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

A Diamond Guitar[edit]

The result was Nomination withdrawn (Non-admin closure). Minima© (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Diamond Guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Short Story not notable enough to ever have sufficient content or secondary sources Npd2983 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Breakfast at Tiffany's. Not notable on its own, but part of a notable package. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree not well sourced at present, but as previous comment says part of notable package. Not much mention on the internet is not the same as not much mention anywhere. Look at the way virtually every short story by Isaac Asimov has its own article. PatGallacher (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Google books search linked above finds plenty of coverage in reliable sources, such as [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Okay I agree to keep it based on Phil Bridger's findings. I have checked out every book about Truman Capote from my city's library and couldn't even find a single index entry or publication date for the story. It looks like the Google books search gives something to go on. I am going to remove the flag for deletion business on the article, and put Phil's comments on the talk page for future reference. Thank you. --Npd2983 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 E+4 m³[edit]

1 E+4 m³ (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 not necessary Mr. Anon515 22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing more than a unit conversion table. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD needs to consider all the following articles:-

  1 E+1 m³ | 1 E+10 m³ | 1 E+11 m³ | 1 E+12 m³ | 1 E+15 m³ | 1 E+18 m³ | 1 E+2 m³ | 1 E+21 m³ | 1 E+24 m³ | 1 E+27 m³ | 1 E+3 m³ | 1 E+30 m³ | 1 E+4 m³ | 1 E+40 m³ | 1 E+5 m³ | 1 E+50 m³ | 1 E+6 m³ | 1 E+7 m³ | 1 E+8 m³ | 1 E+80 m³ | 1 E+9 m³ | 1 E-1 m³ | 1 E-10 m³ | 1 E-14 m³ | 1 E-15 m³ | 1 E-16 m³ | 1 E-17 m³ | 1 E-18 m³ | 1 E-2 m³ | 1 E-3 m³ | 1 E-30 m³ | 1 E-4 m³ | 1 E-5 m³ | 1 E-6 m³ | 1 E-7 m³ | 1 E-8 m³ | 1 E-9 m³

  I think all these articles should be treated alike, so I hereby co-nominate all of them, even though my position will not be to delete them.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to orders of magnitude (volume). This is not encyclopaedic content, and in the normal run of things unencyclopaedic content should be deleted, but there are limited exceptions per WP:5P: Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia. We are also a gazetteer, and (relevant to this discussion) an almanac. As an almanac, one of our roles is to provide clear, tabulated information that's already been worked out, in order to help casual browsers of Wikipedia. Therefore, even though it's unencyclopaedic, it's nevertheless part of our stated mission to provide this information to our users.

  Because this material would be so long if merged, I recommend that it should be placed in collapsed boxes in orders of magnitude (volume) rather than just dumped in there wholesale.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—No reason to delete this range of articles about a common unit.—RJH (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep as is and don't merge. Look at 1 metre and other associated articles. These have existed for a while and provide important content and context. As for merging them all into one (section of an) article, I say that having them split as they are keeps the eye from glazing over on too much information. It's easier to get the data if you aren't being bombard by sensory overload. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these articles are very short and only have one or two tidbits of information (like this). In any case, I believe it is against Wikipedia policy to simply have lists of random information. Mr. Anon515 20:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per UtherSRG. There is too much content in this set of articles to merge; some of the articles may be small, but they will grow over time. There can be no doubt that the concept of size is extremely notable, and even size ranges like this get an enormous number of mentions. -- 202.124.74.166 (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unencyclopaedic content. A list of items with an area of a given magnitude to me seems an indiscriminate collection of information. --Anthem 11:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [5]. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the functions of Wikipedia is that of an almanac, and this is suitable information of that sort. Same pattern as many other fully accepted articles. We exist in order to be helpful for the reader. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 14 June 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. —DoRD (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shethanas[edit]

Shethanas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Self-admitted original research about a fictional deity. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:50, 7 June 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonver[edit]

Sonver (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 appears to be a non-notable band. Article lacks reliable third party sources and doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for bands. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All sourcing in the article is done from primary sources. That's understandable as I can find no coverage about the band in independent reliable sources, nor am I able to find any critical reviews of their various EPs that they put out. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 13 June 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muar Municipal Council FC[edit]

Muar Municipal Council FC (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 without improvement in reasoning. Prod Reason was "Unfererenced and questionable notability per WP:NFOOTY team in 2nd tier for nation" Based on the WP:NFOOTY standard this article fails the requirements Hasteur (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - firstly, nomination rationale is factually incorrect, as WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't cover football teams, only football players, so that guideline doesn't apply. Secondly, I have added a reliable source which verifies the team's existence and some claims in the article, and because this team qualifies for the national cup, it meets club notability as set out at WP:FOOTYN. GiantSnowman 00:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep completely invalid deletion rationale, as explained above and in the edit summary for the prod decline.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:FOOTYN per having played in a national cup. - Yk³ talk · contrib 03:08, 9 June 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 UEFA Champions League[edit]

2012–13 UEFA Champions League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contains absolutely no information specific to the assumed 2012-13 event, based entirely on the unsourced assumption that it will be conducted on the same basis as at present. Kevin McE (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, the article has some validity: today specific facts about this edition became known. While I maintain that the article until now merited deletion, there is now something to justify its existence. Kevin McE (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close debate Given the confirmation of the final venue, I suggest we close the debate and keep the article, so as to remove the AfD infobox from the page. Any discussion on what information to keep in the article will then be taken to the talk page of the article. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article is based on earlier articles but may change if the organization changes how it is run. The article is easily changed in that case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - all speculative material should be removed, per WP:CRYSTAL, especially if said information is, as the nominator implies, also factually incorrect. GiantSnowman 00:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - but then if that's done, I'm happy for the article to be kept. GiantSnowman 12:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not factually incorrect. There will be a 2012-13 Champions League, and the co-efficients will be what is shown. The only thing that may change is the overall format, and that is shown to just be the norm, not the guarantee. While predictions do violate CRYSTAL, what is in the article is just a summary of the most likely layout based on previous years, and the official websites of each participant entity. Sellyme^Talk 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question regarding the text in the yellow box: Is UEFA really expected to define a completely new scheme of qualifying rounds and teams allocation? Country coefficients of seasons 2006–07 through 2010–11 should determine what country will qualify how many teams to which stage of the competition concerned - for example Ukraine will qualify its champion for the group stage and its runner-up for the third qualifying round. This period is over, so those coefficients can't change any more. All the information that is there in the article is based on them. And season 2011–12 (or 2011 in some countries like Norway) will determine which those teams will actually be - for example if Dynamo become Ukrainian champions, they will enter the group stage, and if Shakhtar finish second, they will enter the third qualifying round. Season 2011–12 commences as soon as a couple of months' time form now; and in those countries (like Norway) whose championships run from spring to autumn it is even nearly halfway finished. So a Norwegian team is now competing in their Premier League and knows that it has to occupy a given position there in order to qualify for a given stage of the CL, but is UEFA still to redefine this scheme and the team's objectives far after the start of their league season? --Theurgist (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a clear-cut example of why WP:CRYSTAL was written. All the information is what is presumed will happen, with no references verifying it that this will actually be the case. The article can easily be recreated when reliable sources on the 2012–13 tournament come into existence. Jenks24 (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's fairly certain that this event will take place, but there have been no details confirmed about it yet and this article is based on conjecture that the tournament will follow the same structure as previous seasons. It's all guesswork, and like User:Jenks24 says, this is what WP:CRYSTAL was made for. – PeeJay 13:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be easily recreated when concrete information becomes available. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The issue here is that you can't reference an overwhelming absence of something. i.e. any indication of significant change. The only news we have heard about changes to the format UEFA competitions is that there will be 6 cup winners entering the group stage of the Europa League. As I understand it, the regulations for 2012-13 have been approved but unpublished. If that is the most mentionable piece of news to come out UEFA (or any news outlet) then I believe that both the Champions League and Europa League pages are justified in copying the format of previous years, but with the proviso note that there may be some alterations. I feel that the information is encyclopedically worthy.

