Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no verification for the existence of an actual publication. The magazine is not on any major newsstands nor for sale on online sources. The official website is a single page front -- clicking any button such as "subscribe", "advertising", "back issues", etc. leads to the same under construction page. (And has since this article's creation in November). The few sources provided are self-published press releases. This is either someone's wishful thinking or a possible hoax. (In searches, this magazine should not be confused with the fictional fashion magazine Mode from Ugly Betty.) — CactusWriter (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing some of the points made:

a) Re “the website is a single front page”: The website is not a single front page. Some pages are being updated and some are fully live. Click on the “Shop MODE” and it takes you to the ecommerce section: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/shop511/index.php

b) Re “Clicking any button such as subscribe”: Clicking on subscribe takes you to the subscriptions page, a full ecommerce section that is being updated: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/shop511/products/details/2/Magazine-Subscription-MODE-Print-Editions

c) Re “Someone’s wishful thinking, not to be confused with another magazine”: Here is a small list of some of the events hosted by the magazine over the years and attended by thousands of real people in the fashion and lifestyle industry at some very high profile locations:

i) 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub9TykOa7Rs

ii) 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gixp_zufI0E

iii) 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FffG-ScwA

iv) 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv49Yp4cfdI

d) Re “ Not for sale”: The is an exclusive publication and is for sale by subscription on the website and other places including avenues easily available to people in its target segment. You can purchase the magazine here: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/shop511/products/details/2/Magazine-Subscription-MODE-Print-Editions

e) Re “An actual publication”: Here is a link to an edition of the magazine. Most editions are not available for free online unless you are a paid member as it is not a free publication: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/editions/nov-dec-2009-edition-mode-lifestyle-magazine.html#page_top

Brightsky777

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightsky777 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-crowd[edit]

E-crowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no assertion of notability. . Original research. Prod flag removed by IP editor  Velella  Velella Talk   16:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 , G1. First time I've gotten to use that one. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Philanthropist of Good Will/New Book Release[edit]

The Philanthropist of Good Will/New Book Release (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's confusing and unnotable. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modeo[edit]

Modeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Ϫ 16:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin[edit]

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:ORG. Reads like an advert and article creator appears to have a WP:conflict of interest. Google searches provide nothing of note except perhaps being shortlisted for a law society award. Everything else seems marketing/directory. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of erroneous newspaper headlines[edit]

List of erroneous newspaper headlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure where to list this but I guess WP:NOTNEWS and List of trivia . While these are notable and apt in their parent articles . A List of erroneous newspaper headlines makes no sense . Gnevin (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that a vote to delete or keep? Gnevin (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why it's a vote to keep, of course, couldn't you tell?  :) Mandsford 00:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being sarcastic isn't helpful to our non native English editors, those wishing to get a quick over view of the discussion. A simple Keep or Delete should be here Gnevin (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a delete. Only "Dewey Defeats Truman" gets any real notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add-- Clarity won the edit conflict race this time-- that there is no requirement about what "should be here", nor are the participants in a discussion required to confine their statements to "a simple keep or delete". Sometimes, we editors simply make a comment or an observation, and we're all welcome to do so. I don't think anyone would have interpreted Clarityfiend's humorous comment as a keep vote, but she or he wasn't required to "vote" nor to respond to the answer a "yes or no" question. I'd add that your English is very good, and that I wouldn't have known that it wasn't your first language if you hadn't said so. My comment wasn't intended as a put down of your understanding of our language, and I'm sorry that it came across that way. Mandsford 02:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If no one would have interpreted the comment as a Keep, the question to clarify would not have been asked. Sarcasm does not always translate well over a text-based medium. -- RoninBK T C 10:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask one of our non native English editors. Mandsford 22:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptual Diversity[edit]

Perceptual Diversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to be based on the PhD thesis of a questionably notable person who is now under AfD discussion; this is not a notable, unique, or generally used term as defined here; Google Scholar search turns up numerous other meanings for the term. MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Empires[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Astro Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third party sources. I've looked for references using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources (including the custom WPVG Google search) and found nothing but trivial reviews, press releases, and forum/blog posts. The single third-party resource in the article (Best Browser Games of the Year 2010) is a "most popular" fan voting award on a site found to be specifically unreliable by WikiProject Video games, nothing that was given by legitimate video game journalists. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy my comments on the Correio da Manhã source from my Talk page: It's a trivial fluff piece and, "top-selling newspaper" or not, doesn't even appear to list the author. Plus, the article is more about the gamemaker than the game itself. What it does mention about the game is a 3-year old player count (active players or simple signup count? we don't know because the article lacks depth) and conjecture about the age of its players, which is odd because the character-creation page doesn't seem to ask that question. This appears to be exactly the type of journalism that we don't want in our articles.
As far as MyGames goes, it strikes me as a rather poor games site. There's no mention of editorial policies that I can find. Authors are listed by their username rather than a real name, and the author of the Astro Empires article appears to lack any kind of a journalist background. Beyond that, they appear to be offering some kind of contest/promotion with the game company, which makes them less than impartial.
I'm not sure how the notability policy works on the PT wiki, but on the EN wiki we need multiple sources that are significant (non-trivial) and reliable and independent of the subject. Sources that don't list an author (or give only a username), make up material to fill an article, and are tied in some way to the subject can't be used to write a neutral and reliable encyclopedia. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging/redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demitasse spoon[edit]

Demitasse spoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a dictionary definition with no obvious scope for expansion to be anything more. Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to translate the French article, but my English is not enough good to do it. It's just a stub. And I consider that when an article is available in a langage (in French for this article), we must give the possibility to anyone to read it in its native language. DeansFA (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relations between the LGBT community and Ethnic Minorities[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Relations between the LGBT community and Ethnic Minorities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic WP:SYNTH Article thus a Violation of WP:NOR, most of it is covered in better detail and with out the broad lumping elsewhere in Wikipedia. The article scope itself is entirely US=centric better to cover these vaious groups attepctance of LGBT in the various article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was originally created as "Racism in the LGBT community" and was considered offensive to some LGBT people. I proposed the second deletion which resulted in rename to "Relations between the LGBT community and People of Color" which later became "Relations between the LGBT community and Ethnic Minorities". This allowed it to discuss not only Racism in the LGBT community but Heterosexism and Transphobia in ethnic minority communities. However it still remained biased and essentially Heterosexist and Transphobic as no information was added about Heterosexism and Transphobia in the ethnic minorities. As a matter a fact that section was deleted along with all sections so they had an excuse not to discuss Heterosexism and Transphobia within Ethnic minorities therefore blaming the LGBT community for the bad relations between them and the minority ethnic communities. Get rid of it already. Interminority discrimination is still discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the content of this article could be woven into this article LGBT that already contains a criticism section it should be removed.--Warrior777 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:SYN. --JN466 15:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point, I can find all sort of books and We have articles that are covered appropriately like LGBT and multiculturalism and LGBT topics and Afro-Americans in the Americas,Lesbian and gay topics and Judaism but what we got here is all kinds of WP:SYNTH. Lumping all these groups various views into some superficial lump as ethnic monitors is silly The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you unlump them instead of trying to delete the article? Delete is not a fix all. Dusti*poke* 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Duggan[edit]

Craig Duggan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Craig Duggan no longer plays for Cork City F.C., I think he is now playing in the Munster Senior League (association football). He made a handful of competitive appearances for Cork City before leaving the club. Similar deletion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uros_Hojan Hsetne (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airtricity First Division 2010[edit]

Airtricity First Division 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is significantly out of date. The league table for example is updated to 14 games, however the season is now over after 33 games played. Other stats are out of date too. This article is an orphan. There is already another article, 2010 League of Ireland, which deals with this subject. Hsetne (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - not even an attempt at an autobio just posted his CV. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Mont[edit]

