Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 May 19 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Fatbike[edit]

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

One sentence orphaned article about a commercial bicycle manufacturer. Nominated for deletion once before, no consensus was reached. Sources have gone dead since, with the exception of the company's own blog and homepage. The product they sell (a bicycle that can ride over snow) is not particularly notable as it is already covered in-depth at Winter biking MidnightDesert (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are never "gone." Sometimes hyperlinks to them expire, but that doesn't mean the sources magically disappeared and never existed. They're just harder to access now.--Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were "gone," I said they had "gone dead." I was attempting to indicate that they turned up 404 or non-existent pages. Nor did I imply that they "magically" disappeared. I don't know if the publications moved the pages to new URLs or if they took them offline after a period of time. It is my belief that this page is non-notable even with the sources, however. Please see the previous AfD discussion for this article. The sources were all passing references to the operation of this company in Alaska. That does not pass WP:CORP and it does not make the company any more encyclopedia-notable than any other small-business in the U.S. that might be mentioned in a periodical. Part of the reason why no consensus was reached last time was because an expansion of the page was proposed. Said expansion never materialized, in fact, other than bots there have been practically no edits to this article since that AfD closed. At the moment the page is one-sentence long. It states that a company exists in Alaska and makes no claims for notability. -MidnightDesert (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to WP:CORP "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" so some additional sources would be helpful. The real question, however, is not whether this company has ever been mentioned in media. The question is how that article (or any other) establishes notability for the subject. The mere fact that this company exists and manufactures snow bikes is, by itself, not inherently notable. If that is all we have then at most it probably warrants a mention in the Winter biking article as a notable manufacturer of snow bicycles (assuming it is one). It would be extremely helpful if you could use the Anchorage Daily News article to expand the article and establish notability for the company or its product. I would but I don't have access to that particular website (nl.newsbank). -MidnightDesert (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability of the topic. A single news article in the Anchorage Daily News is not sufficient. Gobonobo T C 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Law and Technology (ISLAT)[edit]

International Society for Law and Technology (ISLAT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any non-trivial, third-party sources about this company. As it is, the article reads like an advertisement and has no sources. I'm not sure why this company is notable. — Timneu22 · talk 23:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boonex Dolphin smart community script[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, nor any real coverage I can find Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  05:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Stringmaster[edit]

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

This product is not notable enough for it's own page. Would better fit as a section in Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. Spitfire19 (Talk) 23:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I should disclose that I am the original author of this stub, although under a slightly different article name. But I'm afraid I don't think this is really a deletion nomination at all, see the box at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and the link from there to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The argument above might support a merge and redirect at best, if evidence were to be presented. But so far all we have is a personal opinion, and 22,400 ghits unrelated to Wikipedia seems to be evidence the other way (your exact number of ghits may vary). The Stringmaster is a significant episode in the history of the steel guitar, and original instruments are now highly valued. So I'll flag that I don't even think that the proposed merge to Fender Musical Instruments Corporation is a good idea. Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Haven't researched this particular product, but I'd say there's a presumption that Fender guitars are, in general, notable, as Fender are generally considered one of the most important guitar manufacturers in the world. There are too many Fender products to take the action suggested by the nominator for all of them, so unless an alternative is proposed I think keeping individual articles is best. JulesH (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The proposed merge if adopted would be the start of quite a large undertaking, see Fender Musical Instruments Corporation product list for links to many articles on less notable instrument lines. See Talk:Fender Stringmaster for some more notability discussion. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this were a single individual model, I wouldn't have been as likely to say keep, but this is a series of models. There needs to be some more evidence, but there were surely reviews in all the relevant magazines. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, found some, not sure how good, but take a look: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myx Quest[edit]

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

Not sure this producer quite passes our standards for notability. His major claim to fame appears to be that he is the producer for the younger sister of a notable artist, Estelle. Google search revealed a BBC link (included in the article) where the subject receives a one-sentence mention. No other reliable sources found. This is a tricky one, lots of blue links, but I'm not seeing much notability conferred. If anything, it seems to be more of an argument of notability for the artist he works with. I'm bringing this to the community for opinions. GlassCobra 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy . delete. Content was cited to blogs and was blanked for BLP issues. Speedy snow close- all content is deleted. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 614[edit]

American Airlines Flight 614 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note Per WP:BLP, I have redirected the article and protected the redirect, here is the version before the redirect. Crum375 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes an extremely minor incident on an airline flight where a flight attendant was having a bad day and yelled at a passenger. The article fails to meet WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. It also fails to meet WP:NOTRIVIA and Wikipedia:Notability (events), particularly WP:SENSATION as one of the references cited illustrates: The Juice is Loose on AA Flight 614. That ref is subtitled "Probably Insignificant Aviation News". This is the airline equivalent of a child falling down in a playground and skinning their knee, inherently unencyclopedic subject. Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I already stubbed and redirected it a BLP violation, but it also fails notability for an aviation occurrence per WP:AIRCRASH. Crum375 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I have restored the redirect and protected it, since I see it as a BLP violation which cannot wait. Any admin is welcome to review and/or reverse my actions. I also posted a note here. Crum375 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Itaka[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carina (botany)[edit]

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

I'm no botanist, but this smells very hoaxy to me. If it were genuine, wouldn't it have a longer name than just Carina? This article is the sole contribution of its creator (whom I suspect is either named Carina or has a girlfriend so named). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taki (card game)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this card game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely promotional page for non-notable card game; Only references are promotional in nature as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Comment, the page has been deleted. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lying Down Game[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. This was an internet meme which received brief, transient coverage from the mainstream media in July 2009, and has received virtually none since (apart from a story about nurses being suspended in September 2009). There is no indication of lasting notability here, and since notability is not temporary, this craze is not notable. Robofish (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Racz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Could not find any suitable references. Written like a résumé. Millbrooky (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was wrong forum. This is not a deletion nomination, but a merger proposal, which belongs on the article talk page, not on WP:AfD.  Sandstein  05:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International FTTS[edit]

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

Apparently in 2006 Future Tactical Truck Systems was deferred two years. Nobody has heard from it since [7] because it was probably quietly canceled. Merge everything here to Future Tactical Truck Systems. Marcus Aurelius (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the cancellation of the programme should mean the deletion of the article. There are hundreds of articles about prototype vehicles that never reached production, if it was notable as a prototype, (which it was) then it is still notable now. I don't believe that FTTS was ever intended as more than a system demonstration project anyway. The vehicles served their purpose and the lessons learned fed into JLTV. Both the articles about the programme and the vehicle probably need a bit of correction and updating but I don't believe that it's appropriate to delete either of them. There is a difference between success and notability. If we deleted all articles of things that didn't come to fruition then Wikipedia would be a very poor place. As Navistar's first foray into military vehicles it directly led to the MXT and MaxxPro designs. It is a significant, notable, and influential military vehicle prototype. Dino246 (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd actually read the nomination, you'd have seen where the word "merge" came into play. The nominator doesn't want to delete either article, he wants to consolidate them. A thread on the talk page would have been more appropriate for a merge discussion, though I imagine he followed the growing trend of listing it AfD instead to attract more attnetion to the discussion. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth WI2-28[edit]

Earth WI2-28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Straight forward original research - Earth W12-28 is a title made up by the creator of the article. Cameron Scott (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix tree[edit]

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

original research;dubious correctness --FvdP (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a badly described binary heap (data structure), and apparently not notable.- Wolfkeeper 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – OR, questionable notability, probably not peer reviewed (hard to tell, since the only references are in Russian) – Adrianwn (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Williams (model)[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy GNG, PORNBIO and all other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|(talk) 03:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn "glamour model" failing WP:ENT and all other relevant criteria, and per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just as notable as the other Penthouse Pets. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As notable as all those Playmates whose articles were deleted in Apirl? EuroPride (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? Pets were taken off the notability criteria for WP:PORNSTAR years ago by those who work on the porn articles. Playmates were only just recently removed by a push from the religious morality police here on WP. Williams was never a Playmate. Dismas|(talk) 00:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Ugh, I wish the WP:PORN members would stop acting like such victims. Each time an article is deleted you'll attack the nominators with moronic names like "religious morality police". Really pathetic. There could be no minority "push" by anybody, to delete an article it requires consenus which any editor can add input and must cite relevant policy. If an article was deleted it means the closing admin found the arguments to delete more convincing than the opposing viewpoints. Your attempt to undermine the consensus with childish name calling will fall on deaf ears. EuroPride (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Flight 530[edit]

Emirates Flight 530 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The incident that is the subject of this article is entirely non-notable, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. The incident described is the airline equivalent of a minor car accident in a shopping centre parking lot. Inherently non-encyclopedic. WikiProject Aircraft consensus is to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A significant tailstrike, causing potential structural damage, is a whole 'nother animal from a jetliner encountering severe turbulence. The latter happens relatively often. The former, not so much. Also, we don't base 'factual accuracy' as the basis for keeping or deleting an article, for better or for worse. It's factually accurate that there was a truck turned over in front of our house a few years ago, but we don't have a 2008 Chevy Silverado Florida rollover accident article. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahhh, Bushranger, you crack me up. Delete per nom. YSSYguy (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as speedy and per consensus. Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zion Ortega[edit]