However, technically I can't argue with the grounds for a drastic reduction in the page content (fully deleting it is excessive). As I say, there isn't a way to generally reference a complete lack of news as a justification for keeping the full page. And yes, it is possible that there has been a major overhaul of the competition which hasn't been announced or reported at all in footballing circles. Therefore I fear the page will be shortened for a few weeks until the new regulations are published. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can't we simply redirect this to UEFA Champions League? Deletion does seem over the top when the content will simply be recreated in a few weeks. Redirecting will allow the content to quickly and easily be retrieved. Valenciano (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perhaps I can agree with the fact that we should not conjecture about the format (even though it is very likely to be the same). But as Theurgist said, the country coefficients have now been fully computed and the ranking of the associations fully established (maybe then somebody may argue that UEFA can just ditch the coefficients?). So this is certainly some information relevant to the competition. The change in the number of spots, e.g. Germany will gain a spot and Italy will lose a spot, are also widely reported in media (see [6] for example). So the article as a whole has already passed the test of having verifiable information already available as sources. So if the contention is WP:CRYSTAL, then we should just delete the format, not the whole article. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a perfectly reasonable article, is linked to from tonnes of 2011-12 league pages, and is in no way WP:CRYSTAL. It is not Crystal-balling to presume an annual event will continue to be annual in the absence of extenuating circumstances. In any case, most official European league pages have a "Qualification to ..." in their league standings, and that clearly counts as a reliable source. Sellyme^Talk 09:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: CRYSTAL is related to articles about things that may or may not be. Here are the facts: 1) This event will happen. 2) We don't know the format so that material is speculative, but highly probable. Cyrstal specifically states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place" and does not prohibit this type of article because it will take place. Instead of referencing it, read it and quote where this article is prohibited by it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In short, WP CRYSTAL does not apply to the article about this event. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is already relevant information, because the allocation of places is based on the rankings for the 5 seasons to 2011. It will happen unless (i) the world ends, in which case we won't be any better off for having deleted the article or (ii) European football is hit by a scandal of incomprehensible magnitude, in which case their will probably be lots to say in the article. This sort of nomination displays a reckless disregard for wikipedia's need to recruit and retain editors. How would you like it if you created content in good faith which is realistically certain to exist in wikipedia in a year's time, and it was deleted on a technicality, and you were told to do it all again next year? You might react by quitting for good. Wikipedia cannot afford to alienate editors in that way: the board of wikimedia issued a statement a while back stating that the declining number of editors was the project's biggest problem, and this nomination is a text book example of how to alienate people and make the problem worse. Alex Middleton (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see the logic of deleting this page to see it come back in a few months when the new football season starts. Normally someone will make a page of next seasons competition whilst the current one is ongoing. I know this one has jumped the gun, but it would be silly to delete this now. I hear too a decision on the 2013 final venue is due tomorrow (Thursday 16 June 2011) so its not as if this has no information to go off. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I certainly don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here as it's certain this will go ahead (barring the outbreak of World War 3!) - in fact, they're deciding the venue for the final later today. Any incorrect information regarding competition format can be corrected or removed quite easily. —BETTIA— ^talk 11:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the fact that UEFA have already confirmed where the final will be taking place would suggest that it's not likely that the event will be cancelled. OK, the co-efficiants may move the countries around but I don't think they have any major structural changes planned. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Wembley was confirmed for the 1-fittyth anniversary so this binness has specific inf'mations to 2012-13 fo sho. Stop yo plainin and let the article stay. Check the article on Soccernet dawg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.194.205 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funimation Channel[edit]

Funimation Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Everything in this article is covered on the main Funimation Entertainment page Ke5crz (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article has many more sources than FE page and no real reason for deletion beyond duplication of the lede has been cited. The company and channel are two separate things and because of that, there should be no merge. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nate pretty much sums it up, the two are related but are seperate, article is Notable enough for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Echo of above rationales. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 23:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge At the moment, there is just not enough content for a stand-alone article. But deletion is not the answer. —Farix (t | c) 16:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable channel. Dream Focus 13:36, 12 June 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Daniel Cooper[edit]

Death of Daniel Cooper (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:NOTNEWS, doesn't appear to be any more notable then any other police officer's death CTJF83 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A police officer's death in the line of duty is, in itself, notable. --TBM10 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? It's probably a daily occurrence somewhere in the world. Are you saying we need an article on every Mexican cop killed by drug gangs, or every Afghanistan/Iraqi/Irani, etc cop killed by insurgent/terrorist/rebel violence? Why would this British cop be any more notable then any of those? CTJF83 21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not saying that. The death of a police officer in the United Kingdom is rare and, especially when in circumstances such as this one was, notable. The article is well-presented and sufficiently-cited (I can present more if needed) and no harm is being caused by its existence. Ironic that WP encourages users to contribute, but within minutes of adding an acceptable article someone wants to delete it. --TBM10 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you said, "A police officer's death in the line of duty is, in itself, notable."...not, a UK officer's death is in itself notable. You got a source saying a cops death in the UK is rare? CTJF83 12:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 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. The death of a police officer in the UK is unusual and has therefore attracted this level of coverage (e.g. the two separate cited BBC articles). RichardOSmith (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source it's rare? CTJF83 12:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • [7], but it's a distraction from my argument which was that there is sufficient coverage of the event to support an article, per the GNG. I assert that this is likely to be because of its relative rarity, but frankly it doesn't matter what the reason is - the coverage is still there. BTW - my initial reaction on seeing this AfD was that it violates WP:MEMORIAL as others below are suggesting, and the GNG explicitly states that things which violate WP:NOT (which includes that) may well not get their own articles, so I was minded to agree with your nomination. But if you look closely at WP:MEMORIAL, it says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements" (my bolding). It is clear to me that the intent behind WP:MEMORIAL is only to dissuade editors from creating articles about non-notable loved ones and it explicitly limits its scope to people who do not satisfy general notability requirements. But this subject is notable, as measured by the coverage in reliable sources, so WP:MEMORIAL does not apply. Consequently my recommendation was, and remains, keep. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT section 2.9 it reads like a newspaper obituaries and i'm not sure it could be presented in another light. (Ke5crz (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am sorry for his family. While tragic, this was an accident, and such incidents are the bane of police officer's lives, and often causes their deaths. This is a run of the mill yet sad death of a cop on duty. We can't be a memorial for every deceased officer. If it was a murder, or connected with an ongoing reform, or resulted from some other major crime, then it would be significant and should get such coverage. Of course, every cop's death gets on the news, such stories are newsworthy. However, we are not a newsjournal. Protecting the public is inherently dangerous. I know how it is, and empathize; several of my relatives and students have been or are police or peace officers. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bearian... Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOT NEWS. If that is a meaningful concept at all, this is an excellent example of why we need it. This is in no possible sense encyclopedic material. Almost certainly would not even be notable if he had been killed in a crime, but certainly not in an accident. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, this has been covered by (mostly local) reliable sources, but it is routine news reporting. It's sad, but there's no enduring notability.--BelovedFreak 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whilst an uncommon occurrence, the reporting done it is routine and perfunctory, and the event is not likely to have enduring impact. Compare, for instance, the lack of a similar article on the death of Ronan Kerr, killed shortly beforehand in a terrorist incident, which was much more widely reported. GRAPPLE X 21:59, 14 June 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olympians MMA[edit]

Olympians MMA (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 has no independent sources and doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability the article does not appear to be notable and the only reference is to a company website.(Ke5crz (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete Lacks both reliable sources and notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent sources support any claims of notability. Jakejr (talk) 19:00, 11 June 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. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 00:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guntupalem[edit]