Louis Mont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural AfD after PROD tag has been removed. Violation of WP:AUTOBIO, as only one author named LouisIMont (talk · contribs) has substantially contributed. Article seems to be about some businessman, yet no sources appear whatsoever. Fails thus both WP:N and WP:V. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark O'Sullivan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mark O'Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mark O'Sullivan no longer plays for Cork City F.C., he is no longer listed in the squad on the official club website. I think he is now playing in the Munster Senior League (association football). I'm not sure if he made any competitive appearances. Hsetne (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar deletion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uros_Hojan Hsetne (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuele Emiliano[edit]

Samuele Emiliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created when it was thought that Emiliano was signing for Cork City Football Club. From the club website it seems he never signed, and he never played a competitive appearance for the club, only played in pre-season friendlies. The article is an orphan. It doesn't say where he is playing now. Hsetne (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar deletion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uros_Hojan Hsetne (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ignoring the SPAs, 3 establishededitors saying keep, only the nom saying delete. sppsrently produced some notable games. Already relisted once DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senile Team[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Senile Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real notability shown for this company. sources provided show no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and none found with significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:corp. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are some [21] [22] [23] [24] interviews, for example. As far as Indie games go, these are decent imho. Article is currently in bad shape with unsuitable material and references, but that can be fixed with a little effort. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All are the company/group talking about themselves so are not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is somebody else who is talking to them. I am not sure what you mean by "independent"; if you mean that the sources are supposed to be secondary, then I agree that these are not the best references. However, these are published reliably and not against policy to use. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not somebody else who is talking about them. They are talking about themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "about them", I said "to them". Of course, they are talking about themselves. And that (i.e. primary source) does not establish notability. The attention from media (i.e. press willing to interview) is what establishes notability. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for obvious reasons. Articles like this can provide useful information to anyone interested in independent video games, especially but not limited to the Dreamcast scene (an area where Wikipedia has been quite uninformative for a surprisingly long time), and also serve to interconnect other relevant information. Of course the article will have to be improved. That shouldn't be too hard, although many editors will probably be reluctant to touch the article now that it has been targeted for deletion. Nobody likes to see their hard work go to waste. 87.211.187.132 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — 87.211.187.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:Useful does not imply WP:Notable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. 87.211.187.132 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are numerous reviews in print media with Senile Team. Senile Team IS an independent team. I see no real reason for deletion--79.235.51.134 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — 79.235.51.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep That Senile Team is notable is out of question. There are other articles in Wikipedia which are really not notable. Nevertheless. Please check the meaning of the word 'encyclopedia'. The article is not too well written, but better make some suggestion how to overwork it instead of deleting it. Sorry, but I can't see the point in that. --79.235.85.162 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC). — 79.235.85.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This really is not a vote and you need to support your opinion with arguments that are based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines, in this case, mainly notability (and independent sources) as majority of references are primary sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong references have been added. The reopening for the deletion is devoid of logic. It is irrelevant if there is a discussion on their websites forum. There is a concept called freedom of speech.--79.235.48.49 (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between freedom of speech and Wikipedia policy on WP:verifiability. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep Senile Team is mentioned around the globe. The external references on the Wiki-Page substantiate this. There are articles listed in Wiki which are much less relevant. Please remember Wikipedia is a encyclopedia.--79.235.118.246 (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Also, being an encyclopaedia does not imply every subject is to be included. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Senile Team has to be mentioned on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but the 2nd nomination for deletion sound more like a farce to me. Please keep the objectivity here.--79.235.122.170 (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the nomination sounds farce to you or you believe Senile Team has to be mentioned, does not address the Wikipedia's inclusion/notability guidelines. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of the aforementioned reasons!--79.235.54.240 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that acquiring new IPs does not hide the obvious fact that your IPs are all from the same ISP/locale. You are more likely to affect the outcome of this discussion by presenting a single well-formed opinion, rather than posting multiple times. Remember, this is not a head count, and you are more likely to be blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ash (director)[edit]

Ash (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No useful evidence of notability. No evidence even that this man is known by this professional name. The two refs. included are dead. The "Awards" don't check out. Artiquities (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2011 (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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Meisner[edit]

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

This is quite simple:

Brett Meisner is not a real person. The site is a parody. You're being trolled. It's amazing that this entry in Wikipedia has stayed alive for as long as it has. There is no obituary for a "Brett Meisner" anywhere. There are no public records for any "Brett Meisner." The site is a parody of working in the world of rock and roll.

Brett's forum is mostly him.

http://www.rockandrollbadboy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=7c7288859d057dade14ea30ca03f252a

You can find people making fun of his "death" right in a sticky on the forum:

http://www.rockandrollbadboy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1659

His traffic was going down, so he decided to "kill off" the character. Even if Brett WERE real, he's sure as hell not notable. It's not as if it's an incredibly popular website.

Here's an example of the humor the site was based on, in one of his videos. Note that it has a whopping 6,000 views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVlJeDmMUc4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsmith18 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McCoy[edit]

Chris McCoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability criteria Dukemc10 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. This nomination has been open for a month and since courcelles didn't find the consensus sufficient to delete on the 24th I'm going to treat this as an uncontested PROD. If anybody wants this undeleted let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Con-Dom[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Con-Dom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources to verify the article. Also No charting records and probably not notable. Mattg82 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)2011 January 7[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)2011 January 7[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel B. Lloyd[edit]

Daniel B. Lloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined Prod. This article is about a U.S. Coast Guard rear admiral with no significant combat service. Several routine command and staff appointments only. This officer fails the notability requirement. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Obviously notable village (it does exist) (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devla village[edit]

Devla village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable place should be merged into the Rajkot district Article BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-toile[edit]

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

Delete. Largely unknown "group of research". This is apparently part of a strategy aiming to publicize one Yannick Bressan and his personal researchs. Article is also proposed for deletion on the french wikipedia (where the "Yannick Bressan" entry has been deleted). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yannick Bressan, if that survives its own AFD. If not, tough. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goal of the Month (England)[edit]

Goal of the Month (England) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-notable non-award. Not discussed in reliable sources. Sandman888 (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to the Global Positioning System[edit]

Introduction to the Global Positioning System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NOTHOWTO. We are not wikiversity. Marcus Qwertyus 12:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Twinkle! This happens entirely too often. Marcus Qwertyus 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep but move and include" this information here [[35]]. The articles seems to have structural problems, not problems with content. This article provides relative information regarding a very popular gadget "GPS". Needles to say the GPS system is very technical and the article reflects this but no more then many articles regarding technology throughout Wikipedia. I believe Wikipedia is geared to a broad audience including the technically minded. Why move it? Because it is redundant to have two basic articles concerning GPS. The content can be moved and included requiring little work by its author(s)/editors(s). Should however other more relevant sub categories of information be needed they should be included due to the devices popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leuren Moret[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Leuren Moret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established by sources given in article, which are both from alternative media, one bordering on conspiracy theory. Borock (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is not properly sourced with WP:RS, and I can't find any RS out there for it. Qworty (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- clear & reasonable consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mazda MX-5 colors and special editions[edit]

List of Mazda MX-5 colors and special editions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excessive fan cruft, a perfect example of WP:Not OSX (talk • contributions) 06:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tovia Singer. With merge having already taken place. Davewild (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach Judaism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Outreach Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced, non-notable organization Usb10 Connected? 01:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mulshine[edit]

Paul Mulshine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local blogger and/or columnist. TastyCawks (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)2011 January 7[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Francis Bailey[edit]

Robert Francis Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly no WP:V (and thank you DumbBOT for completing my dumb mistake)S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)17:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ski Tour[edit]