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

Highly dubious BLP - no outside confirmation of the subject's claim to fame. It could be a hoax. It certainly fails WP:BIO. Joal Beal (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (CSD A7) - no credible claim of significance or importance. The same person who created the article also wrote on the talk page that he "hopes to get the role". --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Might be starring in" is not a sufficient claim for notability - there is no mention of him at IMDB. I can find no sign of an actor or anyone notable by the name of "Zion Ortega" -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all of the above. Personally, I believe this article was written to help subject land desired role. Evalpor (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niall McNelis[edit]

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

Non notable local politician in Galway, Republic of Ireland. Fails WP:Politician, also WP:GNG Snappy (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Brick[edit]

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

Non notable former local politician in Galway, Republic of Ireland. Fails WP:Politician, also being head of a local music school does not meet WP:GNG Snappy (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments to delete besides nominator. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahia Bakari[edit]

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

classic WP:BLP1E. a non-notable person who became temporarily news-worthy (WP:NOTNEWS) for being the sole survivor of an airline crash. Atmoz (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She is the only known sole survivor ever of an airliner ocean crash, which makes her permanently notable, as discussed in the previous AfD. A French government minister said of her, "In the midst of the mourning, there is Bahia. It is a miracle, it is an absolutely extraordinary battle for survival ... It's an enormous message that she sends to the world ... almost nothing is impossible."[8] I am not aware of any crash survivor ever who was so hailed. WP:BLP1E specifically allows articles for people expected to remain notable for a long time, likely for their lifetime, and there is no reason to believe this subject will ever be ignored by journalists, who refer to record holders whenever new disasters occur. For comparison to John Hinckley, the canonical BLP1E exclusion, he has 77,900 Ghits, vs. 22,600 for Bakari. [9][10] I would suspect that the average WP BLP subjects have fewer hits. See for example, Juliane Köpcke, Cecelia Cichan and Vesna Vulović for dry-land sole survivors. Crum375 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BLPs can be kept despite BLP1E if the event is especially significant, and this seems a particularly memorable crash and survival by any standards. -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Yemenia Flight 626, as there is nothing in the article that does not relate directly to that accident. As the nominator says, a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was discussed at length in the previous AfD. A reader who wants to read about an airplane crash, generally wants to know how the crash happened, how many died or were inured, what caused it, and the general aftermath. The details of Bahia's epic struggle all alone in the dark ocean next to the floating wreckage, and her unique survival story, are much more than would make sense in the main crash article. This is why we have the summary style links: Bahia is linked to the main accident article via summary style, and the accident article is linked to Bahia via summary style. To cram both topics into one single page makes no sense, since having two separate pages doesn't cost anything. That they are related to each other is no reason to merge them, any more than we should merge Hamlet into Shakespeare. Crum375 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally I don't think the main article is all that long, so I don't see that as an impediment to merger. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not so much an issue of length as of topic. Some readers are more technically inclined, and they like to focus on an accident as a failure of technology: how it happened, why, what were the political aftershocks. Other readers are more people oriented, and would like to focus on a personal survival story: a young girl, a non-swimmer, fighting alone, in the darkness, against high seas and sharp wreckage debris, thirsty and hungry, for many hours, and not giving up. These stories are related, but very different, and there is no reason to force them under a single page just because they are related. Crum375 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage is beyond WP:BLP1E. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As said above, coverage exceeds WP:BLP1E -- warrior4321 02:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is also, technically, an author. Has substantial sourced content; not really the ideal candidate for WP:NOTNEWS. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. under G3: after a SPI case there is no question this was a hoax Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso de Griego[edit]

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

Delete - A dismally unnotable composer if actually real; very possibly a hoax article. Having spent a considerable amount of time looking for evidence of an Alfonso de Griego, I've come to the conclusion that no such person can be found anywhere on the internet, in either Russian, English or Spanish. If this person ever actually existed, he fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY, which requires substantial coverage in independent sources (even if the lone journal article in the references section actually appeared sometime in print during 1990 and Griego was an actual historical person, his life and work seems to have otherwise otherwise entirely unnotable, the composer having no legacy and becoming dismally forgotten to the point that no verifiably existing traces of his life as described are even confirmable). The same absence of evidence of any Alfonso de Griego / his Russian alias (I've glanced at various spelling variants in the Cyrillic alphabet, etc.) thus seems to suggest that the less charitable possibility of this article simply being a hoax cannot be ruled out.

The fact that the accompanying image to the right of the text, captioned

"The Leningrad Symphony. Conducted by Yevgeny Mravinsky", 1980, by Lev Alexandrovich Russov. The grey man's face in the middle is often thought to be the face of Alfonso de Griego"

actually happens to be an image of Shostakovich -- the painting actually depicts the Leningrad conductor Mravinsky's famous performance the Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony in the middle of besieged Leningrad in 1942 -- very much supports the hoax hypothesis. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Davie Janes[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and couldn't find sources verifying this person's notability with my own Google news search. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is not the "Long and sprawling lists of statistics" that we do not want, but may need to be cleaned up, and possibly merged if editorial consensus develops for that.  Sandstein  05:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Market share of leading PC vendors[edit]

Market share of leading PC vendors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. The prodder tried to bring this here, but was unfamiliar with the procedure. The prod rationale was Wikipedia is not an excessive listing of statistics (See Discussion) For my part, Neutral until I look into the issues.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I'll repeat my initial proposal from the article's discussion: There are other "market share" articles on Wikipedia (such as operating systems and web browsers), but those articles go into much more explanatory depth in the importance of the topic and the tabular data simply is used to reinforce that. Right now, I'm inclined to propose deletion of this article under Wikipedia is not an excessive listing of statistics. There is very little text putting this information into perspective, and frankly I'm not sure if this is a legitimate encyclopedia topic or just an attempt to give away for free what Gartner sells. There is a possibility that this is an infringement of Gartner's compilation copyright. Even though some of the information comes from media sources, most of it is from Gartner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanK (talk • contribs) 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These statistics are by no means excessive. There's only one percentage per company per year. The commentary between the tables could use some inline refs. I'm sure the sources used in the article can be diversified that way. Pcap ping 18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - per WP:NOT#STATS. The statistics may not be too sprawling but the layout is terrible, making it hard to follow, and there is insufficient text to explain everything. Of course, cleanup is not delete but I'm not convinced a cleanup is warranted over a delete in this case. Also, it is based on essentially a single source.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarize and merge to Personal computer#Market and sales and to articles about individual vendors. The information is quite pertinent to the aforementioned articles, but should not be presented in a separate article, per WP:NOT#STATS. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a good idea. That section is already a sprawling mess of poorly connected information. Cramming more historical info in it would be a bad idea. Perhaps a merger to History_of_personal_computers#Market could be discussed. I don't see anything that needs deletion from this article though. Pcap ping 19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOT#STATS says not to use unformatted raw data, this is formatted and easy to understand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as RAN says, not a violation of NOT STATISTICS, this is very selective summary information, not indiscriminate. What Gartner sells is the analysis--the summary is is not copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep and clean-up I had trouble finding this information (it's a useful outside of just pure stats) and it only covers the top 60% of the market (specific, non-comprehensive list) and it is not at all a sprawling, unorganized list. Really, the section on market share in Personal computer#Market and sales is to dense and it gets off topic from the core PC listing. The personal computer/market and sales section should be trimmed with the extra historical information shuttled here, making these stats in compliance with the "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" Indolering (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was no consensus. As some editors mentioned merging, I'd encourage that to be discussed on the article's talk page. Otherwise, it seems from the discussion that a considerable rewrite (trimming original research and such) might be needed for subsequent AFD's on this subject to be closed as 'keep'. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Spider-Man[edit]