Guntupalem (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 Night of the Big Wind (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — BelovedFreak 00:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per our usual practice with villages. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is to be kept, it should also be improved big time... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is far from the worst Indian village article I've ever seen (at least this one is written in coherent English and doesn't glorify the local taxi driver; if you think I'm kidding...). It does need some work, but precedent seems to be to keep articles on any inhabited place. Until there's some agreement otherwise, I don't see any reason to treat this differently than a town in, say, the US, ergo it should be kept. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All villages are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per longstanding convention, all population centers are considered inherently notable.--Oakshade (talk) 20:50, 11 June 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 List of Jiggy McCue books#The Meanest Genie. -- Rcsprinter (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Meanest Genie[edit]

The Meanest Genie (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:NBOOK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails our book criteria, our general notability criteria, and no sources can be found anywhere. I'm barely sure it exists. — chro • man • cer  22:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. While this book may have not received any illustrious honors there are a few sources (mostly under Maggot Pie, the former title). And it does exist [8]. Froggerlaura (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wasn't saying it didn't. But having a few sources doesn't bring up to WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. I haven't found any serious sources. Has it won any notable awards or anything like that? — chro • man • cer  01:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Merge into List of Jiggy McCue books, along with The Killer Underpants and The Poltergoose. Certainly a notable series of books, with The Poltergoose being shortlisted for a Blue Peter book award. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree that the series may be more notable than the individual books and support merging the content onto a single page. There are several that have won minor awards [9]. Froggerlaura (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've moved it and all the other articles to List of Jiggy McCue books. Rcsprinter (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Jiggy McCue books where the content currently exists. While not overly notable in an article itself, per the sources in the main article, does seem to barely qualify under the books notability policy for winning a few minor awards. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:19, 9 June 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 List of Jiggy McCue books#The Snottle. -- Rcsprinter (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Snottle[edit]

The Snottle (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:NBOOK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks to be an excellent book for kids but fails all tests for notability. Sorry.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This fails all 5 criteria of WP:NBOOK. Additionally, there are no reliable sources in the article, and it is nothing more than a plot summary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've moved it and all the other articles to List of Jiggy McCue books. Rcsprinter (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted per sole author Rcsprinter123's ((db-g7)) tag. – Athaenara ✉ 10:03, 9 June 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hantuchova–Schnyder rivalry[edit]

Hantuchova–Schnyder rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Rivalries are based on public perception and large media participation. Laver/Rosewall, Evert/Navratilova, Sampras/Agassi, Federer/Nadal... this is not a rivalry. I can't fathom someone actually searching for this page and it should be removed with the pertinent info added to their respective articles. These players were usually ranked in the teens with top rankings of 4 and 7 respectively. Throughout tennis history there have been plenty of the water bottle kicking intensities between players... we certainly don't need an entire article about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability hangs on the statement " This rivalry is considered to be one of the longest, controversial and most intense on the WTA tour." The cited source didn't even hint at this, and I have removed this extravagant claim. StAnselm (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The press pretty much will call the competitions between any two tennis players rivalries. What would establish notability would be actual coverage about the rivalry rather than the word "rivalry" appearing in routine coverage about matches between the two players. I can find examples of the latter, but none of the former. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 13 June 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) 02:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor Komogovinski[edit]

Theodor Komogovinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Having done a wp:before search, this appears to me to be a non-notable person. Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unreferenced. nothing in gnews. gbooks just lists LLC Books which uses WP as a reference. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Saints are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wp rule that -- without more -- individuals who the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church insert into the list of all Serbs holy martyrs for faith are notable? I wasn't aware, if this is the case -- can you point us to the wp guideline? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of an actual guideline to that effect. However, I think it is generally accepted on Wikipedia that saints are notable. It's certainly my personal opinion. If they're notable nough to be canonised by a mainstream church then presumably they're notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Normally when an established editor makes such a statement, if he/she is merely voicing a personal opinion, rather than reflecting wp guidelines, I find it helpful for them to clarify that. Especially when it is a sysop speaking -- otherwise, I (and perhaps others as naive as I am) could mistakenly take the sysop to be reflecting wp policy, rather than personal opinion. I also am not aware of any such rule or guideline on wp. I would think that any notable saint or martyr -- whether of the Serbian Orthodox Church, some Muslim offshoot, a Bahai sect, etc. -- if truly notable should be able to satisfy wp's notability criteria, with significant coverage in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - saints are notable. He seems better known in English as Theodore of Komogovina. HeartofaDog (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same issues as are discussed above seem to plague this, whichever name is used to search for substantial RS support of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While I am willing to grant that saints may have inherent notability, I also note that notability requires verifiable evidence. The article has none. Are there any? --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think we may well need someone fluent in Serbian to find evidence of notability, although I'm sure it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just did some quick edits, adding an alternative and a Serbian name to article, with three new sources. He may also be called Saint Theodore Tyron, based on a comparison of the english version [10] and the Serbian version [11] which contains the text "Светог Теодора Тирон" (Saint Theodore Tyron with Google Translate). He does seem to be notable, perhaps even outside of Serbian Orthodoxy as well if the Theodor Tyron name is him. I cannot contribute further as I must go, but I think the extra search terms I provided would make it easier for other editors to find even more sources. —CodeHydro 15:04, 7 June 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! 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CodeHydro. It looks like the article has been rescued. Certainly, if he's a saint, one would expect him to be notable, and it looks like this has been established. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. I do have to agree with Necrothesp, BTW, that there must be a presumption of notability especially for somebody whose sainthood was proclaimed as recently as 1966. Whether he is known outside the Serbian Orthodox Church should not matter, and guidelines make clear that it is the notability of a person or thing within their particular context that matters, not whether other people have heard or care about them. Sainthood is amongst other things a mark of notability given by a church. Once notable always notable comes into play here as well. --AJHingston (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A major religion has declared him a saint. Notability is obvious by rule of common sense. Dream Focus 11:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Concur that saints at this level are notable, agree that that claim of notability has now been verified through reliable sources. --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm unconvinced that any policy has been pointed to that "saints are notable", the rationale of some here. I think they are notable if there is substantial support for notability, and note that some others believe that is (now) the case. But if people want to create a wp guideline that saints are notable, I suggest they do so -- along with describing what indicia of sainthood suffices, and what religions or sects of religions or religious leaders are sufficient to so denote someone (I note that many terrorists have been declared martyrs, for example, and wonder how slippery these slopes are).--Epeefleche (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I note that many terrorists have been declared martyrs". By a genuine mainstream church? Really? That's the point here. The Serbian Orthodox Church is not an obscure sect, but a mainstream church with a membership of millions. I think we ought to accept the notability of saints canonised by such churches. And also acknowledge, as always, that notability guidelines are not set in stone and that failing to meet a set of rigid criteria is not and never has been (and never should be) a reason for deletion on Wikipedia. Nobody has ever claimed that there is a policy that all saints are notable, but it is common sense to accept that saints acknowledged by major churches are notable. If we insist on only accepting articles on subjects with wide internet coverage (which is not and never has been a Wikipedia policy, incidentally, although many editors with deletionist tendencies seem to have a mysterious and increasingly strident belief otherwise) then we are in danger of becoming an encyclopaedia of modern English-speaking pop culture and not a true global encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: (1) When assessing notability of anyone from a country with a Cyrillic alphabet, be sure to search on the Cyrillic name, I've rescued a number of articles using this method. (As always, you must be careful when using Google translate for unfamiliar languages, but you may be able to verify key facts or determine that the subject appears to be notable.) (2) I looked for prior AfDs on saints to see if any general consensus existed. There are a number of articles on fictional saints that have been deleted, just like other non-notable fictional personas. Same for hoaxes,see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Ermintrude of Nard (May 2007). In May 2009, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Evilasius (Executioner), the article was kept (after improvement and name chance helped prove notability. I could not find any verifiable true saint articles that have been deleted.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did you find any AFDs that were kept where -- as was the case here, at the outset -- the article said that the person was a saint, but lacked substantial RS coverage of the person and failed to meet any other wp notability guidelines? Or were they all articles where GNG or other notability guidelines were met?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:27, 8 June 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jankovic – V. Williams rivalry[edit]