The Ski Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as promotional material. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have improved the article somewhat I'll grant you, but the tour itinerary reads like something that you should be getting off the company's webpage or newsletter.
Yes, WSQ disagreed with me about a speedy delete, so what? Now I get to hear from my peers (hopefully more will chime in). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)2011 January 7[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)2011 January 7[reply]
Whoops. Sorry about that. Thanks! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Behind the Signs[edit]

The Times Behind the Signs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very minor book of local interest. There is some material here which could be used for the article on Yellowknife using the book as a source, but that's about it. I don't consider that an actual merge. WorldCat shows 6 libraries only: 2 US, 4 Canada. . DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 12:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Nailin' Paylin?[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Who's Nailin' Paylin? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:Use common sense. Porn films are made about many topics and they are (almost) all trivial. WP is a respected source of information on vitally important political topics. This article unfairly makes it look like we are out to get Ms Palin, which could undermine our reputation as a source of fair and objective information on people and issues that really matter. Borock (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A vote to keep is a vote for Sarah Palin for president in 2012. ;-) -Borock (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What kind of argument is that? One moment you are saying the article is anti-Palin, and now you say it will win her votes. I suspect this AfD isn't being taken seriously by its proposer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to be more clear. Article seems to be anti-Palin, Palin supporters will say WP is anti-Palin, WP's reputation as being a source of fair and objective information will be damaged in their eyes, Palin supporters will be more motivated to work for her campaign while discounting legitimate criticism of her, that might be enough to decide the election in her favor making her the 45th president of the United States. On the other hand it might not work out this way. You never know. Borock (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless speculation. We are discussing 'Who's Nailin' Paylin?' here, not Sarah Palin's political ambitions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Bressan[edit]

Yannick_Bressan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is largely unknown and non-notable, including in France : his article was just deleted on the French wikipedia. His main claim for notability is coining a term for a largely unknown concept, the "adhesion principle", whose article was also deleted on wikipedia fr. I may add that his main claim for notability is/was his presence on wikipedia and assorted mirror sites. I suggest we delete this article to avoid giving this person undeserved publicity. I'll add that this person has an entry at the online version of the Larousse encyclopedia (which looks, at first glance, like a serious credential) but, at second glance, this entry is simply... taken from the (now deleted) french wikipedia article ! Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled video games[edit]

List of cancelled video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Part of this article was split into List of cancelled video game system and accessories and that was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled video game system and accessories. Although I was the sole person to support the deleted article, consensus was overwhelmingly to delete it and the reasons cited for deletion seem to apply equally to the entire article so I am nominating it for discussion also. I am neutral.

There are also a number of other sub-pages to consider:

List of video games cancelled for Xbox consoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games cancelled for Nintendo consoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games cancelled for Sega consoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games cancelled for PlayStation consoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I42 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, the nomination was not concerned with the number of lists but the quality of their content (see the previous AfD for the criticism of the deleted content; the same criticisms seem to apply to what's left). I42 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muley Jat[edit]

Muley Jat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure whether this should be merged or deleted. I have been searching for solid references that refer to Muley Jat, but cannot find one. Some peer advice would be welcome. Sikh-History 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but perhaps with a different name. While there seems to be a spelling problem, I am getting multiple positive hits on Mula Jat; perhaps Mula Jat is a more common spelling. A real group of Muslims from the Jat tribe (or jat growers) in Punjabi India and Pakistan.
book discusses mula jat
book discusses mula jat
Google book search, lots of commentary here, not all the books have page hits when you go in, but the Google summaries are convincing
Aquib (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok lets start adding citations.--Sikh-History 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most paragraphs have a citation, not a bad looking collection of sources for a small article. Goes a little heavy on the census data. Aquib (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only one vote for deletion and most for keeping or merging, so article should be proposed for merging at WP:PM if necessary. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appa and Momo[edit]