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

What more do I need to say beyond the title "fictional History of Spider-man"? We don't write in-universe fictional histories of characters. We write real world perspective encyclopaedia articles that keeps recaps of plot to the bare minimum and concentrate on what third party reliable sources (which this has none of) have to say about the cultural and historical significance of a character. This article doesn't cut it in any way shape or form nor can it be made to because it's structure and purpose are so out of line with every policy we have - at it's core, it's just one long plot summary and we don't have article that are simply one long plot summary (it's also a misleading plot summary because it treats the history of Spider-man as a linear narrative and it's nothing of the sort). The MOS (and a dozen other policies) is clear and explicit about this - we don't have articles that are just fictional biographies, we don't write articles that are just to provide descriptive accounts of fictional happenings.I would support a Publication based history of Spider-man but not this. Fails: WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:NOR. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in respect to WP's stated principles as explained by the nominator. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per our policies and guidelines, we shouldn't have an article containing these details. Most can be trimmed and summarized; those storylines that generate enough critical commentary to be notable can be linked from there and provide greater depth in line with our specs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP As the previous discussions of this have shown, there is clearly a reason to keep this article. I have been working on trimming this article down so it is not as long, but I am only one person with limited time. I agree that the title is incorrect. We should probably move the article to a new title of Fictional character biography of Spider-Man (or something like that), but it should not be deleted. Wikipedia is for the readers and not the editors, and I have heard in discussions with readers who do not know Spider-Man's full history that articles like this on Wikipedia are VERY useful. Over 40 years of publishing of one character qualifies as notable. Spidey104contribs 16:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But which bits are notable? Answer - the bits that are the subject of critical commentary and scholarly discussion. Those stories can be discussed in the normal way according to policy. An article which simply exists to relist story details based upon primary sources and in an in-universe manner, simply shouldn't exist. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep and if not kept it should at least be merged (with a little bit of trimming) in the Spider-Man article like what the articles Batman and Superman look like. (Yes follow in their footsteps after all they are featured articles) I strongly admit that Spidey 104 really does almost all he can to keep it well sourced and if this should go so should all the rest of the fictional history of comic characters should because Spidey is the most notable of all the characters that have one. The only problem I have with this article is it's crammed with too many images and it does need an trim (but trust me that's easier said than done). Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly, they should all be deleted. The article is *not* well sourced, it's simply original research based on rehashing primary sources. A well sourced article makes use of reliable sources independent of the subject. If such sources don't exist - why are we writing about it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means nominate them too. But I am sure you realize these articles are just seperation of the section of the fictional character biography of the character because it shared too much room in the characters article. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That's not a valid reason for *this* article to exist. The only question here is - can an article be constructed that makes use of secondary sources, is not simply a plot summary and so on - the answer is clearly no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now Now! I hear you I didn't necessarily say that was an valid reason or imply that. I do agree that this article needs reliable sources along many other of the in story articles. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are secondary sources (usually encyclopedia-like books) that have this information as well. I have read them at the bookstore so I know they would support what is in the article, but I do not own them so it is hard to provide them as a useful reference. I will try switching references over from comic book issues to secondary source encyclopedias as Cameron Scott wants, but I thought Wikipedia preferred primary sources to secondary sources. Spidey104contribs 19:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, while we do make use of primary sources, without secondary sources we soon head off into original research and also we then have to make our judgements on what is important - that's what why we rely on secondary sources to do that job for us. Moreover, using primary sources, it's very difficult to write anything but in-universe content. A wikipedia article should always treat spider-man or any other character as an object of the narrative, they should never be presented as if they actually exist and the stories actually happen. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Along with trying to shorten the article I have tried to correct the in-universe tone of the article, but that is a lot easier said than done. Spidey104contribs 20:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Spider-Man. And yes, a little snipping will do (as suggested above). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the article stands right now it is in-univere toned and strrung together based on reader assumptions. At best the content could be transwikied to a related Wikia, if it isn't already there. If there is a serious consideration of mergining... it'll take a serious weeding not a "slight trim". And part of that would be eliminating plot overload from the storylines that currently have their own articles.
    As for the other like articles, their existance does not justify this article just as this artilce's existance does not justify thiers. There is no requirement that an AfD for one must include all. Especially since a lot of those types of nominations get hit with "But each article should be evaluated on its own merits." - J Greb (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being obvious. I am just agreeing with User:Cameron Scott that those could not be necessary as well if this one isn't. As he discussed in the talk page in Wikiproject Comics a while back. It's obvious that this isn't the only article with these problems. They probably all fail Wikipedia guidelines that he put above as well which we don't need. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With resepct: Commenting that "others exist" isn't needed within the discusion. It comes off poorly at best. If it is coming from a point of "What are we going to do about the like articles?", that's a discusion for the Project talk page. - J Greb (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know what you meant the first time. It just came up and it isn't needed in the AFD as much as talking about this does. Thanks for the correction. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm an idealist, I guess - I figure there's a place for a well-sourced, properly formatted chronological history of Spidey stories on Wikipedia. I mean come on, much like Batman and a few other characters, there have got to be enough reliable secondary sources out there to make it work. The problem is, I don't have the time or resources to give this article the kind of attention it deserves to make it worthwhile, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'd like to keep it, but something tells me the better thing to do would be to start from scratch and do it the right way (it would take the same amount of time, I'd think). I'll give this one some thought. BOZ (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume what you are looking for is something like History of Superman (which itself isn't great and needs more sources) and I think what is called the "Fictional character biography" in Batman is pretty similar and needs renaming (we might need to discuss the idea name and format for such articles). The problem is this article is not anything like those and would have to be moved and completely rewritten from scratch. If anyone wants to do that then I'd recommend they sandbox it first until it looks more solid (as it'd be massive). (Emperor (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
      • You got it - if this was written anywhere near halfway what History of Superman is, I'd feel a whole lot better about it. Like I say, that's not going to happen anytime soon, so maybe it's better if someone down the line were to start from scratch. Having worked on the FCB for Spider-Man as part of getting it to GA, I really don't want to merge a bunch of story details in there, and really feel a separate place describing the many serieses and such that he has appeared in and the major stories described by secondary sources, would be ideal. BOZ (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for bugging this board again but I really feel that if an main story is in an issue article then I really think it needs to just link to that article to avoid redundance. This is what I mean by that. Lot less to worry about. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is basically a big slab of WP:PLOT. As articles progress to FA status the plot is hammered down and rewritten in an out-of-universe manner (see the Superman and Batman examples above), splitting off the FCB to a new article is not the solution to the problem and the fact this has been done a few times doesn't make it right (those other articles will also be nominated in time). There is a solid article to be written about the portrayal of the character over the years (as mentioned above), this just isn't it. (Emperor (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • As you can see I an now changing my vote for I can see your side of the story. I don't agree with originally said about merging it to the Spider-Man article because that will fill the same problem this article has. But I don't agree with deleting it either. Instead I am requesting it to be an Keep if not as an article then as an redirection page to Spider-Man#Fictional character biography. Any thoughts about that? Jhenderson777 (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thing is that it isn't really an obvious search term but I am not going to loose any sleep over something this side of a merge (so deleting it or turning it into a redirect is fine as long as people don't try and shoehorn the content back into the article). It is also worth mentioning that people could look at working on that section looking at the characterization of Spider-Man in an out-of-universe manner (as is done in the Batman section), which is a better approach than trying to rewrite this article from scratch (as discussed above). See also the discussion at WT:CMC#Fictional history of... where I am trying to open this up in general terms so we can try and avoid this general problem and see if there a way to steer articles on the path to FA in productive directions. (Emperor (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep/merge any fictional character that has been around and constantly reworked for as long as Spiderman will need a large slab of something to describe the character. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the whole start to scratch thing. The Fictional character biography of the Spider-Man article is an good start. It is already well sourced and as long as it can be well sourced when it comes to further detail then maybe (if it gets too large or something) the information can be moved back to Fictional History of Spider-Man when being an redirection page. And you could always do an fresh start if it is an redirection. And in response to Emperor about it not being an obvious search. Even still people still might be searching for it who knew of it's existence. Jhenderson777 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "It really is well sourced". I think you need to read Wikipedia:No original research. It isn't well sourced, in fact it's not even sourced beyond primary sources. The absolute reliance on primary sources for this material is a major, major problematic issue here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I would like to note that people do search for this article. I first learned about this article from a conversation at a local comic book store, and I had previously mentioned this fact [11]. Spidey104contribs 15:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Let the page stay. Otherwise, we are going to have to move all that info onto Spider-Man's page. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of policy based argument is that? Keep the page because we find it too hard to stick to policy? really? Why do you think all of this info needs to be on the Spider-man page anyway? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the information is important to understand the full history of the character. Can you easily, accurately, and without removing necessary content summarize the entire Fictional history article into some short paragraphs to fit easily into the Spider-Man page? Spidey104contribs 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I think Rtkat3 and Spidey 104 is trying to say to keep this article alive is the main purpose of this article is encyclopedic on it's own. For some just because it's lacking sources or is an bad article doesn't always mean it should be deleted because it is still high importance, for others if it doesn't have any sources they don't want anything to do to it no matter how important. But that is really debatable and I am not going to take sides on that. I don't really think you need to always reply if you just disagree with an vote though. You made your opinion and they made theirs. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are no reliable secondary sources to be found for this article, then it fails Wikipedia:Notability. The fictional history of Spider-Man might be of crucial importance within the universe. Outside of it? None, as there are no reliable secondary sources supporting the article. It doesn't matter how important it is to the in-universe fictional setting. It matters how important it is outside of it, in the real world, reported in reliable secondary sources. If it can't do that, it's not what we call encyclopedic by definition. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Spider-Man. General consensus is that we have "biographies" of major fictional characters; this one is simply badly titled and inappropriately broken out from the main article. It may be appropriate to break out a Spider-Man (character) article from the main article which currently discusses both the character and the franchise, if the resulting article is deemed too long. This should include both biography sections and the parts of the cultural influence section that are appropriate. JulesH (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. High importance article detailing an aspect of one of the most major characters in the medium. Merging in these cases is unattractive because of the ultimate length of the article it would create. Articles like these are forked precisely because a comprehensive one-page overview of all aspects of the subject is simply too long to be both tenable and encyclopedically comprehensive. The history of a character is completely relevant and notable to report on. Ford MF (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say it's high importance. How? To the fictional universe, it's very important. Outside of it? None. If you can't find reliable secondary resources supporting the notability of the article's importance, then it has zero importance. Merging is not unattractive because the resulting content still needs to be properly sourced to secondary sources. If those sources don't exist, the content of the resulting merge would be very short indeed. You can't claim notability by saying it's notable. You have to be able to sustain that argument with reliable secondary sources. None exist on this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most notable characters in comic books, with a very long history that requires a separate page to manage. The page is very popular, and far too large to merge into the main article. Some trimming might be appropriate, however. Torchiest talk/contribs 22:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use of primary sources doesn't guarantee WP:OR: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Just because the article lacks secondary sources, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Torchiest talk/contribs 05:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with much editing   This is a tricky one. WikiProject Comics is rife with articles that have become, essentially, free-hosted fan sites. I need only direct us to Siege (comics) to make my point. That said, there's validity in a contextual history of a long-running character's development — in pop culture, particularly, characters are highly reflective of the concerns and fancies of the mainstream world. Superman of the 1930s was a much different character from the Superman of the 1950s, and both are different from the Superman who reflects the world of the 2000s.