Jankovic – V. Williams rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Rivalries are based on public perception and large media participation. Laver/Rosewall, Evert/Navratilova, Sampras/Agassi, Federer/Nadal... this is not a rivalry and the sources at the bottom do not support it. Those sources say simply that maybe this will become a rivalry (which it didn't). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The source was crystal-balling - we shouldn't. The number of pairings of top-ranked tennis players is enormous - clearly very few of them have notable rivalries. StAnselm (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The source used to support this "rivaly" is speculative. There' not other sources that discuss this rivalry. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 13 June 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) 01:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of figures in psychiatry[edit]

List of figures in psychiatry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Redundant to List of psychiatrists. Figures who are important but neither strictly psychiatrists nor psychologists can be added to a brief section at the end of either of those lists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to List of non-psychiatrists in psychiatry. Keep the psychiatrists list properly focused. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 May 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) 00:05, 30 May 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:13, 7 June 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. Roscelese makes a plausable argument for keeping but there isn't enough participation here to call this a "consensus". Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca2Medina[edit]

Mecca2Medina (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 band article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any explanation as to why it met the A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 May 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) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In-depth coverage is a bit scant, but multiple independent reliable sources note that they're essentially the founding group of Muslim hiphop (a notable style per the good amount of coverage), meaning that WP:BAND #7 is satisfied. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:57, 6 June 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:13, 7 June 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Lines[edit]

Chicken Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable game. No claim of notability. damiens.rf 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A game someone designed, referenced only to Facebook and websites related to the game designer. No evidence of notability to satisfy WP:N, and no claim of notability.Searching for "chicken lines" has too many unrelated results related to real chickens to be sure no coverage exists; if some independent and reliable sources have significant coverage of this game, now would be a good time to mention them here and/or add them to the article. Edison (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unremarkable game; no news reports or industry commentary. Scholarly sources talk only about the process of breeding chickens, not a game. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Wikipedia:N. This page is clearly for propaganda and search engine results show only that website. IMHO, I think the user should warned for advertisement. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Guoguo12 (Talk)  02:44, 12 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Illinois, 2014[edit]

United States Senate election in Illinois, 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

For the moment there's very little that we can say (and source) on the subject, and we can't really expect there to be for another year or two. (Contested prod.) – hysteria18 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Way too early to be building this page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It is the very next election for the Senate seat held by Durbin, with no crystal ball required to verify that fact, or to verify it will get extensive coverage (see the previous umpteen US Senate elections). There was significant coverage of the 1998 Illinois Senate election 3 years before: [12]. There was lots of coverage of the 2010 Illinois Senate election, starting right after Obama won the Presidency. If the article were deleted now, it would just be recreated a few months or a year thereafter, as Republicans jockey for the spot to oppose him. Edison (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL way to early for this article. Mo ainm~Talk 18:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see why it is too early - 2014 is the next Senate election for that class. Category:United States Senate elections, 2014 has seven other 2014 senate elections. --B (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you're aware that other stuff exists is an argument to avoid. I'd add that there's a clear difference between this and, say, United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014: reliable sources have made some commentary, however limited, on the Kentucky race but (to my knowledge) haven't done the same for the Illinois election. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because no sources have been provided yet. It's not yet known whether this will be a particularly competitive race or not. (Granted, even a minimally competitive race can have an article created later, but there is no point in creating an article now that has no content worth reading.) Nor have any candidates declared their interest in running yet, not even the incumbent. The article can be re-created when there are reliable sources upon which to base an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clearly that US Senate race, like all others in recent history, will get significant coverage in a few months to a year, as the election date approaches. If, from some mistaken reading of WP:CRYSTAL the article is deleted, it will be soon resurrected and fleshed out, since Durbin will or will not run for re-election, he might have primary opponents, the Democratic nominee will certainly have one or more opponents from other parties, and the seat is critical to the control of the US Senate. Is temporarily removing this article the most pressing thing Wikipedia has to waste time on? This is not about whether some rock group will or will not issue their 5th studio album at some future date,or whether some actor will star in a movie which may or may not get made. Those are the sort of things which "WP:Crystal" is aimed at. Edison (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What, if any, candidates have declared their intention to run in this election? The time for this article is after candidates have filed, not when their names are still matters of sheer speculation. THAT is why WP:CRYSTAL applies...trying to predict who will run and who won't is not Wikipedia's raison d'être. Unless there's at least one filed candidate from each major party (including any independent candidates), the article is premature. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, an election will happen, but since we are currently in 2011 and no reliable sources discussing this election substantively have been produced (and a quick search didn't turn up any), all but the date is crystalballing. Hekerui (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yes, it will happen. But there is nothing to be said about other than it will happen. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It doesnt appear to violate WP:CRYSTAL because it isn't predicting anything, but there's no content on the page. We're over 3 years away, and the page itself acknowledges (at this time) that there isn't any information regarding the election. For this reason, delete, but by all means recreate when information comes out. If it is kept, I warn that by having the "potential" header on the page, it would probably be violating WP:CRYSTAL if anyone were to put a potential candidate on there. 21troyz (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep major event of national significance that is certainly going to happen, and about which there will be increasing content. Of course, we could put it in half a year from now, but it does no conceivable harm at present. As a matter of policy, I think we should always have articles of this nature for national level offices. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 14 June 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) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phonica[edit]

Phonica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Marginally notable remixer that does not meet the requirements of notability in Wikipedia:Notability (music). This article has been speedied and re-created several times, therefore if the article does not meet the requirements, I reccomend salting the name to prevent re-creation without significant guidance. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 May 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) 00:01, 30 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, nobody has a thought about this after 14 days at AfD? Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). No published works discuss this remixer. No major contests won, no charting works, etc. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 7 June 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, article transwikied, see wikt:weaksauce. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weaksauce[edit]

Weaksauce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD contested by article creator. PROD reason was: "Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up" and I still believe that to be an accurate summary of the article. Jenks24 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — BelovedFreak 16:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — BelovedFreak 16:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hie thee to Wiktionary. "Weaksauce" is a reasonably familiar colloquialism; go search for it in any online game forum, and you will find it. I doubt this tale of its origin is reliable even if it were more intelligible. I can't see it ever being the subject of an encyclopedia article, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• And get there Speedily... Carrite (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki' per above. A search on Google News shows it is used somewhat regularly. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above. Enough to warrant a Wiktionary article, but not an encyclopedic entry. Asteroid1717 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 22:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamworld Resort[edit]

Dreamworld Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Sources are mainly self-published, or hotel booking sites. No sources have been found that suggest this resort is anything out of the ordinary. Fails WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) is searching for wrong keyword. The place is simply known as Dreamworld in Pakistan but since wikipedia already had an article by this name, the article starter must have used the 2nd best option he /she thought fit. Dreamworld is the biggest entertainment project in Pakistan and deserves a place on wikipedia on this account. Unfortunately Pakistan is a 3rd world country a great many good things don't find their due place on the internet. 115.186.66.196 (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If we were to remove the unreferenced material from this article, we would be left with very little information...and that's not including removing self-published, or hotel booking sites as sources. Fails WP:OR -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. If it IS self promotion then someone should have turned up by now to say Do NOT Delete! May be we oughta clean whatever we think is wrong and hope someone will add useful information later. 202.70.150.18 (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow self promotion. Anyway, I have removed unsourced material from the article, per WP:OR. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I live in Pakistan & I have seen this place. Its the biggest resort in Pakistan & therefore this article should not be deleted.202.70.150.18 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I tried looking for independent sources under various different searches, and found nothing more detailed than this. I couldn't even verify the claim that it's the biggest resort in Pakistan independently. Unless someone can find significant coverage about the resort itself, it's going to fail WP:GNG. Perhaps offline sources exist? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:05, 15 June 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. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 00:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian Project[edit]