Appa and Momo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstration of notability, only two external sources (the rest of the sources are just episodes from the show or features on a DVD), and one of them is not about these characters but rather about the voice actor who voiced them, and only makes passing mention of these characters. Article is basically plot summary, and what is worth preserving can be merged over to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters after the article itself is deleted/redirected. No significant attempt at improvement has been made since I pointed out these problems 10-odd days ago (see Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#A different approach. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way my consensus (if I had to choose) is mainly Keep or Incubate. Keep is preferable to me but if delete is preferable to the majority then Incubate is my consensus, instead. God bless! − Jhenderson 777 02:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "just plot summary", I said "basically plot summary". The only out-of-universe information in the article is mention of who voices the characters, and about two sentences saying what the creators had in mind when they came up with these characters. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for your other arguments, there is no rule on Wikipedia stating that in order to AfD one problematic article I also need to go AfD every other problematic article in the project. You linked WP:OTHERSTUFF, perhaps you should read it as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that you did. I just quoted that to set up this comment. Which makes me feel like he is targeting this imperfect start class article because I had something to do with it. I should have pluralized make to made because I don't really the same now but other wise I made my point. But if my original feeling was true then it is not fair because you shouldn't target the article just because you noticed a editor had their fingerprints on it. And you don't listen to me very while because I said I read that guideline on a different talk page. And please I don't really want argue over a article, I want our differences set aside. That's why I gave you wikilove on your talk page a while back. That's why I offered you to maybe work together to better the article instead of deleting information. I feel like you are a valid editor (but I don't think you feel the same about me) and I agree that it needs more external links. I still feel it is fine information wise and I still think it's a definite maybe on being notable which can be such a debatable term. Mainly the argument happened becuase you kind of went off topic. You complained in the wrong talk page section about your concerns about it's notability. That should be in the talk page of Appa and Momo itself or on AFD. And that's not why I created a section, I created the section to see the approval or disapproval about the new idea. User:Parent5446 is the only one who expressed opinion on that and he seemed to like the approach. But I understand though that doesn't mean it's notable and we need more sources. But I am kind of a inclusionist that's why I defended it a little. Primary sources with limited reliable sources are better than none. And it didn't look broke enough to cry out DELETE, DELETE, in my opinion. But that was just me and I understand your concerns as well. − Jhenderson 777 16:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must butt in briefly to tell both of you to calm down. I do not mean to be insulting, but the constant back and forth of Jhenderson accusing Rjanag of targeting him as an editor and then Rjanag rebutting with arguments over semantics is getting us nowhere. All further comments in this deletion discussion should be to provide evidence for or against the notability of the topic in question. If either of you believe there is some kind of editor conflict going on, this is not the place to settle it. Unfortunately, the discussion of the notability of the Avatar character and episode articles has been means for debate since I joined Wikipedia. The all-out battle that resulted when the WikiProject decided to trash the individual episode articles was humongous, and the character articles are just next in line. So let's be gentlemen (or ladies) here and get back to the topic on hand. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Parent5446, I do think we are calm. We have our differences and we are debating over it. But that doesn't mean we are angry over it. I don't know if Rjanag is actually angry or not. But speaking in my point of view, I will defend him that I don't think he is angry and he is just explaining his point of view just as I am. It's a weakness of mine to explain what I believe is facts sometimes. − Jhenderson 777 17:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jhenderson. That's exactly what I wanted to hear you say. Sorry if I got a little obnoxious. :) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a two-character article like this is just nonstandard and strange.
See Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner, Ren and Stimpy (characters), Thunder and Lightning (comics), Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, Pintel and Ragetti, etc. Are those non standard too. It's called a duo article and they can be up to standard. Some characters that are duos are notable enough to be divided such as Phineas Flynn and Ferb Fletcher and Tom Cat and Jerry Mouse but this article I wouldn't recommend. − Jhenderson 777 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Although I do not think the two-character approach is the best in this case (see my comments below), the fundamental tenant of WP:IAR not only allows but encourages editors to deviate from convention as long as the presentation of the subject matter would benefit from it. Every topic has its own individual characteristics and the point that this article doesn't fit in the usual cookie cutter mould is not relevant in itself. —CodeHydro 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     After spending some time with my good friend Google, I believe there is more than enough out there about Appa to merit a stand-alone article. Indeed, the notability and importance of Appa is really not that difficult to prove... case and point: the Appamobile--that's right, somebody actually made their car look like Appa. Moreover, there is plenty more to say about topics such as the challenges the animators faced in adapting the 2D cartoon Appa into a life-like 3D beast for The Last Airbender film, as illustrated in this article from MTV, and how such was received by the fans. On the other hand, I'm still on the fence about Momo, though I believe there is more than reasonable potential for a stand-alone for that character as well.
     In any case, I believe that merging Appa into the list of characters would make Wikipedia's coverage of the character woefully inadequate considering its notability and importance to the series, as supported by the fact that the series dedicated a whole episode to the backstory of this non-speaking role. Although finding the combination of Appa and Momo to be less than ideal, I nonetheless find even the current awkward and cumbersome article to be much preferred over the proposed alternatives of merge or delete. Further merger would only make it more awkward than it already is.
Although I do not have time at the moment, I intend within the next few days to de-redirect the Appa article, expanding on the subjects on the points I mentioned above and more as well as pruning a lot of the unnecessary plot summary. I may or may not do this for Momo as well, depending on how much time I have and whether I am able to find more about that character. —CodeHydro 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an article about Momo individually once. But I wasn't too impressed with it so I redirected it. I have a feeling it would have been AFD'd anyways. That would kind of explain the reason why I included Momo in the picture and let a article reflect on both of Aang's pets not just Appa. Because I don't feel like one is more notable than the other. Comparitively they are the same to me. Now as for them being notable, that up for you to decide. ;) − Jhenderson 777 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you right now that the Appa article is just barely, if even, notable, so trying to get the Momo article to incubate on its own is almost out of the question. Momo is a minor character with little bearing on the show, and unless you can find external sources describing things like Momo's reception by the viewers, etc. then it will not stand on its own. I recommend using the Aang article is an example, because it is one of the better character articles on the WikiProject at this point. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be truly honest about the situation. Aang is the only good Avatar character article. This article is the second best when it comes to having sources everywhere, having a well informative Creation and Concept section and not being in-universe. Even though the sources are mainly primary. − Jhenderson 777 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't look to Aang's article in this case. I think Bulbasaur makes a much better model towards which to aspire since it was a former featured article and that Bulbasaur's importance to Pokémon is a good analogy to that of Appa's importance here. As for the comments about Momo, there is certainly potential for that character. I've found more than one source praising Momo as a "comic genius" which almost demonstrates notability by itself. —CodeHydro 19:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the discussion should probably be re-listed, keep in mind that the article does not have to prove its own notability, we just need to prove or disprove it. If you find any outside sources that can be used to expand the article just bring them here and we can worry about actual expansion once the article is saved. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of recommending that from the get go. Because a character is ISN'T notable just because you feel like he isn't just like a character being determined notable becuase he feels like he is. Of course that is a point of view. That's why sources are essential. That's why I placed a ((find)) template on certain places. I don't recommend me as a googler though because I like or did like mainly staying primarily in Wikipedia. Searching sources can be tough for me when the character isn't a OBVIOUS notable character. − Jhenderson 777 00:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My current opinion on the matter as aforementioned is a weak merge because of my uneasiness about the notability of the topic, but if a reasonable number of reliable secondary sources are presented showing significant coverage then notability will have been successfully demonstrated for the topic. I will attempt to find some sources but historically I have not shown much skill in the matter, so hopefully some others will come and help out. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I knew you were going to say merge knowing you as a editor. But merging sounds ridiculous only because Appa and Momo is a useless name title for a redirection. Come on let's think about this. You might as well delete the title name of this article will be merged. Also Lord Opeth, I don't think using primary fictional characters that everybody has heard of as good examples. These are secondary characters. I don't even think the primary character of the show involved, Aang, fits in their department. One time I mentioned a lot of duos in this AFD they are better examples, duos or not. Codehydro mentioned Bulbasaur too, (Some people will be like who is that yet he's notable to others) that will work as well. − Jhenderson 777 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you can create an article with an unusual title and have automatic protection from merging? That is what it sounds like you're trying to say. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I am just saying it's a useless redirection name title (Appa and Momo is). Not a useless article name title. People are going to search for one of the characters not both at the same time. Please don't assume that I am against a merge. I am sorry that I am not if I am not making any sense with that comment whatsoever. It was late I guess. ;) − Jhenderson 777 15:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jhenderson this is exactly what I was talking about before. Assuming that Lord Opeth's opinion is influencing solely by his personality as an editor is presumptuous and degrading to this argument. Wikipedia is not a bipartisan organization where editors vote along party lines and can be called out on doing so. That comment was out of line. Furthermore, the point he is trying to make by giving examples such as Mickey Mouse is that notability is not something handed out at Wikipedia like free cotton candy. Unless other evidence is provided there is little, if any, secondary sourcing that supports the notability of Appa and Momo. The Aang article was lucky to survive under the given circumstances, and it was only preserved because Avatar happened to develop a significant fan base and news sources, blogs, etc. happened to take interest in Aang as a character enough to write about him, thus the creation of secondary sources. While I will still withdraw my recommendation for merger if more secondary sources are presented, at this point we are trying to prove that two pets in an animated children's television series are somehow notable enough to deserve their own entry in an encyclopedia when one of the articles could barely stand on its own and the other was blatantly redirected due to obvious lack of notability. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously!!! I did not mean any offense out of knowing that he would vote merge. Now maybe it wasn't necessary to say. But it wasn't supposed to be where you had to be preachy about Wikipedia to me. It was out of respect that I know the editor that way that I said that. Nothing wrong with saying aha I knew you said that, it was random but it was a supposedly unoffensive comment out of respect. Not to be mistaked as out of line. My words seem to be minefields with you (plural). ;) And I just had different opinion on what are better opinions as examples. My point was Mickey Mouse is obviously a primary example for a obvious notable character and of top importance while I think the mere focus of example should be more secondary with low importance characters. But I get what he got as well. Don't take my quotes as a context (which I am saying with a silly grin on my face). − Jhenderson 777 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now looking back at the edit it doesn't look the way I wanted it. I mean more judging by watching his contributions and noticing that he has requested merge's or merged back in the past a lot. So I just kind of said what I already told myself before I read the comment when I noticed he contributed here and when I looked in the comment I was like "I knew it". So I was just sharing that yep I knew that your vote before I read your vote out of RESPECT. But still no offense, and sorry if it sounded out of line because I did not mean to make it sound like you thought it sound. − Jhenderson 777 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for burning a hole on this AFD but I have a new result. I am ok with merging for the time being because basically I still have the information saved from the userspace draft I started to use to create the article of two together. So if Code Hydro still have faith on the characters and when he has time to do it. He can contribute there if he ever wants it back as a article. − Jhenderson 777 20:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to fix it on a userspace draft first or in the Article Incubator first. Or somebody will do exactly what you said to to when he isn't even complete with it yet. − Jhenderson 777 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is Rjanag. It's still related. Appa was a redirection of this article but he felt the characters should be divided again. So he fixed it only on that article. He probably should have fixed it on this article and then make a consensus to divide them. I will only support with what he is doing if he can fix up Momo as well. (One reason is that is still said on the Appa article still mentions Momo a little bit) Otherwise what he has done could still be put here. Jhenderson 777 15:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag I understood what CodeHydro said. And he made his point quite clear that either this or the other article needs to be merged and that at least one of the characters on this article has supposedly established notability while explaining it on a different article. That has made things more complicated in some areas though. Jhenderson 777 17:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about one character, it's an unencyclopedic lumping of two characters together. If I made an article Milk and my friend Bob, no one would vote "Keep, milk is notable at least". rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tase Matsunaga[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tase Matsunaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on a thorough analysis of the sourcing the outcome is pretty clear Spartaz Humbug! 14:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of South American supercentenarians[edit]