The key here, I think, is to severely pare down the minute, issue-by-issue or storyline-by-storyline details. That level of minutiae loses the forest for the trees, as the saying goes. I think ideally you'd have a scholarly history, with proper third-party references, that creates a roadmap of milestones in a character's development. So, for example, one could talk about the early history of the Fantastic Four's development, citing authors, scholars, historians and journalists, and also make mention of certain original-source milestones, such as marriages or childbirth — milestones that would be conspicuously unencyclopedic not to mention. Obviously there's some subjectivity involved, but birth, death, marriage, and a major costume change, for instance, seem like concrete markers within that.
We could merge this article into Spider-Man, though that's already a lengthy article; still, incorporating the fictional history does works at, say, Superman. Either way, we can take this as a great opportunity to define how WikiProject Comics handles fictional history, and give ammunition to those who want to see fictional characters' development within a real-world framework, as opposed to the blow-by-blow minutiae that may be of interest to certain fans but which muddy the waters for general readers. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is that we don't have third party sources. We could rewrite this to be considerably more like History of Superman. But, we'd need reliable soruces to do so. We don't have them here. Further, see User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up. There are 57,000 articles tagged for cleanup, a 3.5 year backlog. If you can't find reliable secondary sources now, years after publishing of the primary source, it's highly unlikely you're going to find them. If you can't, take it to the [Marvel Comics Wikia]. That Wikia doesn't require secondary sources. We do. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my thoughts here - it seems we need to get this area better defined (and properly named) as more articles are getting B-class assessments and pushing on for GA and above. If we can get a proper framework and an idea of what we are aiming for it should be possible to nudge articles in the right direction. I think we are agreed that there probably needs to be a longer piece on Spiderman the character I'm just not convinced keeping this and heavily rewriting it will work without a dedicated editor taking it on as a major project (and I.m not seeing any volunteers ;) ), which is why I think we may need to start from scratch with a better idea of what we want this to end up as. (Emperor (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep: The arguments have all been made - thrice already. Clearly there can be no consensus on this article. To nominate the article for a 3rd time borders on an abuse of the AfD. Spidey is perhaps the certainly one of the notable of all fictional characters. There is a real need to separate into separate articles. Andy14and16 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus can and I believe does exist. None of the keep arguments have been based on policy. Meanwhile, the delete arguments largely have been. Arguments without a basis in policy tend to be very weak, at best. We don't count votes here to ascertain consensus. Nobody is contesting that Spider-man is notable. The fictional history of Spider-man on the other hand isn't. If it were, reliable secondary sources would exist. They don't. This article is based entirely on primary sources, which causes it to fail WP:OR. In fact, this is so fundamental to what we are here that it is part of [Wikipedia:Five pillars]]. As for this being an abuse of AfD, sorry but wrong. Consensus can change, and this article was last nominated more than a year and a half ago. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with significant trim, or redirect (but not merge) - I think Tenebrae really helped me make up my mind about that one. If someone is willing to put in the work to pare it down to maybe 1/3 ot 1/4 of its current length, and at least get a start on writing it from an out-of-universe perspective using reliable secondary sources then it is worth it to me to keep; otherwise, redirect for now until someone is willing to work on it in that respect. BOZ (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We know that nobody will actually do that work, the people voting "keep and rewrite" know that nobody will do the work - we'll be back here in 12 months. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, which is why I'm fine with a redirect. Note that I say keep only with a significant trim and the start of a rewrite, meaning that needs to happen like now, not some promised future date like "oh yeah, we'll definitely do that" because then we would be back here in 12 months; I'll favor a redirect now over that scenario. BOZ (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last deletion discussion closed with significant voices to clean the article up, source it properly, trim it, etc. What's happened? Since the October 2008, 35 new references have been added, all...all...to primary sources. Do we wait another year and a half for someone to come forward with reliable secondary sources? 5 years? 20? When does an article simply fail Wikipedia:Notability? Or do we just keep articles around forever because maybe someday there will be secondary sources? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the "I'm fine with a redirect" part, or do you figure the loudest complainer always wins an argument? I'm not advocating waiting years for this to get cleaned up, I'm advocating, let's see... this AFD has 5 days to go, so let's say... yeah, I'm willing to give it 5 days. If cleanup hasn't begun in earnest within the next 5 days, then let's go with a redirect. Happy? BOZ (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't attacking you BOZ, and I don't need to be attacked. In all honesty, I intended to remove my comments that you are responding to, as I copied them to my later deleting support below, but forgot to remove them. If you're fine with it, you can remove this comment from me, your comment responding to me, and my comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blatant Delete History of Superman is encyclopedic (though it too needs references). This article isn't. Where this belongs is at [Marvel Comics Wikia]. This article blatantly fails no original research policy, as all of it is sourced to primary sources. ALL of it. The last deletion discussion closed with significant voices to clean the article up, source it properly, trim it, etc. Since then, 35 sources have been added; all of them to primary sources. Still badly fails WP:RS. Badly fails Wikipedia:Notability. Fails WP:OR for basing everything on primary sources. All of these issues were extant 1.5 years ago. They're still extant now, with no sign that it's ever going to improve. If there were reliable secondary sources, they would have been found by now. We don't keep articles around for 50 years hoping that some day, somehow, somewhere, somebody is going to find a bevy of secondary sources on this. Even if you could find reliable secondary sources (which don't exist) it would need to be rewritten to the style of History of Superman. This article has existed for more than three years. It's not going to get better. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to address a couple of contentions that have been made that may or may not be accurate.
First, I would not say "reliable secondary sources...don't exist." In fact, copious secondary sources exist for, for instance, a history of the character Spider-Man. Just glancing at my bookshelf, I see Steve Saffel's Spider-Man the Icon, Peter Sanderson's Marvel Universe, Les Daniels' Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades..., about a hundred issues of Comic Book Artist, Alter Ego and other magazines, academic books like Bradford W. Wright's Comic Book Nation and much, much more. This only scratches the surface.
Secondly, I'm not sure it's accurate to state that those advocating trims of fancruft and a more scholarly style will never put our convictions to practice. I've seen many of my colleagues, such as some of the ones here plus User:Pepso2, User:Hiding and others, to give just a couple of examples, who have done great work adding references and citations. I would humbly add my own body of work. We're on no deadline; it's fine for things to be fixed over time.
I think if there's anything we can do to help, it's to put together a draft policy on fictional histories, so that when some of our more fannish and less encyclopedically oriented brethren start adding scads of fictional plot, we can simply remove it, point to the policy (assuming it passes muster) and stop the argument and the plot-bloat right there. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus it would help establish a target for future articles to aim at rather than having to reinvent the wheel every time and, even better, we could largely avoid problems like this getting so out-of-hand as we'd have headed things off at the pass long before it got to this level. (Emperor (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • If you believe secondary sources exist, then add them. Prove me wrong. I often see people toss out "no deadline" as a keep argument for fiction articles. First, WP:DEADLINE is an essay. It's not policy, or even guideline. It's just an essay encapsulating some ideas some editors have had. It hasn't achieved any sort of consensus or community support. This article has existed for more than three years now and has existed for all that time without secondary sources. The last AfD strongly suggested various improvements to this article, none of which was done. How long are we supposed to wait? If we are to keep this article, then there's no reason to ever delete any article for violating WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:PLOT. We might as well vacate those policies and guideline (NOT essays, mind you) since we can invoke WP:DEADLINE, an essay, and trump policy and guideline.
  • We already have policies that guide us on how to write articles. This article violates a large swath of them. Re: "Less encyclopedically oriented brethren" - this article is a monument to non-encyclopedic. 84 sources, and all of them to primary sources. This isn't Wikia. There's already plenty of basis in policy to completely gut this article right now. WP:PLOT: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works". Is there any discussion of real world impact of the fictional history of Spider-man? No. Is there any evidence of its significance? No. Are there any secondary sources? No. And on and on. Y
  • You are biased by your own bookshelf. Look at this, in as much as you can, from a dispassionate perspective. If the fictional history of Spider-man is notable, then prove it. Don't invoke WP:DEADLINE and grant more years of this article languishing in the abysmal state its in. It's had 3+ years in the sun, and not one secondary source has been provided. Prove me wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how you can have it both ways - you constantly challenge that there are secondary sources, then when examples are provided claim they are a bias. The secondary sources do exist, the problem is simply they haven't been used in the article. Tenebrae has provided some, I can give you a list of other articles he's put under and other magazines and much, much more. I also support his idea that this could be used to "put together a draft policy on fictional histories" and Emperor's thought it would "help establish a target for future articles to aim at". And I'm not sure why it's such an imperative that it's deleted right now when clearly the subject has possibilities, can provide such a pointer to the future and is nowhere near as bad as the hundreds of extremely poor articles that clearly violate so many rules and conventions with no chance of anyone improving them.
Without using this as a chance to improve things generally, this will just end up as a minor storm. The problem wouldn't have arisen if Spider-man was a limited or short-run title - the history would have been stuffed onto the one page without any citations and nobody would have turned a hair ever. Deleting, in the end pretty much on the basis of time, doesn't make the problem disappear.
I'd also suggest that Spider-Man's fictional history is important (in context) in itself. It's already agreed that Spider-Man as a subject is valid, and the reason for his historic value to comics as being the result of the considerable difference in characterisation to other comics of the day - 'the Marvel Method' - is well-documented in articles and interviews with Lee, Kirby et al down the years. Later storylines, such as the death of Mary Jane and the black costume, were also key to sales figures and public perception and press coverage of comics. Archiveangel (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here. I don't understand Hammersoft's belligerence, and I don't even know what "biased by [my] bookshelf" means. Secondary sources exist. As for deadline being an essay and not policy: Of course. It's simply a way of asking, "What's the rush?" We're all doing this voluntarily in-between jobs, family and other commitments, after all. Let's all remain civil.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Spider-Man based on how much trimming is done, per Tenebrae's reasoning above and the existence of History of Superman. If there's enough information left for it to stand as its own article, then keep it; if not, merge what's left. Random the Scrambled (?) 03:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • History of Superman is an entirely different sort of article. It's not a fictional history. It's the real world history of the fictional character. This article can't be trimmed to meet that standard. It would have to be re-written from the ground up and become not the fictional history. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then, but we've already concluded that reliable secondary sources do indeed exist. Therefore, this article can be rewritten so it doesn't violate WP:OR, and deleting it would be counterproductive. Random the Scrambled (?) 00:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Regardless of the current state of this article, there exists enough independent, reliable commentary on the various story lines of spider-man to create 10 such articles, each with 90% out of universe commentary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see several responses above Archiveangel (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • KEEP Just because this is a fictional universe it does not make it less notable. If Spider Man were a one off series of comic books and that was that I would say put it all in one article. Spider man is just such a big franchise, a collection of different incarnations. It takes a separate article to discuss any of this in a way that makes any sense whatsoever.--Hfarmer (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The universe is notable, as shown by the Spider-Man article. This is an AfD about the fictional history of that character. The fictional history isn't notable. We evaluate that based on the lack of reliable secondary source for this fictional history. All of these sources for this article are primary sources. Without those secondary sources, this is all original research. If all we needed to assert notability were primary sources, then anyone could write a book, and cite the book as evidence it's notable. Just because the fictional history of Spider-man has been written doesn't make it notable. It has to have been written about by third-parties. That hasn't happened here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