The Guardian Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

See Talk:Toronto Maple Leafs#The Guardian Project for rationale. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lame, but certainly notable. Possibly most notable for its complete and utter failure. Coverage includes: CBC.ca, Yahoo (blog), MSN.ca, MTV.ca. I didn't include comic sources, because I have no idea how to gauge what is reliable and what isn't, but there are a lot. Canada Hky (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely reluctant Keep: As a participant in the discussion the nom links, I empathize over the premise of torching this bit of ephemeral fluff - heck, as a stone hockey fan, as a long-time editor on the hockey WikiProject and as a one-time Marvel comic subscriber, I just heard of this yesterday, which says something. Unfortunately, the nom hasn't proffered a valid reason to delete, and this has certainly generated enough media interest to meet WP:V.  Ravenswing  19:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have gotten more than enough media coverage. And being that it was created by Stan Lee I think that in itself probably gets it up there. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The "rationale" for deleting this article clearly falls into the I don't like it category. I don't like it either and wish it never happened, but there has been lots of media coverage to establish notability. The article needs to have those references Canada Hky mentioned and links added, but it shouldn't be deleted. Spidey104 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There has been enought media coverage to establish notability and verifiability. The hockey wikiproject can discuss and vote a rule to avoid any kind of mention of The Guardian Project in the hockey articles. In my opinion, it is better than trying to delete this article. --Crazy runner (talk) 09:51, 11 June 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 Dlohcierekim as WP:CSD#G3, blatant hoax. Due diligence on my part and that of others revealed no good version and no Google support for the article. The concerns of an anonymous user 2 years ago went unheard and unheeded. Dlohcierekim 21:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nappier DJ Nate Thomas[edit]

Nappier DJ Nate Thomas (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 BLP. A Google search shows nothing other than mirrors of this article and social networking sites. No evidence of notability. Possible hoax. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to be a duplicate of Just Blaze as well, which perhaps also needs to be AfDed? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just Blaze seems genuine - maybe some of the content was copied from there. However, concerning that this hasn't been spotted for two years! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Then it seems that this article may just be a complete hoax and needs to be speedy deleted? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, but User:Nthomas11 removed it. As he isn't the originator of the page, decided to AfD it. However, he seems insistent on blanking the page now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you compare the edit history of Special:Contributions/Gumdrop64 and Special:Contributions/Nthomas11 they could be one and the same. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they're the same user. I've reported User:Nthomas11 for vandalism anyway. Meph^talk 16:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed they are likely the same user. The Gumdrop64 account is stale though, otherwise it would make sense to create a sock report. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete—Obvious hoax and attempt at plagiarism. An unregistered user attempted to warn other editors two years ago: [13]. Unfortunately, the article gathered dust instead. Meph^talk 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as blatant hoax. The original version of Nappier appears to have been lifted straight off this version of Just Blaze. Very little of the substance of the Nappier article has changed since its creation: diff. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm performing my due diligence checks before honoring the CSD. No luck as yet. Dlohcierekim 21:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• COmment Anyone see a resemblance between subject and User:Nthomas11? Getting out the buttons now. Dlohcierekim 21:08, 7 June 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Himcinschi[edit]

Fabian Himcinschi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on the claim that Liga II is fully pro. When asked, the contester failed to produce sources to support this claim. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Football in the Algarve[edit]

Football in the Algarve (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 sources attest the notability of this subject. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. In future, should any sources be found, then they should be mentioned in a subsection at Football in Portugal. GiantSnowman 23:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tons of WP:OR. Anything of note should be included in Football in Portugal. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Concur with what Argyle has said. Nath1991 (talk) 12:42, 14 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Grosos[edit]

Ramon Grosos (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 few sources seem to be from promotional websites, and I'm not sure the subject meets any of the WP:ARTIST criteria. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I could only find trivial mentions of him in two news articles about some single event not really about him [14] [15]. It's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 10 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 22:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Democratic Countries[edit]

List of Democratic Countries (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'm not quite sure we should delete, but perhaps. After all, there are the usual concerns about POV, there not being a single definition of "democracy". Plus, the Freedom House list of electoral democracies is already represented as a map in three articles. And if need be, we could include this list at Freedom in the World. Anyway, if kept, this should be moved to List of electoral democracies or a similar title. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this POV? 'Democracy' has a standard recognized definition. As I've said on the article's talk page, while the FH report is the only source currently used, there are other sources that have similarly classed countries (the same countries in general) as democracies. Isn't the correct solution to add the sources, or give me some time to add them, instead of deleting a validly referenced article? e Robert-Houdin 17:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober-houdin (talk • contribs)

The naivety of the statement that democracy has a standard recognized definition beggars belief. Under what criteria do we include the United Kingdom (with its House of Lords) but not Russia? Or Samoa (where only traditional chiefs, 95% of them male, can be elected to the legislature) but not Venezuela? Or Monaco (with its undemocratically appointed executive) but not Zimbabwe? And how about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or the former German Democratic Republic? Someone's definition of democracy must include those, or they wouldn't have been named that way, so do we include them in the list? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious POV. --XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to the organization whose subjective list this is. There is no standard recognized definition of democracy, so we shouldn't present articles as if there was. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Phil Bridge - you are discussing whether specific sets of facts meet the definition, not the definition itself. The definition of democracy is fairly standard throughout major English language dictionaries. OED, Dictionary.com , Merriam-Webster, even Google. The standard definition running something like this: '1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. 2. A state governed in this way'(Google). As for the examples you've give, Wikipedia would include them if a reliable source calls them democracies. XXPowerMexicoXx , I question the validity of your opinion here in reaching consensus, since your one edit to the article was the un-cited addition of Belarus, Cuba, and Venezuela to the article [1]. Not only does Freedom House not call Cuba and Belarus democracies, neither does the CIA Factbook [2][2]. Venezuela is listed as a 'Federal Republic'[4] , so I would add it to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober-houdin (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my last edit was a little harsh and didn't AGF. How is this article different from [List of Socialist Countries]], list of current constitutional monarchies or the list on Communist State? Or, in principle from List of dictators? --e Robert-Houdin 23:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober-houdin (talk • contribs)

• Reclassify as List of electoral democracies. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's point of view whether a country is a "proper" democracy or not. Almost every country in the word claims to be a democracy of some sort (save Saudi Arabia and the Holy See ), so it would be pretty pointless to make a list of countries which consider themselves democracies. --Anthem 09:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [16]. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:04, 15 June 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Felix Taşcă[edit]

George Felix Taşcă (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 man did nothing in particular that was notable; he had a fairly normal career (unreferenced, anyway) and was a genealogy hobbyist. The sources for that include a book for which no page number is given, a lecture Taşcă delivered (...), and a donor list. This forms part of a series of crufty articles on the Taşcă family (itself now gone), and should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The guy was once a bureaucrat in a Romanian ministry (short of WP:POLITICIAN, even contextually), and the scholarly work is of no impact (even contextually). If his claim to fame is belonging to the Romanian Institute of Genealogy and Heraldry "Sever Zotta" (?!), let me note that the institution itself may not be up to notability standards. As Biruitorul notes, this is the leftover cruft from a very inventive but non-encyclopedic attempt to promote a particular patrician clan, whose members were, alas, mostly non-notable as far as entries here go. Dahn (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see nothing in the article that has any chance of leading to a pass of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 9 June 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. The article was expanded during the discussion, so the earlier "delete" opinions do not necessarily inform consensus, whereas the editors who commented subsequent to the expansion agree that the article should be kept.  Sandstein  05:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egalitarian mortality[edit]

Egalitarian mortality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"Egalitarian mortality" seems to be WP:OR by the article creator, hanging the topic on a single article that studied a limited population. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article discusses a situation in which women do not outlive men and men do not outlive women. This has been called egalitarian mortality. More can follow. It is a start not a final product. And it is more than a stub. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. Article topic is not found in any reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is not a topic. Article creator is welcome to merge any useful content to Life expectancy on his own initiative. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.