List of South American supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a NOTABLE synthesis of information: "supercentenarians" and "South America." We have a popular article for Europe, why not the other continents? Please cut out the bias.Ryoung122 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This "source" is self-published raw data.
So are this one this one, this one, and this one.
That's every "source" the page relies on. The page is simply a vehicle for accreting raw data that its accumulators cannot get published (or at least have not gotten published) in a wiki-kosher reliable source. Deeming this information NOTABLE (in all caps, no less), RY is admirably straight-forward in the "explanation" of his "Keep" !vote. "This is a NOTABLE synthesis of information." This "explanation" seems to me to justify (mandate?) deletion rather than retention.
The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument falls of its own weight. The answer may be to nominate the other stuff for deletion, if it springs from the same source(s), in due course. But we review articles one at a time. This one's got no reliable sources and its principal defender proclaims it "NOTABLE synthesis". Is there more to say? David in DC (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wholly redundant with other articles, in that every name appears in other more basic articles, primarily the deaths-by-year articles and the list of living supercentenarians, as well as the records articles, each listed at Template:Longevity. I would delete List of European supercentenarians too but I believe it should be double-checked for 100% redundancy first.
  2. Absolutely no reliable sources; every single source is tied to the GRG (one indirectly through Louis Epstein), whose founder and lead members are members of the WP:WOP workgroup that maintains these articles. A rationale that the GRG e-group need not reveal its sources, when they are 95% the same type of Web sources Wikipedians use routinely, is utterly unviable. A rationale that sources are unnecessary because they appear in the bios or other list articles fails because it illustrates the redundancy (and because many list articles also treat sources as unnecessary). Paging WP:V.
  3. The GRG links do not demonstrate that the topic "list of [continental] supercentenarians" is notable; no such continental list occurs anywhere to my knowledge except in WP as a trivia review. A rationale that such data need multiple presentation methods fails because the presentation methods themselves are OR (nobody else uses such methods) and because of undue weight. Redirects are contraindicated because there are no targets and because they would perpetuate the OR.
  4. Numerous longevity-endemic problems to the degree that WP:TNT is better: sparseness of fill leading to too short a list to be notable as a list, in a possible attempt to list every supercentenarian up to three times (by death date, country/continent, and in a bio: undue weight), when the proper approach is to list each notable one once in a small set of list articles (and then to let growth accrue only due to notability and sourcing). Sort by age is wholly OR as if "5th oldest African emigrant" occurs anywhere in the world but this article. COI and walled-garden problems in project (primary editor NickOrnstein is sometimes OK to work with but is spinning his wheels very unnecessarily, keeping this article precisely synched with the others and the GRG pages). Bias against unverified Africans and South Americans, who appear in longevity claims, but for some reason only if they're 113. JJB 05:27, 10 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 delete. The contention that this has single sourcing hasn't been challenged to the general notability of this list hasn't been established. Arguments to keep based on casting aspertions about the motivations of other editors are far less compelling then deletion arguments showing analysis of sourcing and clear references to policy. Spartaz Humbug! 14:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of African supercentenarians[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of African supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a biography, the standard Edison is attempting to apply is inappropriate. We're not talking about a "notable person," we are talking about an article that is onsubject matters which are notable "Africa" and "supercentenarians"...or more specifically, verified supercentenarians.

Further, there are quite a few sources that can be used for this, such as the International Database on Longevity, the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, and the Gerontology Research Group.

Edison's comment is inappropriate; words such as "self-appointed" are accusatory in nature.Ryoung122 15:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: We can see that Edison is a "Biography of Living Persons" patrol...but this article is not a biography, whether a listed person is alive or not. It is a list.Ryoung122 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This "source" is self-published raw data. David in DC (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is this one. David in DC (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is this one David in DC (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is so far from a reliable source, it's stunning. It's hosted at something called www.recordholders.org, bears a disclaimer disavowing its own accuracy and features amazon.com ads for books associated with the compiler of the raw data more prominently than the data. David in DC (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your argument is so wrong, so far off the mark, that it's wrong in two categories of being wrong. So, I'm going to respond in two parts. First off, if you make homophobic remarks, then it's appropriate to call you out on it. But that has NOTHING to do with this article. That you brought that issue up...AN ISSUE YOU STARTED...only proves that you are here to cause trouble, not do the right thing. You are lucky to get off with just a reprimand. Again, THIS IS NOT A BIOGRAPHY. But even if it was, I don't see anything offensive about listing a 112-year-old woman who was born in Africa as born in Africa. Granted, the flag should be changed to represent French Algeria, but that's a minor quibble.

You don't delete a non-biography article on a biographical standard. Now for response part II.Ryoung122 01:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Above, we see three consecutive knowingly-false accusations, followed by a put-down. How about some FACTS:

1. Both Louis Epstein and myself are considered "experts" in the field. That's why we have material published in journal articles, like this one:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2010.1033?journalCode=rej

or how about this one:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2010.1145

You can find me at the International Database on Longevity:

http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm

You can find me at the New England Supercentenarian Study:

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/supercentenarian/our-staff/

Oh yes, you can find me at Guinness World Records as well.

http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Oldest-Living-Man-Turns-114/blog/2667504/7691.html

The bottom line is: for you to say the GRG material is "not a reliable source" is to go against what was already decided in the 2007 ArbCom. Time Magazine said that Guinness World Records was the "official arbiter of longevity." So, actually, you are attacking the mainstream, all because of a personality conflict. Your editing is flat-out incorrect, inappropriate, false, accusatory, malicious, and spiteful.Ryoung122 01:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The cabalist is back. You even have a list of articles that I support that you attack, and have been, since 2007. Get a life. And get real. Sources such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. all quote the Gerontology Research Group as a reliable source:

Woman among world's oldest dies at 112 in Fla. ‎ Washington Post - Jan 1, 2011 According to the Los Angeles-based Gerontology Research Group, Onie Ponder had been the oldest person in Florida and one of the 25 oldest people in the ... Woman among world's oldest dies at 112 in Fla.‎ - Atlanta Journal Constitution all 258 news articles » MiamiHerald.com

Evelyn Margaret Ralston, 1899 - 2010 ‎ Chicago Tribune - Jonathan Bullington - Dec 30, 2010 29, the Los Angeles-based Gerontology Research Group had her listed as the 52nd-oldest person on Earth. Miss Ralston sometimes grew annoyed by questions ... Evanston woman dead at 111‎ - Chicago Tribune Illinois' oldest resident dies at 111‎ - Chicago Sun-Times Evanston resident passes away at 111‎ - TribLocal WLS all 31 news articles » TribLocal

World's oldest man reflects on Christmas ‎ USA Today - Richard Ecke - Dec 26, 2010 At 114, Breuning is acknowledged to be the world's oldest man by the Guinness Book of World Records and the Gerontology Research Group. ...

How can you claim the GRG is not a reliable source? Your accusations are far across the line of libel.Ryoung122 01:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'd be very careful making comments like that; you're treading dangerously close to NLT territory. Also, your status as an expert would be welcome on Citizendium; however, all that screed above proves is that your arguments are logically unsound. Instead of addressing the concerns of the delete voters, you're using a combination of poisoning the well (by calling David in DC a cabalist before you even begin to make your point), red herring (by bringing up unrelated articles on supercentenarians), straw man (by misconstruing his claim to mean the GRG isn't a reliable source, when what he actually means is that the GRG is self-published, raw data and not The TruthTM), and ad hominem (by calling him a cabalist who attacks every article, when you know full well that's not the case) arguments. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Blade of Northern Lights, I'm going to respond to your misinterpretation of the situation, in part, because you seem reasonable. Let's look at the situation again.