On reflection, what's the difference between having a detailed plot synopsis for superhero characters and individual plot synopses for (picking at random from the house viewing list) Desperate Housewives, House, Supernatural, the Stargate franchise, The Simpsons ... other than that the Spider-Man case under the microscope here is a lot smaller than the above mentioned. Not to mention there's absolutely zero secondary source in most of the examples I've mentioned. Perhaps a little consistency needs to be considered before individual hack and slash at a weak example. Archiveangel (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So other stuff exists? So what? By that logic, we can't do clean-up anywhere, unless we do it everywhere at once. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see stasis as the logical conclusion. My argument is - if this style of article exists in a similar form somewhere else, then we should look at whether it is part of the consensus or an aberration. If it's part of the consensus, then is Wikipedia Comics applying Wikipedia rules in a different manner? If it is, why is it different? and is that to the detriment of the Project? Once you've established whether the article fits the general established consensus, then look at the article itself and decide whether it's to be deleted because it doesn't, or is kept. There has to be a clear system to decide such things or the system is deficient. This is possibly an example where the sytem is deficient, or it could be that Wikipedia Comics has drifted (or indeed perhaps it hasn't but the rest of Wikipedia has). Testing will establish, and, as others have said, set the template for the future.
That steps back and takes the argument out of personal feeling in any direction and directly into setting the standard by consensus, which surely is what this should be about.Archiveangel (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominated by the same guy who nominated it last time I see. Spider man has been around for 48 years, appearing in several long running comic books at once, plus countless crossovers into other series, and special issues. That's a lot of history, and its only logical to put it in a separate article. Remember, AFD is not cleanup. Its to decide if an article's subject is notable. If you have a problem with the article, discuss it on that article's talk page, and work it out. Dream Focus 23:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off... The last AfD. It closed over 18 months ago as "No consensus". As such it can be revisited after a reasonable, and generally short (3-4 weeks seems the minimum polite wait) period. Even a close as "Keep" can be revisited after a suitable period. The fact that it was kicked off by the same editor that started this AfD is irrelevant. Bringing it up isn't anywhere near a good argument for closing this one as a "Keep" since it is an attack on the editor not a defence of the article.
      As far as defending, or rescuing this article... I'm really not seeing any justifiable defenses or reasons for this article to exist under the policies or guide lines Wikipedia has in place. (And this is going to cover items from a number of posts here, sorry.) It is a pure, unabashed plot dump. There is zero context presented other than with in the more-or-less current continuity of the Marvel Universe. That violates the spirit and intent, if not the current wording of WP:NOTPLOT. Trotting out "other articles are written the same way" doesn't make the problem go a way, it just points out there is more work to be done in bringing the articles up to standards. And while on that point - using television episodes to try and sell the idea of "plot only articles are acceptable" doesn't fly. Most of the episode articles that have avoided merging or deletion have some degree of secondary source material and/or real world context incorporated into the articles. "Notability" has also been brought up. Yes, Spider-Man is indeed a very notable character. But not all of the stories from the ~1000 issues of various comic book title featuring the character are notable. Nor are the bulk of them relevant for a summary of the character's in story history for a general encyclopedia article. Having an article set up to accommodate inclusion of the unneeded minutia is creating a bad content fork.
      Lastly, an editor up thread commented that there are enough secondary sources to add add real world context and inflate this article to 10 times its current size. Honestly, that would be nice to see since it would eliminate the chronic problems this article has had. However, I don't hold out hope that such editing and inclusion will occur with the current article. This is the 3rd time in three years that the article has been tagged for AfD. The previous 2 AfDs ended with what amounts to "If it's broken, fix it through editing. There is no deadline." I'm sorry, it isn't being fixed. It's being left, or kept as is. Deleting it seems the only way to actually allowing an improved version of this to be put up. - J Greb (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No good reason for this page to be separate from the main page of Spider-Man; scope of article is arbitrary; given the contradictory sources the content must by definition be original research or synthesis. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Most of it): My judgement is that each of the sections are not too bloated, and as long as there is no irrelevant details it will be fine. The relationship with other heroes section is the only thing that needs to go since it is more off topic and can be Merged (Depending on character) to the supporting characters section with a small summary. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article is a valid split of history from the main Spider-man article. At one point in time, it was probably a part of the main article, but its extremely increasing length, considering the amount of history Spider-man has, made it necessary to split it into a separate article. If the problem that the Delete voters have with the article is that it isn't referenced well enough, like Superman's history page, then that is something that needs to be rectified, though it is not something that would be quite that hard to do, I don't think. In a way, it is more of a content issue. All in all, this article is notable. SilverserenC 00:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, part of my problem is that there is no such thing as a "fictional history of Spider-Man". There's a mess of stories in multiple continuities that, even within any one continuity, are outright contradictory. There's nothing to be gained here that isn't more appropriately covered in a publication history of Spider-Man and synopses of notable storylines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a publication history article though? If not, then I do believe that this should be changed to be as such. Of course, that is a content change. SilverserenC 01:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The publication histories are purported to be covered by the various titles (Amazing Spider-Man (comic book), Spider-Man 2099, etc). Which has the neat side product of allowing the differing continuities to be treated separately. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there should be a main root article that uses summary style to link to the various types of publications. Because readers are probably going to type in "History of Spiderman" or "Publication History of Spiderman" and they're going to run into a brick wall. SilverserenC 01:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is interesting, useful, and popular, and looks like a lot of work has gone into it, but it's completely out of line with a number of wikipedia policies and the scope of this encyclopedia. For example: We are tertiary source, meaning our articles should draw from secondary sources; this article is all based on primary sources. Yilloslime TC 04:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In respect of the primary source point, we've already established that secondary sources exist, just haven't been utilised Archiveangel (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have secondary sources that I am willing to use to fix this article. I had been under the mistaken impression that the primary sources would be better to use than the secondary. I have not added them because I found about my misconception from this discussion to delete the page and I do not want to waste my time (because it will take lots of it) to add in the secondary sources if it is going to be deleted anyways. People's complaints that it has languished in the sun for years without correction are probably because people were unaware of the need to correct this. Several editors have mentioned having secondary sources, if this article is allowed to continue and we make a concerted effort the article could be fixed in a few months time. I realize this is a weak argument to keep the article, but it's all I can offer. Spidey104contribs 15:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wouldn't hurt to add some secondary sources, but without totally retooling it, the meat of the article will still rely primarily on primary sources, and that's a big problem. Yilloslime TC 16:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a real problem; start small, by introducing them here and there. Then, you can start to trim out stuff which is overly descriptive and reliant on primary sources only. Go back and forth, even. There's no need to rush, and I'm sure just about everyone commenting here would be more than willing to see what you can do with an earnest effort. Most people are arguing to delete based on lack of secondary sources, but if you can add them then many will change their minds. BOZ (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how the current article in the current form can be rescued; it was completely misconceived from the start. The best thing to do, if anybody is really keen, is to start completely from scratch without paying any attention to the current version. The current article goes like "Spiderman was born as the son of such-and-such... and then he did this... and then he did that..." etc. etc. All completely in-universe, and without any references to secondary sources. That is, all of it is just pure original research. But look at History of Superman, which may be a good example (although references are a bit thin even there). It deals with how the character was first conceived, how it was developed by different authors in different periods, how it was received by the public, etc. Now that is a good starting point, an "out-of-universe" perspective. If something like that can be done here, it would be a good thing. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and start a merge discussion if necessary... this reeks of original research from primary sources.. we cover biography in articles about the character themselves, with more detail in articles about episodes/books... Arskwad (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient cultural importance to deserve a decent sized 'in universe' article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This logic, I must submit, is completely wrong. "Sufficient cultural importance" deserves a "decent sized 'in universe' article" now? Since when? Even an article on Hamlet sourced exclusively to Shakespeare (without any secondary sources), or an article on Don Quixote sourced exclusively to Cervantes, would be equally inadmissible, being original research. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a clear, obvious, textbook example of original research. Everything is sourced to primary sources -- not a single secondary source in sight. Moreover, information has been collated from many different, disparate primary sources -- a textbook example of WP:SYN. Want me to quote a policy on that? How about this: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." (From WP:OR). -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would very much like to close this as delete, but I recognize I am not impartial enough to do so. Therefore, strong delete as an utter failure of WP:NOR and WP:SYN. This is entirely original research, and the suggestion of cleanup has been present since the last AFD nearly two years ago. Time to recognize that the cleanup's not going to happen and the article has to go. Could be transwikied to an appropriate Wikia. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are valid reasons being given on both sides of the argument, but "cleanup's not going to happen" is not one of them unless we have the power to absolutely foresee the future.
    My feeling is we have a rare opportunity to make this article of exemplar of how a fictional character's history, a useful resource for journalists and academics, can be done with secondary sourcing and encyclopedic tone and context. If we can do that once, then we will have a model that we can point to that will help rid the Project of fictional-bio fancruft while still providing useful information. --Tenebrae (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you not think that if anyone was capable of and willing to perform the necessary cleanup, that they have had enough time to do so? Stifle (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STFS[edit]