• Delete, well written original research. The article moves from mortality tables to the philosophy of egalitarianism and back again. No objection to a selective merge into life expectancy that points out that the expected pattern does not hold everywhere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• continuing my 'Keep' vote The references in the article demonstrate the page is neither 'Original research' nor a 'Synthesis' banned by Wikipedia, and that it is a topic found in reliable sources. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no. This reference discusses inequality in mortality. No source discusses egalitarian mortality; a phrase you apparently made up. The original mentions, briefly, "egalitarian mortality distribution" as a way to discuss equality in mortality. Other sources at Google Scholar mention equality or egalitarianism in mortality as a part of discussions of life expectancy. There is no topic of "egalitarian mortality" taken by itself. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • continuing my 'Keep' vote Actually YES try using "egalitarian mortality" on Google Scholar. There are also others that discuss "quasi-egalitarian mortality". And, again NO it is not 'Original research' or 'Synthesis' as these references demonstrate. By the way, thank you for at least trying the Google Scholar search. The last reference on that search uses the phrase, "in fact, a number of studies show more gender-egalitarian mortality among the poor." So again NO to your conclusions. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But these scholarly papers are discussing life expectancy and its variables. Sometimes life expectancy is equal between sample populations, sometimes it is not. There is no separate topic reserved for the case where life expectancy is equal.
        By the way, I'm surprised you didn't mention Logan's Run, a famous science fiction book in which mortality is forced to be the same for each individual in an over-populated world. Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the light-hearted humor. I've added another section to the page dealing with what the author refers to as an 'egalitarian mortality regime'. Quite interesting. Check it out. Yes, they are discussing Life expectancy and are using the term 'egalitarian mortality' in at least two different contexts: a distribution (probably a statistical distribution to represent an 'egalitarian mortality' which is an economics term) and a point or extent of equality in mortality. Both of these are now on the page. Merging the page into the Life expectancy page; however, would dilute the impact and importance of the fact that circumstances, not random ones, produce equality in mortality and hopefully lengthy life insights. Both 'egalitarian mortality' situations described on the page are not about expectancy but are from reality. This is a subtle but important difference. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• continuing my 'Keep' vote Several points have been stated above by the 'Delete's that my recent additions to the page should demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt are not the case; i.e., some authors call 'egalitarian mortality' what others call 'mortality equality' so the page is not original research. Further, the number of references using either phrase to refer to the same or very similar phenomena is at least four. The terms are found in reliable sources, and YES it is a topic. There are some additional forms of these that I will include. But, this should suffice to allow an administrator to close this discussion with a 'Keep'. A title of 'Mortality equality' may be more aesthetically pleasing, but for now 'Egalitarian mortality' seems okay. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the page's creation on 15 May 2011, four editors have contributed. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh heh... Do you mean this tiny spelling correction, this trivial and incorrect change of especially to specially, followed by this reversion? The only editor who has added actual content has been yourself, and it is all about a minor aspect of life expectancy, not notable in itself. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least eight authors have discussed Egalitarian mortality or its equivalent Mortality equality that meets Wikipedia's Notability criteria. You might want to check 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' rather than resorting to 'Deletion' first. Oh, contributions are contributions. I didn't find you there or the editor User:SarekOfVulcan who put the article up for deletion first before following the usual guidelines. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) The other 'Delete'rs are not on the 'View history' page either. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fully abundant academic sources. The objections seem more to be in the nature of content disputes--or--even more, arguments over the validity of the concept--and such arguments have no place in WikipediaWe go by the sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per DGG: lots of good potential sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 15 June 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waveney Campus University[edit]

Waveney Campus University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Almost certain hoax. Waveney Campus is a planned administrative/laboratory centre/regenration project in Lowestoft with no university element - see BBC article, CEFAS press release and developer website. The article creator may be confused, although similar content was added to the Lowestoft and Waveney pages. I would have prodded it, but the article creators talk page suggests that this may be opposed so it's probably best to go through AfD instead. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to University Campus Suffolk and improve. Delete It took me a while to disentangle this, but this piece in the Waveney Advertiser pointed me to the solution. The Waveney Campus scheme was abandoned at the end of 2009, and this is a different thing. --AJHingston (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page already exists - at University Campus Suffolk and has content at Lowestoft College - trust me, this is a totally different entity that the editor who created it has either gotten confused about or has deliberately inserted a hoax about! Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that - was in a hurry as I had a visitor. Have changed my vote to delete - probably not a deliberate hoax but a confusion between a scheme that Lowestoft College were discussing (the Waveney Campus) and what actually exists. A candidate for deletion on the grounds that it is just wrong. --AJHingston (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Looks like a deliberate hoax (author has been blocked as a sockpuppet); in any case, it's clear that though the Waveney Campus development exists there is no suggestion of a university there. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article referred to is from 2008 and was about a planned scheme. However, it was abandoned in 2009[17]. --AJHingston (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The article is more probably an experiment than a deliberate attempt at a hoax. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 13 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 23:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violence and sex integration[edit]

Violence and sex integration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:ESSAY. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article discusses Sex integration and violence. The violence is either associated with efforts of sex integration or as a male preserve, which sex integration demonstrates it is not. A simple Google Scholar search using "Violence" and "Sex integration" brings up some of the references and more that can be included in a 'Start' article. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources discuss this topic. Instead, it is a synthesis of various sources, none of which make the argument of the article topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• continuing my 'Keep' vote The Google Scholar search I mentioned demonstrates that the page is neither 'Original research' nor a 'Synthesis' banned by Wikipedia. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's odd; when I search Google Scholar for "violence" plus "sex integration" I come up with a lot of articles which do not make the connection which is shown in this topic, supposedly Violence and sex integration. Your notional topic is not supported by any entries Google Scholar. If you dispute this, cite one of them and we can discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try E Anderson, "“I used to think women were weak”: orthodox masculinity, gender segregation, and sport," at url=http://www.ericandersonphd.com/resources/2008%20I%20used%20to%20think%20women%20were%20weak%20-%20Sociological%20Forum.pdf. The author discusses violence and sex integration. Also, again, thank you for testing the Google Scholar search. I've added it and some points from it to the page. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is clearly a synthesis essay on the two topics. The references fail to establish this single topic as notable. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the page's creation on 6 May 2010, six editors have contributed. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a disingenuous misrepresentation. Since it was nominated for deletion, only one editor, yourself, has touched it. The link you provided to E. Anderson was probably intended to be this where Anderson says his study suggests "that gender-integrating sports might potentially decrease some of the socionegative outcomes attributed to male team sport athletes, possibly including violence against women." Anderson's wishy-washy wording is not at all conclusive, and his determination comes from comparing men who remain on all-male sports teams through college to men who were on all-male teams in high school but in college they do not make the cut and instead choose to be on cheerleading squads with women. Anderson only talked to the yell leaders, not the men who stayed on all-male sports teams through college. The comparison Anderson makes, weakly, is flawed at its root: he only interviewed one side of the comparison. Even Anderson says "the results are not conclusive". I don't believe the material under discussion has enough of a topic to merit its own article. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for acknowledging that Violence and sex integration is a topic discussed by a reliable source and that the page is not synthesis or essay. My comment above is a fact from the 'View history' page, not a misrepresentation. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regarding Notability, the page has at least six reliable references that discuss the association of sex integration with violence. By Wikipedia's own standards the page is notable. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I didn't find User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Binksternet, or User:Jsfouche on the 'View history' record of editing before the nomination for deletion or a vote of 'Deletion' following the usual guidelines. May I suggest that you check 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' rather than resorting to 'Deletion' first. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Synthesis/original research. This might be a fine research paper for academic purposes, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research or for a survey/synthesis type analysis. There is no need to look at "articles not satisfying the notability guidelines" because the issue here is not notability; it is original research/synthesis. And there is no requirement that an editor must actually make an edit to the article in order to express an opinion about whether to keep it in wikipedia or delete it. BTW it looks to me as if user:Marshallsumter has produced a whole series of these "X and sex integration" articles on Wikipedia, and I doubt if any of them meet Wikipedia's rules. To repeat: Wikipedia is NOT the place to publish a research paper, an original survey/synthesis type paper, or any other academic type paper. Wikipedia is only here to report what has been said elsewhere in Reliable Sources. See WP:NOT. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There could be a topic here, but to speak quite frankly, it would need to be handled by a competent editor who can identify a scope and stick with it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Marshallsumter.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. I can imagine a whole string of similar--but I'm not writing them down, because of WP:BEANS. . DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 14 June 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; nomination withdrawn ([18]) and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Creative Farm[edit]