1. My first edit, responding to Edison, dealt with policy, not personal issues. 2. DavidinDC came on here and brought up personal issues ('homophobia') that are not relevant. 3. DavidinDC made flippant remarks like this one:

"This is so far from a reliable source, it's stunning."

4. DavidinDC made mischaracterizations, using terms such as "raw data" and "self-published." That's NOT true. What is a self-published source? If a family made a personal website with their beloved grandma and claimed she was 118, that's a self-published source.

The GRG, in fact, is an intermediary source. It takes material from other sources, vets it, and decides what to publish and what not to publish. The GRG is listed as a source of the world's oldest person list by Guinness World Records. The GRG's position in the international niche field of supercentenarian research has been accepted by the mainstream media (the Wall Street Journal, New York Times,etc.). I bet you didn't know the GRG has included many of the world's leading experts, such as Leonard Hayflick. It is more than clear that, doing a little homework, DavidinDC's charges are false. And since he has been making them for 3+ years, it's also clear that he has not operated in good faith. We can't assume good faith with a track record of 3+ years of harassment, contrary to Wiki policies on reliable sources.

Of course, there's more than just the GRG at issue here. On one side, we have the mainstream media that continues to publish stories on supercentenarians as if they are notable. On the other side, we have persons such as DavidinDC that have argued, based on personal opinion, that supercentenarians are not notable, either individually or as a group.

This particular article should be based on group-notability. It's not a biography or a collection of biographies. It is a list, and should be judged as a list. It's purpose is to show what the established longevity records are for various regions of the world, and to counter the misperception that, because life expectancy varies greatly, lifespan does as well...when in fact, it does not.

As I pointed out, I am involved with all the major groups: GWR, GRG, MPIFDR, IDL, SRF, NESS, SSA.

Finally, the lists are NOT about "truth," they are about "verifiability." The GRG uses the same standard as Wikipedia: verifiability. Do you understand what that means? No one knows for sure if the oldest person ever in Africa was 114, or older than that. But we know for sure that Adelina Domingues was born in Cape Verde in 1888 and lived to 114 years, 183 days. Those are facts backed up by documentation that met the standards of age verification...set not by the GRG but by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and the International Database on Longevity. The only problem is those sources are "confidential". Only the GRG publishes the data publicly. However, if you were a researcher, you could access those other institutions.

One problem with Wikipedia is the idea that if it's not on the internet, it does not exist.

FALSE. Something does NOT have to be on the internet to be a reliable source. Yet even the Max Planck Institute and IDL have, on occasion, published their material online.

I suggest you do more reading, and gain a little background knowledge of why this is important.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/?books/drm/007/

Ryoung122 13:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]



For much of human history, there has been a belief, not founded in facts, that persons in certain regions of the world live longer (i.e., Caucasus, Hunza, Vilcabamba). One way to counter that misconception is to organize supercentenarian by geography, where it becomes evident that persons from around the world all share the same lifespan.

For example: records by continent:

Europe: 122 North America: 119 South America: 116 Asia: 116 Africa: 114 Australia: 114

Further, when we see that Europe's second-oldest person is just 115, we realize that the '122' record is an outlier (extreme unusual observation). Statistically, there's no evidence that anyone lives longer than anyone else.

Thus, it is in the best interest of science to have articles that cross-section longevity with geography, to make this point.

Wikipedia has articles on local schools, yet finds a continent-wide listing of supercentenarians to not be notable? Something is rotten in Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Don't make this a blog-war. This should be about common sense and facts.

The fact is, Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with this article.Ryoung122 13:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If David is not a cabalist, it would only be because, technically, he has made it so obvious that he has a personal vendetta against me and against articles on supercentenarians on Wikipedia. So, I suppose one could argue that a "cabalist" operates in secrecy, while David has made his personal bias known. That's not a much better argument.Ryoung122 12:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wholly redundant with other articles, in that every name appears in other more basic articles, primarily the deaths-by-year articles and the list of living supercentenarians, as well as the records articles, each listed at Template:Longevity. I would delete List of European supercentenarians too but I believe it should be double-checked for 100% redundancy first.
  2. Absolutely no reliable sources; every single source is tied to the GRG (one indirectly through Louis Epstein), whose founder and lead members are members of the WP:WOP workgroup that maintains these articles. A rationale that the GRG e-group need not reveal its sources, when they are 95% the same type of Web sources Wikipedians use routinely, is utterly unviable. A rationale that sources are unnecessary because they appear in the bios or other list articles fails because it illustrates the redundancy (and because many list articles also treat sources as unnecessary). Paging WP:V.
  3. The GRG links do not demonstrate that the topic "list of [continental] supercentenarians" is notable; no such continental list occurs anywhere to my knowledge except in WP as a trivia review. A rationale that such data need multiple presentation methods fails because the presentation methods themselves are OR (nobody else uses such methods) and because of undue weight. Redirects are contraindicated because there are no targets and because they would perpetuate the OR.
  4. Numerous longevity-endemic problems to the degree that WP:TNT is better: sparseness of fill leading to too short a list to be notable as a list, in a possible attempt to list every supercentenarian up to three times (by death date, country/continent, and in a bio: undue weight), when the proper approach is to list each notable one once in a small set of list articles (and then to let growth accrue only due to notability and sourcing). Sort by age is wholly OR as if "5th oldest African emigrant" occurs anywhere in the world but this article. COI and walled-garden problems in project (primary editor NickOrnstein is sometimes OK to work with but is spinning his wheels very unnecessarily, keeping this article precisely synched with the others and the GRG pages). Bias against unverified Africans and South Americans, who appear in longevity claims, but for some reason only if they're 113. JJB 05:27, 10 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Scare Industries[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Red Scare Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The cited sources for this article are namechecks at best, and some do not appear to mention the subject at all. Lack of WP:RS and no evidence of significance other than claims of notability-by-inheritance. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE pay links are ok to be used in articles. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Schussler[edit]

Steven Schussler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While most of the article focuses on the company that the subject started, little else focuses on the subject of the article. The lede (two sentences) are all that mention the subject, and these two sentences are a copyvio/close paraphrase of http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/12/13/business/columns/marc_kramer/doc4d06576e4ac0c034616498.txt Regards, Cind.amuse 09:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are hardline editors like you when I want an article deleted? But we don't delete for lack of development in an article, but for other reasons, such as lack of notability, and I believe I demonstrated notability above. I see what you mean about A10, but you nominated an article created late at night on the very next day... and it's New Years. C'mon dude. And the cafe information belongs in his bio, because it's a large part of what he's notable for. BE——Critical__Talk 00:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely support Cindamuse's rationale. The author seems to be confused as to what is a biography, and an article about a company. In either case, notability is not established for this article whatever time of the year it might be. Kudpung (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. Did you read the sources I gave above? All you need to do is establish "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I did that above. BE——Critical__Talk 21:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is no longer unsourced and there is a consensus that it is notable. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Solusod[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Micah Solusod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet inclusion criteria, lacking any appropriate reliable sources. See WP:BIO, WP:BLP  Chzz  ►  21:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting admin comment. Did anyone find any sources yet? Spartaz Humbug! 09:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has several sources, though I've added a couple more and moved the others into the filmography section. The three interviews are sources as well, though currently unused. The article isn't an unsourced BLP, if that is what your are hinting at. —Farix (t | c) 17:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable films, multiple films that have notability as stated on "entertainers" in WP:Notability (people) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titlestocga!n (talk • contribs) 04:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]
User blocked. Nakon 04:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not believe he meets the requirement at WP:ENTERTAINER? A voice actor is as notable as a regular actor. He didn't just do bit parts in episodes, but main characters as well. Dream Focus 05:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Carrera[edit]