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

Technical info on non-notable (at least the article does not ascertain why it is notable) savefile format. No sources. Merge to X-box at best. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or if absolutely necessary disambiguate as "STFS" also stands for "Same track file system", a term used in computer science and engineering. Otherwise, there's nothing for verifiability behind the content here. Doesn't even look like it's an article, just some instructions/documentation. –MuZemike 15:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No need to redirect to Same track file system, given that the article doesn't exist. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to FATX, the Xbox file table system. Having all of the technical data for the hard drive system in one place would be best -- given there are sources to back this up. --Teancum (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can anyone find a reliable source for this? All I can find are shady web sites. I assume it's proprietary information that MS chose to not document. Pcap ping 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume this is specification a game developer would receive after receiving rights to develop their game for xbox. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt you need to know the internals of the file system to write games using it. It surely has an API. It's more likely this info was reverse engineered. Pcap ping 20:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You really do if you write for handlends or anything smaller. XBox probably has APIs for that, definitely for newbie stuff like XNA or whatnot. But I am pretty sure developers do get access to this and serious developers optimize save/load stuff. Some may not need or care about it but that's their problem. Alas, this does look rev-engineered. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  21:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V - No, couldn't find a source. A handful of forums; no news, book or scholar hits. Marasmusine (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:V. While it's possible that sources exist, they likely require an NDA. I don't object to such information in Wikipedia as long the presumptive source is at least identified, even if inaccessible to the public, but that's not even attempted here. Pcap ping 15:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A discussion on whether to merge or not can take place on the talk page if desired. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is little more than a POV WP:Fork desinged as a dumping ground for material that isnt allowedin the parent article, Joe Arpaio. Delete/Merge WVBluefield (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to either the Maricopa County Sheriff article or the Joe Arpaio article. Joal Beal (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without redirect. All this information was added as a single block by Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) who then edit-warred to keep it in. However, every item in the list is referenced, but some of them must go per WP:NOTNEWS. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless things have changed recently, you can't merge without a redirect, due to GFDL issues. Heather (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • They have changed, but a year ago, not recently — we moved to CC-BY-SA. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Schrandit (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either Maricopa County Sheriff article or Joe Arpaio article, depending on relevancy. -MidnightDesert (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly enough material for a stand alone article, clearly a notable subject, most of the page is well referenced. I don't see how deleting this page would improve the project. @nom- the parent article is Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, if you have an issue with where content is, you should first try to resolve it on the WP:talk page before going straight to an AfD, there appears to be no attempt beforehand to do this. Indeed, if you think there are WP:POV issues; discuss them first before heading right over here. An Afd should be the last step, not the first, as in this case. Outback the koala (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge SImpler and better to combine in one article. The length would still be reasonable. A "controversy" fork is something to be avoided if at all possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge better in one article. Main article is plenty small enough to accommodate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Major changes/expansion made to the page I noticed an editor the day of the nomination had gutted a major portion (24,000 bytes) of the article. I have restored this information. Outback the koala (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Covers major newsworthy events that would not fit in the main article. Keeping it separate allows more detail. Besides, we have a no censorship policy. Coolgamer (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Is notable enough to stand on its own. Also serves as a crossroads between Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, which is useful because some of the controversy regards both. More importantly, there is enough notable, verifiable information on the controversy such that if it were added to Joe Arpaio or to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, it would give undue weight. You can see that that is what happened before[12]. This is particularly important for a BLP. The article contains important, notable, verifiable information that is a focus in US media.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 17:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep on the content, which the creator of the AFD argues against. The controversies are not a POV fork: they're precisely the claim-to-fame of this subject. But to merge into the other article? Maybe, if that's stylistically proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogweather (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 14:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daigo Umehara[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Daigo Umehara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's been 6 months, and the article is still unsourced. (See AfDs from July 2006 and August 2006). Arguments raised in the past for keeping this include:

  • WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --- no response necessary
  • "He's on jawiki" --- however, inclusion is not an indicator of notability, and the jawiki article doesn't cite any reliable sources either. Also note the jawiki article had an AfD in Feb 2006, but that was closed on the grounds of the article being a copyvio, and didn't get a full discussion. The article was later recreated, and no one's bothered to raise an AfD again since. (I'd do it myself, but I don't even have an account over there).
  • "He's notable in Japan, let's counter systematic bias" --- does not seem true, a search on 梅原 大吾 shows 1k GHits, but all blogs and forums. Don't see any WP:RS there either. Nor any non-trivial coverage. The only external link on the article itself is to someone's personal site.

Anyone have any new arguments as to why this should be kept, or know any reliable sources discussing him? cab 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm still a proponent of not having a Daigo article. Having one but not having an article on Shoryuken.com or Bang the Machine (a documentary about the fighting game scene in America featuring Daigo) sets a double standard as to the notability of fighting games. As it stands, the Wikipedia article is made up mainly of tournament results and quasi-legends. JuJube 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, your logic is flawed. The Governator is notable, but several of his earlier works are probably not so. McKay 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not even apples and oranges. That's apples and rocket fuel. Would you care to try an actual rebuttal this time? JuJube 00:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I myself don't find the logic of SRK being not notable to equal to Daigo being not notable. Daigo is in no way affiliated with SRK. His only relation to SRK is that he is a regular player for their main tournament (EVO), but he had also played in many other tournaments such as Tougeki.