The Creative Farm (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 does not meet the following criteria:

1.The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2.Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

Their own site doesn't contain any text, either. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The website does contain text, it appeared after about 15 seconds. I am unsure about this deletion because both the page and the website state that it has offices in Brisbane and Singapore. If this can be verified by a third-party source, I believe it would meet both of your points. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it appears that they are working with a company in the Netherlands. This can be found under the news section.Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a third party sources tag, and am willing to work on the article when I have time. I work 40 hours this week, so it may be sporadic. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you, Ryan. I hadn't noticed that before. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, since you were the original AfD nominator, are you withdrawing the AfD nomination? If so, it can be closed as a speedy keep. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 7 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achieving sex integration[edit]

Achieving sex integration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS//WP:ESSAY. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep each reference discusses sex integration and its effects and counters against effects. A simple search on Google Scholar using "sex integration" and "achieving" brings up similar and some of the references. "Sex equality" is a similar term though a possible goal of sex integration. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article topic is completely absent from reliable sources. Article tone is activist in nature, not neutral, a violation of WP:NPOV. This essay should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research with neutrality and stylistic issues.
  
  Moving the minority sex or completely excluded sex into a social endeavor, activity, or society may succeed in achieving sex integration. In a workplace environment promoting investment in sex-neutral skills is a mechanism that may produce sex integration. Attributing relative meaning to gender or sex may transcend a belief in the reality of gender or sex so as to reduce sex segregation and dominance by exclusively males or females.
  
  If you can explain in English what that last sentence means, you are cleverer than me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• continuing my 'Keep' vote above The article and its references are appropriately included and are reliable authorities. The page is NPOV as it is about 'achieving sex integration'. The Google Scholar search I mentioned demonstrates the page is neither 'Original research' nor a 'Synthesis' as banned by Wikipedia. Oh, and the meaning of the last sentence is simple: using sex and gender for other than biological sex differences are generally irrelevant for most endeavors. It's from the authority referenced. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general rule, please write in simple English when you compose text for Wikipedia. Do not obfuscate a subject, making it harder to understand than it is. If it is actually hard to understand, then complexity in the explanation can be supported. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually you are incorrect. There is a 'Simple English' Wikipedia. Hardness or easiness to understand is often in the mind of the reader. That's the beauty of the 'Discussion' page. Readers can say that something doesn't make sense to them. If you're having trouble that's the place to go. Not here. Just a suggestion. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have already swerved from this specific deletion discussion, but I feel that one clarification is in order: I was saying that you have used obfuscating English in this article, and I have seen the same in your other writings. I was asking you not to employ obfuscation in the future. It does not serve the reader. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• continuing my 'Keep' vote above The problem is not with the wording such as "Attributing relative meaning to gender or sex may transcend a belief in the reality of gender or sex so as to reduce sex segregation and dominance by exclusively males or females." but with the meaning. This phrase is a paraphrase, very close to the statement made by the author of the article from which it came. Neither I nor the author is concealing meaning, making communication confusing, ambiguous, or difficult to interpret. The author discusses Buddhism and the relative meaning of sex or gender. May I suggest that you and User:Ihcoyc check out the reference instead. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• continuing my 'Keep' vote above I've added information to the 'Achieving sex integration' page that should demonstrate it is not synthesis or essay but an encyclopedic page on 'Achieving sex integration'. It is not about what is sex integration but about causes and in some cases deliberate implementation of sex integration. The concern that the topic is absent from reliable sources should be quelled by the section 'Sex integration or sanitation'. The additional sections should also demonstrate the topic is not original research but an encyclopedic article about an area of ongoing social change or experimentation. I do not believe the POV comment is appropriate or correct. Ditto stylistic issues. While some may believe that religions deal in obfuscation, I believe they fulfill as best they can a real need. I hope this helps additional readers and any admin that stops by to hopefully confirm that the page should NOT be deleted. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlike in the other AfDs for articles by this user, there actually is a topic here, but a) it's redundant to Sex integration (integration is the state of being integrated, but also the process of achieving that state) and b) it's an unsalvageable mess. Blow it up and get some other users down to Sex integration to knock that article into shape. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• continuing my 'Keep' vote above Thank you for acknowledging that Achieving sex integration is a topic. If it takes a quote from an author who differentiates Sex integration from Achieving sex integration to demonstrate that fact I am happy to oblige. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the article's creation on 17 April 2010, nine editors and bots have contributed to the page. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only person who has touched it since it was nominated for deletion is you, and you have not materially improved it, not enough for me to change my stance from delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for noticing that although more than a dozen authors have discussed achieving sex integration, none of the above 'Delete'rs, has made any effort to edit at all or constructively even though the page meets Wikipedia's Notability criteria. May I suggest that you check 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' rather than resorting to 'Deletion' first. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge worthwhile content to Sex integration (assuming the latter article is felt to be viable). I cannot see that we need both articles. 86.180.160.89 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide - even for social topics like sex integration. It is uncommon to have a verb in the article's title (unless the verb is part of a proper noun) because the "how to", to the extent it is encyclopedic, should usually be part of that title's subject article (in this case sex integration). In this case sex integration is the subject and relevant content from this article should be added there. I am not supporting a merge, because this article's content is to scattered to simply incorporate it into the subject article, but (in plain English) the useful content from here should be in there. Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. "Achieving" could go before any concept at all & form a similar article. It's just an excuse for writing an essay DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 14 June 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 snow keep. Bencherlite^Talk 08:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence)[edit]