Kayla Carrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per decision to list on AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 30. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmwind[edit]

Sturmwind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real notability shown for this game. sources provided show no significant coverage in independent reliable sources (no evidence provided this is the same game as discussed in www.illusionware.it and nothing tells me this is a reliable source) and none found with significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:corp. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew wu77 (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So what do you want us to do now? Relist the websites that assert the noteablility?
Rudeness doesn't help the situation, and you've already noted to keep earlier. --Teancum (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm also in agreement with Teancum. I feel like notability could be a bit more well established, however. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Proctor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aaron Proctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most sources are primary. Article is heavy on COI and trivia. Another user tried to nominate this but instead relisted a discussion from 2009, which had a result of "no consensus", so this is more a procedural nom than anything else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's snowing. The issue of merging/redirecting is already being discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Now (autobiography)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Up to Now (autobiography) (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)

I created this article on 4 January. Since then it has been disruptively edited and vandalised beyond recognition. I am not able to edit to construct it further because of this. As the author, I would therefore like for it to be deleted Wikipedia:CSD#G7 Also, I have repeatedly placed sources on the page which are repeatedly deleted by editors or administrators. Therefore the page does not have recognised sources.

It is also said to fail the notability criteria.

Merging with an article on its author is proposed. But nothing would be added to that article by the bare information contained here

This request was initially denied by an administrator SarekOfVulcan who has previously blocked me for an alleged edit war where he did not block the other party - it takes two to edit war, except apparently on Vulcan. He has since alleged a breach by me of the three-revert rule although I have made no such breach. His or her actions appear ego-driven. Unfortunately, the only conclusion is that this administrator has personal issues with me and is not an appropriate person to resolve this.

The refusal seems bizarre and arbitrary. This page is very short, it is not progressing and is subject to multiple tags and criticism. The best thing for it would be deletion. There is nothing to be gained by keeping it - and I say that as its creator and author. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is one of those who has disrupted and vandalised the creating of the article. There is nothing to be gained by a merger. Independent review, please? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please redact the above personal attack, TWSN. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is arbitrary and vexatious. I added sources that were repeatedly deleted for not being relevant. Now it is said that these sources are somehow relevant!
Not a personal attack, but valid reasons why neither this admin nor this editor should be involved in this process. Admin and editor challenge my actions on principle. Alleging vandalism and disruptive editing is not a personal attack but airing a legitimate concern.
Significant integrity issues here, sadly. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 now threatens me with sanction for alleging vandalism against him or her. A rogue editor abusing his or her position. Seeking to act as judge and jury in an allegation of vandalsim against him or her - inappropriate. Now attempting to move towards a block, in order to prevent me from contributing to this discussion. independent intervention, please. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I have been the persistent target of cyberbullying by editors including Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556. I was told that alleging bullying was grounds for a block. Cyberbullying is a criminal offence. It is Wikipedia policy to use a block in order to prevent a justified allegation of a criminal offence by an officer of Wikipedia? I am sure that is not the case. Does Wikipedia have a policy on cyberbullying by editors or administrators? If so, could I be directed to it, please? Thanks. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nakon. I agree with you. Obviously, I propose delete. I also regret the inability to come to an agreement. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have a few concerns about the accuracy of the Oxford Companion to Music quote which is very vaguely referenced (no exact title for the entry and no page number). Googling the exact phrase (or shorter phrases within it) produces zero results, and many editions of the work have been scanned by Google Books. Even so, there probably was something similar written about it there. Of the four results in Google News cited by Dream Focus, only one is relevant for establishing notability, The Sun. The Evening Post article is about one of the people discussed in the book, Viscount Grey of Fallodon, and is merely relating an anecdote about him from Shaw's book as part of the story. It is not about the book or a review. The Los Angeles Times article is not referring to the author of this book at all, but to Martin Shaw, the actor, and simply uses "up to now" as an expression (note the capitalisation). The Lewiston Daily Sun is a two line snippet concerning the two books with the same name, and I had already added it to the WP artcle. Having said that, I have since found a review in The Times and will shortly add it to the article. This, combined with the review in Theatre Arts Monthly (already in the article) and the review in The Musical Times, which I'll probably be able to access at some point, plus the 2010 stage adaptation, albeit by a family member, probably lets it scrape past the notability threshold. Although I've changed my opinion to a weak keep, I'd also be happy with a merge. Voceditenore (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its from a review of notable books. [82] They mention it, then quote one of the characters to give an example of it, that working out better than just writing about it. Most news sources do not archive their stuff from more than 80 years ago, or don't have it typed out where you can actually search it. But if the person was notable, than this book about them surely would've been reviewed. Dream Focus 07:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, seen in the context of the whole page, it would count as a review of sorts. Just as well, because from what I can see of the Baltimore Sun article, it is a similar item to the snippet in the Lewiston Daily Sun about Shaw's and Al Smith's autobiographies having the same name. The Baltimore Sun clearly doesn't even know who Shaw is, because they refer to him as "the English philospher". Having said that, I don't think it's valid to argue that an article should be kept simply because there must be reviews somewhere. They need to be found and verified. Otherwise, it's saying that any book written by any "Wikipedia notable" person is worthy of a stand-alone article. Some may take that view, but it's not one that I share, and it's not one expressed in Wikipedia:NBOOK either. But that's a moot point, as I think there probably is enough verifiable coverage in this case to scrape a keep. Voceditenore (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I managed to get a snippet from The Musical Times as well and have done just about as much as I can with the article. I now think there's enough there to establish notability for a stand-alone article with definite scope for expansion for an editor with full access to The Musical Times and to the book itself. So, just a plain old keep, not a weak one. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air ticket[edit]

Air ticket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This band/article has a long way to go before scraping the bare minimum requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. What appears to be its only independent reference, is incredibly weak, and lacks substance beyond a casual promotional-plug for its local-area band.  -- WikHead (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. the consensus is clearly to keep, & I see no valid argument for deletion; even if this is fringe, its well weithin the sort of fringe that we include as notable DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen body hypothesis[edit]

Stolen body hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is mostly made up of fringe ideas from both apologists and skeptics being given undue weight. The subject should be a summarized section in the Resurrection of Jesus or Empty tomb article. LittleJerry (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit / Procedural note: This nomination was pretty much invisible because nominator did not apply ((afd2)) to generate the header. As such, I'm removing it from the January 4 log and adding it to the January 7 log, as I doubt anybody saw it on the Jan 4 list where it appeared to be an irrelevant comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dive Rite which was listed above it. Additionally, nominator did not use the required edit summary of "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see (debate)", so this appeared to be a standard edit on watchlists. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, yes the article is currently bad and needs more sources, but I've actually intended to improve this article with proper scholarly sources since I found it a month ago - I recently tried to make the article less horrible than it was before. There's definitely enough material for it. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes but Wikipedia isn't supposed to give undue weight to fringe ideas. The Resurrection of Jesus article was made up of a back and forth between apologists and skeptics arguing over whether it happened or no. Thankfully it was restructured and the debate over it's authenticity being addressed in the "Origin of the narrative" section and citing repected textual critics rather than people who are simply try to prove or disprove it. They can be cited but we should give too much detail to their fringe ideas. LittleJerry (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. One, I'm not sure this can be so lightly dismissed as "fringe." Fringe now perhaps, but clearly relevant at one time (the Dialogue with Trypho citation in the article is pretty ancient), and still not considered entirely dead judging by the above apologetics websites. Wikipedia contains articles on plenty of theological debates and theories that seem utterly nonsensical to modern eyes, yet once were relevant. Second, assume it is "fringe" - if anything, it would be undue weight to fully discuss the hypothesis in the Resurrection of Jesus article, and I say this as someone who is a fan of merges of small topics to bigger ones in general. If it's as fringe an idea as you suggest, then it should merit no more than a paragraph in the Resurrection article. Yet I feel that - once the article is straightened out - there is certainly room for considerably more than one paragraph of sourced content (including material from "respected textual critics" who I'm sure have covered this debate as well). So it's deserving of an article, just as sufficiently sourced astrology topics or apocryphal saints who probably didn't exist have articles. SnowFire (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / update. Chatted with someone on this and apparently The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave covers this from the skeptical scholarly position. (I don't imagine it'll be hard to dig up the apologetic side of the argument, as that's mostly already in the article, and this book apparently includes some original apologetic material anyway even if it's being responded to.) Sadly none of the bookstores in my area have this in stock - I called - but I have this on mail order now and will update the article once I get it and have read through it. (Or, if there's really nothing there, I'll be happy to help merge the article after all, but I find that chance incredibly unlikely.) SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Previtera[edit]