Here's another example: there is a Wikipedia article for Ken Hoang, one of the best Super Smash Bros players in the world. But is there an article about Smashboards? Daigo and Ken are notable because they are one of the best in what they do, which is professional gaming. Are SRK and Smashboards considered one of the most notable websites, and is Bang the Machine considered a notable documentary? Are Daigo/Ken only well-known by members of SRK/Smashboards? Therefore I would say that is an insufficent reason to say Daigo not well-known enough. Afterdeath 10:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and JuJube. Edeans 03:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only references are trivial.-MsHyde 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons above and because I think I favored deletion when he was mentioned on other AfD's. I don't have my reasons from then on hand though.--T. Anthony 04:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JuJube. Even as an avid follower of the competitive fighting game community, I can't say Daigo's got enough coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 06:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shame on all you. Why do we have so many deletionists‽ (see below) McKay 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According this page, Japanese arcade game magazines have several articles about him and interviews with him. According to this, a booklet and DVD package about Street Fighter II competition features a 'special interview' with him. I think he meets WP:BIO. --Kusunose 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See, this is how it should work. Kusunose did a trivial amount of legwork and found that there are good sources about him. If I had any semblance of how to cite japanese sources. I'd be all over this. Until then, I'm going to put in these articles as references.
    The DVD is barely skirting the edge of WP:RS; the production house, INH, consists of six people, and the only place it seems to be orderable from is their own website. Also I'm not too clear on the business relationship between INH and Capcom; if this is a product produced under licence or commission from Capcom, then it's not an independent source. Don't know what to say about Arcadia as I'm not closely familiar with Japanese video game magazines. cab 13:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some further research shows that Arcadia Magazine's publisher Enterbrain are also the organiser of the Tougeki tournament in which Umehara participated (see bottom of [13] or enwiki's page on the subject at Tougeki - Super Battle Opera), so again, I don't think Arcadia qualifies as an independent source in this matter, but rather as a promoter with an obvious self-interest in hyping a participant in their company's tournament. Has Umehara been mentioned in more mainstream publications? cab 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as per my rebuttals above) McKay 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What rebuttal? I just see beating on a straw man. JuJube 00:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per references mentioned above Neier 12:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting, debate continuing with new information Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JuJube. MightyAtom 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, but I want to keep it. He seems notable enough, but I don't see any sources proving it (sources that say "I know a source" don't count). Find something outside of gaming websites as a sources, and that spins around to a keep. Has anyone checked gaming publications? --UsaSatsui 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources cited by Kusunose, even if in Japanese, suggest some level of notability as a tournament arcade game player. Remove any material which is not backed by reliable sources and see what happens. (jarbarf) 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please we can avoid systemic bias and make notes of the japanese articles here yuckfoo 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain exactly what systemic bias I am demonstrating here? Do you think my past contributions on Wikipedia demonstrate a systemic bias against Japan-related topics without English coverage (see my userpage, for example)? I read the articles and did some checking about the magazines in which they were published. My response was in my comment above: I don't think Arcadia qualifies as an independent source in this matter, but rather as a promoter with an obvious self-interest in hyping a participant in their company's tournament. If this guy is truly notable, he would have been noted by publications without a direct financial interest in those tournaments. This is true whether you're talking about American gamers or Japanese gamers. Third time questioning: can you provide such sources? cab 05:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with AfterDeath re: SRK.com notability. The main problem is the lack of sources. Also, WP:BASH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GizzleWizzle (talk • contribs) 07:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UAV (Video Game)[edit]

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

Looks highly WP:PROMO and WP:NOTGUIDE / WP:GAMECRUFT. Does not seem to have much (any?) proper coverage. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cademia[edit]

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google web, news, book and scholar seaches bring up nothing of substance. RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was WP:CSD#G12. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waiters Race, la Course des Garçons de Café[edit]

Waiters Race, la Course des Garçons de Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious WP:COI by the page creator. Seems like a promotion page. — Timneu22 · talk 14:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Square (Melrose)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, could be any small town's downtown area. delete UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A10. See also admission by author of original research. – B.hotep •talk• 08:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gas-fired infrared heater[edit]

Gas-fired infrared heater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe we have no speedy criteria for this (yet). This seems like an essay paper. None of this is encyclopedic; it describes heat and temperature and conduction and the like... no need for definitions here. The page is being nominated primarily because there is no context to describe the topic; it all appears to be original research. — Timneu22 · talk 13:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vandalism and probable copyvio - see the editor's other activities and in particular this diff
Not if it's WP:OR. Could be speedied per A10 though - I've tried this with the identical article Gas-fired infrared heaters andy (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. {{db-a10}} applies - duplicates existing articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created by a single-purpose account which has repeatedly vandalized infrared heater. This article has almost nothing to say about its putative topic; if it did have anyt substantial content, it would be a duplicate of material already in context at infrared heater. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Added speedy a10 tag. Originally I added speedy to the other article (with a10 as the reason) because it looked like this account created both. Weird. Anyway, that one looks good now so clearly this needs to be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factorbee[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product; article by the single-purpose author of the software. I have not found any significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • LOL @ article by single-purpose author!!! it's a so funny expression haha!!!!!! I told you this also via email, as long as the article is neutral and the information true, who cares if i'm writing it!!!!!! Jimbo Wales wrote his own wikipedia page too lol!!!!! If the first ever made tor browser bundle for linux isn't notable, you've as well to delete a ten thousands of other pages of software!!!! I think that you're just jealous because you didn't anything of good in your life to add to wikipedia, but i made factorbee (and not only it), and yeah it's great!!! As for my "conflict of interest", it's of course true that i made factorbee, «The conflict of interest is that you are involved with Factorbee» so why not to deny Jimbo Wales to edit articles on wikipedia?! He has involvements with this website too!!! lololol!!!!!!! For sure you couldn't find a more nonsense reason!!!!! Why do you look at who's writing, in place of looking at what one is actually writing!!! Btw, the article contains only technical information, there isn't one non-neutral point of view; even if you look for it!!!! You just began to attack factorbee's article and you decided to delete it two days after i published it!!! lol it's not even complete -- however even deleting that article won't fill up your empty life!!!! if you measure your life and experience counting the edits you've done on wikipedia, and a product looking at the number of search results from Google (i image you use it, the worst web search engine and multinational company ever); it's normal if you cannot understand what is factorbee nor what's useful for!!!!! bye!!!!!! --bee (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it!! Of course, i'm for keeping it!!!! --bee (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources just aren't there to demonstrate notability I'm afraid. Quantpole (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable software; article written by an SPA by user with clear conflict of interest Nuwewsco (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher education institutes in sri lanka[edit]

Higher education institutes in sri lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason to have a Higher education institutes in sri lanka that does not list universities, when there is a separate article on the subject. What I see is that this is an article created without refs to promote a certain group of companies that offer degrees from other universities. It is more of a advertisement than a encyclopedic article. Therefore I state it should be deleted. Cossde (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not represent any specific Higher education institutes in sri lanka. This is belongs to [[www.esoft.lk}]] personal IT institute . This is self promotional work using Wikipedia encyclopedia . I strongly nominate to delete this usefulness.wipe 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC);

Someone asked that very same question in the other listing!Mandsford 12:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sry that was my mistake. Cossde (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no arguments for deletion. Fences&Windows 00:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catastrophic illness[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to warrant its own article, per WP:NOTDICT. Perhaps it could be made into a disambiguation page with a brief description such as the one currently on the page, redirecting to various illnesses deemed "catastrophic", however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think delete is more appropriate though; what could be classified as "catastrophic" illness is the subject of debate, essentially. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Illness which would be improved by this referenced content. Not all illnesses are "catastrophic." There are numerous books and magazine or medical journal articles found at Google book search which have "catastrophic illness" as their subject: [14]. If the section at Illness there becomes too long, then a separate article could probably be spun off. There is no policy or guideline reason it could not be a separate article now, but the short article at present could be a part of the main article. It is a topic of concern worldwide, as shown by a Taiwan article [15]. Far more than a dicdef. Edison (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be a notable concept. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not seem to warrant an AFD as the process described at WP:BEFORE has yet to be exhausted. The topic is notable, being the subject of numerous books. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many books [16] have been written about this thing, covering it in detail. Dream Focus 10:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination due to WP:SNOWBALL. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher education institutes in sri lanka[edit]

Higher education institutes in sri lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason to have a Higher education institutes in sri lanka that does not list universities, when there is a separate article on the subject. What I see is that this is an article created without refs to promote a certain group of companies that offer degrees from other universities. It is more of a advertisement than a encyclopedic article. Therefore I state it should be deleted. Cossde (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not represent any specific Higher education institutes in sri lanka. This is belongs to [[www.esoft.lk}]] personal IT institute . This is self promotional work using Wikipedia encyclopedia . I strongly nominate to delete this usefulness.wipe 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC);