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) (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 sequel section on the page for the first film is the exact same text, word for word, of this page. It should be merged with it for now. As more information about the film is available, we may need to restore it but until then, I suggest deletion. Heyitsme22 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously I should declare an interest here, I have been heavily involved in both articles, however, I should stress that I firmly feel the time has now arrived where it is suitable to have a separate article for the sequel, as the sequel has recieved a great deal of standalone news coverage in reliable sources (including The Guardian and Daily Mail) due to the banning of the film in the UK by the BBFC. Whilst I admit that when first creating the sequel article I copied and pasted bits from the first article to get things started, the sequel article now expands on the content in the first films article to an extent that would not be appropriate to include in full on the article about the first film. Interested editors should compare The Human Centipede (First Sequence)#Sequel and The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence). Regards Coolug (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article surely has enough good information to keep, no? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Heyitsme22 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is highly unusual for the BBFC to refuse to classify a film, and in this case the Board's reason (that it would be wrong to give a classification to a film that might contravene the Obscene Publications Act) gives this film a significance that merits its own entry. Historical notability is a prima facie criterion for Notability in Film. Sordel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep In its current form, there is plenty difference from the original article. I'm usually quick to go with WP:CRYSTAL on unreleased films etc, but that just doesn't apply here. It has more than enough coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep First banned film in the UK for a long while. Clearly notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sequel is highly notable in its own right. Pointless, perhaps; a waste of celluloid, probably; but still notable. bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Apart from being part of a controversial and relatively well-known film trilogy, the BBFC's decision to not grade it makes it especially notable. To address the original reason for the deletion, as of 07.06.11 the comment no longer is relavant as the content is distinct. P.Marlow (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What we need to do is expand this article to ensure its plot - and its cultural impact (RE: BBFC decision etc) are featured. doktorb _words^deeds 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I'm a rebel. - Drlight11 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Banned films are common, e.g. Grotesque (2009 film). Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.31 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wrong. Only 4 are banned in the UK at present 129.11.77.198 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - first banned film in the UK for a very long time. Sick yes, notable yes.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable - sequel to a very notable movie and banned in the UK. Dibs on front! 86.41.42.129 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - notable due to UK ban coverage. hope they show it publically, would be nice to see something push the obscene pubs. act back into its outdated box 129.11.77.198 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whether or not it's banned is tangential to whether or not we should have an article on the subject. It would be helpful to frame keeps and opposes in terms of wikipedia policy, or the deletion nomination itself. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 'fraid not, it's the ban which has made it notable as per Wikipedia:Notability. 'Significant coverage' - check, BBC radio, the Independent and the Guardian already, 'Reliable' - check, 'Sources' -plenty of 2ndary sources, 'Independent' - check, 'Presumed' - ticks all of the caveats on 'What Wikipedia is not'. That it is only the 11th film banned in Britain in 98 years of the BBFC - and every other film has a page here - also ticks the presumption box. 129.11.77.198 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The fact that it is one of only four films currently banned in the UK makes it notable right there. The reason given in the nomination—that it's the same as a section in a different article—is a silly reason. It will be edited more as time goes on.—Chowbok ☠ 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Wikipedia:Notability, I came to the article from a CNN piece on the UK banning. If it is the content in dispute for being too similar to the original film's entry, then the article needs works. It has no reflection the importance of keeping the article. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of independent coverage of this already. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - I have nominated this article for "Did You Know" so would it be possible for a decision to be made about this article sooner rather than later? There seem to be plenty of comments, if the article is to be deleted could we get on with it and delete it, otherwise can we close this discussion? I should stress that an anonymous IP user did remove the banner from the article, but I have replaced it as I don't think wikipedia policy would have allowed that. Incidentally, over 30 thousand people viewed the article yesterday, I don't know how that deletion banner makes wikipedia look to these users. Coolug (talk) 08:52, 8 June 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 G10 / G3. A neutral, well-sourced article about the incident and resulting media reaction may be appropriate. This piece of satire is not. --B (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarah Palin Bell[edit]

The Sarah Palin Bell (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 is utter trivia and written in an irretrievably POV style. A minor political gaffe among many political gaffes. Could be better covered (if at all) in the Palin article. A non-notable ephemeral news story. PROD was removed. Sitush (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What seems to me as utterly trivial is trying to protect a wiki site's encyclopedic integrity when there is no encyclopedic integrity to begin with. Your attempt to destroy my wiki page will succeed only because it, like this entire site, is a joke not to be taken seriously. And your(comment above) attempt to protect the continuity of it's content is utterly pitiful. To protect that which no one can be held responsibile for is like protected a construction worker's advice on a medical procedure, it's ridiculous. To think that anyone cares about your boring self-serving criticism is laughable. You are a joke to those who are true scholars of knowledge and academic respect. Nothing you have ever contributed to this site's articles or edits will be respected or acknowledged to any level of the educated. You are a mere troll, pretending your time here means something to someone or that you indeed are contributing to something much greater than yourself. In truth, this site is pure entertainment; something to do between the hours of Facebook and Youtube. Much more insignificant than anyone wishes to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Probably nonnotable; prose in current form is irreparable in terms of POV issues even if it were. Martinp (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is satire about a politician's comments, not a description of something that actually exists. Palin's comments on Paul Revere might merit at most a couple of sentences in an existing Palin-related article, but certainly not an article like this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above.  Badgernet  ₪  14:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seem to be two objections: (1) the discussion could be merged into Palin's page, and (2) the style is not sufficiently academic. The first objection is meritless. This page discusses a distinct issue surrounding Palin, much like the "birth certificate" issue surrounding Obama deserves a separate entry from the generic "Barack Obama" web page. The "bell" issue, all by itself, has generated so much discussion (e.g., on the stories that policitians make up, on the inability of politicians to admit mistakes, on the tendency of a politician's supporters to rally around the politician in the face of overwhelming evidence) that it deserves its own page. Thus, I strenuously disagree with Metropolitan90s comments. The fact is that the political event that this article discusses "actually exists," even if the bell does not. (By the way, using that logic, should entries for all fictional people, places, and things be deleted? Of course not.) Regarding the second objection, the tone and content of the article can be improved using traditional wikipedia processes instead of outright deleting the page. --67.200.173.53 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. POV drivel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Whether satire, hoax or drivel - something not assuaged or cured by the creator's comments above - it is clear that this is definitely a WP:BULLSHIT case.  Ravenswing  19:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 June 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: recreation of speedy-deleted Prince Joél I

Prince Joél I (Joél Filsaime)[edit]

Prince Joél I (Joél Filsaime) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently non-notable self-proclaimed "prince" apparently with zero Google footprint: possible hoax article? The Anome (talk) 11:30, 7 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways in the United States[edit]

List of unused highways in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Roadcruft, pure and simple. WP:NOT says that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and yet this list is the epitome of that. Most of this list is sourced to "roadgeek" websites like aaroads.com that are not reliable sources under the Wikipedia definition of the term. The rest is pushing the definition of original research as well. Imzadi 1979 → 19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Categorize and move the info to the respective articles. --Rschen7754 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought it was an interesting article. It doesn't seem indiscriminate to me. And it also has a lot of references. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move information from this article and any subarticles to the articles of the roads involved. Delete the list. Dough4872 03:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this list once the information is moved elsewhere. The specific examples in this list should be moved to the relevant articles. The information in the state unused highway lists should be moved to the relevant articles.  VC  04:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't move and delete. No opinion on keeping or deleting, but attribution requirements prohibit us from moving information from one article to another and then deleting the first. If we merge information from one article to another, we have to keep the first one in order to maintain a contribution history for attribution purposes. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribution requirements prohibit us from moving creative expressions of information, which is copyrightable and therefore needs a license, not information in and of itself, which is not copyrightable and therefore doesn't need a license. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed . Which is also why we can take information from reliable sources in the first place to write an article but can't just copy those sources wholesale. postdlf (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if text is copied from the article directly, a listing on the talk page of the target article of the contributors to the source article also satisfies attribution, even if the source article is deleted. But if the information itself is copied without moving the exact text, i.e. an editor copies the citation and writes new text from scratch, then there's no attribution requirements. Imzadi 1979 → 13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Move information from this article" sounds like "Copy/paste this text". Of course we don't need to keep this article for attribution purposes if we simply write a new account of the same facts in the other articles. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Impossible to maintain and adds little to no value to the encyclopedia Dave (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 16:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 16:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• IFF (if and only if) the copyright and attribution issues can be resolved, I would not be against smerging, deleting this, and creating a category instead. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain the copyright issues that are at play in this article? The only previous mention of copyright in this discussion appears to have been brought up tangentially and already addressed.  VC  03:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, then I am in favor of a merger. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in Michigan was closed as keep. Dough4872 15:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That presents one of the problems with deleting this list alone: it functions as a list of lists for states that have their own stand-alone lists, and as a list of content for those that don't. postdlf (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not need to delete this list the moment consensus is reached that we should delete the list. It will take time, perhaps months or years, before all the information is incorporated elsewhere. We can reach consensus now that the list should be deleted and make the appropriate preparations pursuant to that consensus.  VC  02:58, 4 June 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! 11:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Facilitates browsing, which is one of the purposes of an encyclopedia. There are many corresponding state articles, so this is just a guide to them plus a place for the content where specific articles have not yet been made. The abandonment of a significant highway is a public even of major environmental importance, about which there are always sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DGG's explanation for "encyclopedicity" is a good one. I also fail to understand how this list could be regarded as "indiscriminate" information - it's not like an extract from a telephone directory, its inclusion criteria are well-defined and focused. TheGrappler (talk) 16:14, 15 June 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Times[edit]

Australia Times (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 sources provided are all self-published, and I can't find any reliable sources myself. The "online newspaper" itself appears just to link to BBC articles, rather than exist as creative journalistic entity. WP:ORG. Contested prod. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]