Joe Previtera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Everything notable is duplicated at Scott Muller (cricketer) anyway. Adpete (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator - I'm beginning to wonder whether to instead rename the article to Joe the cameraman. (i.e. delete the redirect at Joe the cameraman then rename Joe Previtera to Joe the cameraman). Yes it can all be put at Scott Muller (cricketer), but I wonder whether the incident (not the person Joe Previtera) is notable enough to have its own page, especially since it has (in a small way) passed into Australian vernacular. Adpete (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essential guide to online course design[edit]

Essential guide to online course design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Business book, published today. No indication of notability. No sources. Prod tag removed without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There is a weak consensus here that this can be more than a dictionary definition. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grecomans[edit]

Grecomans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary by being about the meaning and use of a word. The article has been a cause of dispute as can be seen on its talk page. An article on the people themselves would be fine (if well sourced) but not under a name that is said to be controversial and sometimes offensive.Jaque Hammer (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as attack page by User:Metropolitan90. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward English[edit]

Edward English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources mention the subject - no apparent notability. The article seems to exist on the grounds that the subject was transferred to a school which was connected with sexual abuse claims, but no explanation of how the subject was related to those claims is provided, and at best this would be WP:ONEEVENT. Bilby (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it and three articles on related people as attack pages. WP is not the place to go after people, even if they are really bad. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I was planning to nom the other three shortly, either under the same grounds or oneevent, but I'm just as comfortable with CSD. - Bilby (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Bluegrass and Old-Time Music Festival[edit]

Minnesota Bluegrass and Old-Time Music Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Five years after this article was created and it's still a stubby stub with barely any edits and no discussion on the talk page. Other articles link here but this MBOTMA Festival article contains almost no information. The article states it was IBMA Event of the Year in 2005 and 2007; well, it also won in 2009 but that isn't even mentioned! This article deserves compassion: I suggest we axe it. —oac old american century talk @ 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Optimus Prime. Spartaz Humbug! 14:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Prime (Unicron Trilogy)[edit]

Optimus Prime (Unicron Trilogy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already an article at Optimus Prime which summarises this fictional character; this page appears to be of dubious notability, and does not have any significant reliable third-party sources. The sources which do exist are mainly long discredited fansites. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Krav Maga. Spartaz Humbug! 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Krav Maga techniques[edit]

List of Krav Maga techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable list of techniques without any real definition on why its encyclopaedic. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was leaning towards delete, but decided I could live with merge. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Karate Confederation[edit]

World Karate Confederation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable marital arts organisation which doesn't demonstrate with third person sources why its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following Papaursa's comments below. Janggeom (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Starscream . Spartaz Humbug! 14:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starscream (Unicron Trilogy)[edit]

Starscream (Unicron Trilogy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already an article at Starscream which summarises this fictional character; this page appears to be of dubious notability, and does not have any significant reliable third-party sources which explain in detail why this particular incarnation is notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. absent more detail on the sourcing we have an outcome Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Shams Uddin[edit]

Mian Shams Uddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Waters Lumpkin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tara Waters Lumpkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass wp:academic, at least according to Google Scholar, and the references provided are to her own work/organizations. Can't find anything to suggest wp:bio or wp:gng are satisfied either. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuichiro Kaizu[edit]

Katsuichiro Kaizu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable third-party references found (very few google hits even in Japanese). No assertion of notability which would meet WP:CREATIVE. No page on ja.wikipedia either. Plad2 (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. since the sourcing is still unresolved we have an outcome Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Antic[edit]

Dragan Antic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

wiki isn't for everyone, this person is of limited note and less educational value and totally WP:RS uncited, delete delete delete. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. If we could cite some of the claims he would be notable and there are pictures of quite a few album covers on google, Clearly in need of an expert on 70s Yugoslavian pop music? Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concentração Motard de Faro[edit]

Concentração Motard de Faro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bike rally, as far as I can tell; perhaps the fatally broken English is blinding me to its wonders. Orange Mike | Talk 00:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Kaelin[edit]

Monika Kaelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of meeting WP:PORNBIO NW (Talk) 02:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Sulong[edit]

Saleh Sulong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:ANYBIO. Several search hits for the corporation he heads [93], but none that focus on him.

Also, previous version of article was purely libellous. SPat talk 17:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks good. I don't have access to that, unfortunately. Can you use it to expand the article somewhat? SPat talk 02:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will userify on request. Courcelles 03:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah wood (drummer)[edit]

Elijah wood (drummer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for musicians. E. Fokker (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand... I have cited many sources for my info. I just added some now. I'm very sorry, this is my first wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotbabe1219 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using my site (the about page) to get all of the info that's on my wiki page. Is this not enough? I can't really go much further as far as sources because my site is the only place where my bio is located. Hotbabe1219 (talk) 07:39 PM, 6 January 2011 (EST)

"In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability." Epass (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument for deletion has been advanced- merger discussion can continue on the article's talk page. Courcelles 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Neptune[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Windows Neptune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a codename of a home version of Windows 2000 that was never finished by Microsoft. At the very least, the content in this article can be merged with Windows 2000 or into Development of Windows XP. SixthAtom (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does there exist a process for merging? If so, then I will gladly close this nomination and resubmit it to that process. SixthAtom (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. Please refer to WP:MERGE and Help:Merging. Essentially, you'll need to start a discussion section on the article talk page, use the ((Merge to)) & ((Merge from)) templates on the source and proposed target, and then notify interested paties/projects of the discussion. wjematherbigissue 01:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I will let this AfD discussion run it's course before considering to move it to that process. Thanks for showing me that. SixthAtom (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you might want to think of a rationale for deletion. Otherwise we are just wasting our time here. wjematherbigissue 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neptune was not a discrete project, it was a stepping stone and a merge is entirely appropriate. Neptune, for what it was in the time frame, was destined to become Whistler/XP even if Whistler/XP didn't yet exist. There are always groups doing experimental/far future/hypothetical work at Microsoft and as the project they work on gets closer to reality, the experimental stuff gets pulled in or discarded. This may not be apparent from reading the Wikipedia article, but the amount of "exposure" Neptune gets here on Wikipedia is quite a bit of WP:UNDUE compared to what it actually was (which is forgivable because our favored sourcing is the mainstream press). You're welcome to email me privately if you're more interested in the background here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Quite simply, WP:V. I'm aware of your claims and couldn't care less whether you worked for MS at the time or not. There are zero reliable sources that are able to verify anything you have said, and that is all that matters. Until you can provide such backing, we can only take what you say with a pinch of salt and dismiss it. Sorry. wjematherbigissue 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coldest fall[edit]

Coldest fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Also this article has no references aside from 1st-party references cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 00:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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