Someone asked that very same question in the other listing!Mandsford 12:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sry that was my mistake. Cossde (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per A7. TNXMan 13:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JAT Capital Management, LP[edit]

JAT Capital Management, LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication of the importance or notability of this company. The article simply states that the company exists, and then discusses the Founder and Portfolio manager of the company. Further, the original editor was in violation of WP:ORGNAME and WP:COI, and the new editor also seems to have edited only this page. Speedy tag was removed by these two editors (twice). In short, the article is nominated because of lack of third-party sources, no notability, and indication of promotional editing. — Timneu22 · talk 12:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think this is accurate. If you do a search on Google, you will plenty of interest from various parties. I think it is important for Wikipedia to include this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatcapital (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This company is a Tiger Fund cub, which is notable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Brazil earthquake[edit]

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

Non-notable small earthquake with very little effects. Justmeagain83 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Pyrenees earthquake[edit]

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

Non-notable minor earthquake which only caused a small amount of shaking for a few seconds. Fails WP:EVENT. Justmeagain83 (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would seem to me that ever since the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the slightest tremor generates a Wikipedia article regardless of impact. Of course, some earthquakes are notable even with only minor damage (see for example 1988 Saguenay earthquake), but then there are those that are forgotten merely a week after the event. This one seems to fit into that category. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Pyrenees is no stranger to earthquakes of this size, and there's nothing overly special about this particular one. RapidR (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I remember the 1988 Saguenay earthquake, and it actually had a foreshock of the magnitude of the earthquake under AfD. The foreshock doesn't have its own article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The infobox was probably the worst thing that ever happened for the earthquake project, because it's too easy to start an article without worrying about things like notability. I think Blanchard is right on the money on this one-- after the Haiti quake, there's been a race to be the first person to create an article about any reported tremor afterward. Unfortunately, the misguided attempt to fill up the Template: Earthquakes in 2010 template means that people looking for the historic February 27 earthquake in Chile can't pick it out from (I'm not making this up) ten other articles about lesser tremors in Chile so far this year. Mandsford 13:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eirini Sevastou[edit]

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

There's nothing to say here. She's a singing competition contestant who either never went on to pursue this career or to make a mark in the market. Imperatore (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.4meter4 (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Besides, her own website listed doesn't even seem to work anymore. Greekboy (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  05:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Norman, MD[edit]

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

Not sure whether this person is notable per WP:BIO, but it definitely looks like a WP:AUTO by User:Markslatham and/or User:Rvflyboy. bender235 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, the good news is that he is recognized as an expert in his field and has six patents so far on surgical techniques that he has invented and that he's improved the lives of many people, including extending the lives of a good deal of them. The bad news is that he doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE, so we'll have arguments over whether what he does is important. Wikipedia builds shrines to anybody who ever strapped on a jock in a fully professional sports league, but has few articles about physicians and surgeons because, with the bizarre priorities we have for notability. While I don't advocate automatic notability for every M.D. or professor, I think that we need to acknowledge persons who have sources that show a significant contribution to their field. Mandsford 13:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rewrite. I was really tempted to speedy delete this as G11, primarily promotional and not possibly encyclopedic without total rewriting, regardless of notability. As for notability, we need some actual third party evidence that he is as well recognized as the article says he is. This is the sort of article not to accept at face value. However, looking for actual reliable evidence, he is full professor of Surgery at USF in Tampa. And his citation record is splendid, even for the medical sciences, According to Scopus, his most cited articles have citation counts of 408, 293, 240, 188 ... , with h=34. This shows him an expert in his field.
I do not think that our lack of articles on physicians is due to problems with notability: WP:PROF works nicely in this as in other subjects--its due to our problems in not having people without COI interested in writing the articles; in consequence, many of the articles we do get are basically promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh, he's notable all right. But I just spent 20 minutes cleaning up the article, it was a mess - "Dr. Norman this, Dr. Norman that." We don't refer to people by their titles here. Also, we don't normally put titles like MD, PhD, etc. in the article title (I got slapped down myself once in my early days for creating an article with "MD" in the title). It should be retitled but I'm not sure how, because there is already an article about an author named James Norman. This doctor doesn't seem to use a middle name or middle initial, even in his published writing, so I'm not sure how to differentiate him. --MelanieN (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that early versions of the article referred to him as James Glenn Norman. In fact the article was originally titled James Glenn Norman, but sombody named User:Rvflyboy changed it to James "Jim" Norman MD, with the comment "middle name incorrect". He later changed the title again to the current James Norman, MD. That user has done a lot of editing of this article and may have a personal connection to the good doctor, so perhaps he/she could be contacted about what to call the article. --MelanieN (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC) P.S. Duh! I hadn't looked at Rvflyboy's userpage - it's almost certainly the good doctor himself, creator and prime editor of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the article should be moved to James Norman (surgeon). --bender235 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, that works. And at the same time maybe James Norman should be moved to James Norman (author) since the surgeon is at least as notable as the author. --MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated a discussion at the article talk page not realizing it was discussed already here. As I noted there, I'm fine with both options. However, if we were to move the other Norman to James Norman (author), best we allow this Norman to "take over" James Norman. --PinkBull 02:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I apologize for not doing Wikipedia properly. I am markslatham and I created the article because three friends of mine coincidentally talked to me over a four month period and all three wives had life changing surgery with this Doctor. I looked him up in PubMed and found that he was an expert, so I thought I would put it in wikipedia. This was my first and only attempt and I appreciate all of the editors comments and changes and the time they put into keeping the world informed. Please tell me what to do to keep this informtion on Wikipedia. There are many people with this disease that can benefit from an expert in the field such as Doctor Norman. I will be glad to figure out how to make any changes necessary so this article may help others --User:markslatham —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Yiakoulis[edit]

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

Artist with no discography. She is, at best, notable to her local music scene where she performs in unsubstantial venues, with the exception of having played at Sydney Opera House as an opening act for Greek artist Eleftheria Arvanitaki. Bio does not point to anything notable, writing style is heavy in POV, and it is directly copied from her website! Imperatore (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Fisher (fashion designer)[edit]

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

Vanity page Mefistofele (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. When footnotes directly point to organization main webpages, there's a citing and sourcing problem.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of details about his first 20 years of existence (he graduated from high school and is going to be going to college) and almost nothing about what he's contributed to the world of fashion design. There are all sorts of WP:BLP issues as well with an autobiography that gives his opinions of the people in his life. Too bad, in a way, that it has to be deleted-- imagine being in high school, and Mom shows you this article and says, "He's already worth seven million dollars, and you're working at Subway this summer. Why can't you be more like Nathan Fisher?" Good luck to Nate in the future. Mandsford 13:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments, additionally, I know Nate Fisher, who incidentally wrote this very article about himself.Mmuroya (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bet none of you have been as successful as me by the time you were 19... Go ahead and verify the sources instead of trying to just wipe this page. ~*Nate Fisher*~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.224.101 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't establish notability through reliable sources. Solely a vanity page with no encyclopedic value. Gobonobo T C 19:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operanto[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for words made up one day in May. This is sourced only to a blog written by its inventor, who also posted the article. A nice word, but for an article on a neologism Wikipedia requires much more documented evidence of widespread use, and treatment in secondary sources. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neologism. It doesn't even follow italian diminutive structure.--Savonneux (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The creator is the same person who is claimed to have coined the word, and the only source is his personal blog. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No, it's not about an opera that is sung in Esperanto. Article's author made up a word from two other words, which I've already forgotten. Mandsford 13:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this isn't WP:MADEUP, then nothing is. We have to dispense with this page, or with WP:MADEUP. Chris the speller (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent (internet radio) with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salt&light radio[edit]

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

I fail to see the significance of this radio show, and I'm unable to find reliable third-party coverage. The fact that they have been on the air "103 days" does not seem to make this a notable company. Further, it appears the page's creator has been warned of promotional edits, and there is clearly a conflict of interest by the editor. — Timneu22 · talk 12:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. These are becoming a bloody mess. The lot of you need to metaphorically sit down somewhere and hash out a notability guideline for these articles. Hint: "All of them are notable" is clearly NOT consensus. In addition, some of you -- on both sides of the debate -- are acting very badly toward fellow editors. This discussion is filled with assumptions of bad faith and borderline personal attacks. Those of you responsible -- and I'm fairly sure you know who you are -- may consider yourselves duly warned. If you cannot discuss these articles productively, then you might consider directing your editorial attention elsewhere, rather than attacking those who assert a different opinion. This is more or less a procedural close, as the debate is likely too toxic to produce anything of real use. No bar to renomination after a reasonable attempt to work out an acceptable guideline. Shimeru (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Barbados relations[edit]

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

noting the last AfD was no consensus. the fact that the Australian government decided to move its embassy off Barbados says something about relations. and the absence of embassy is not due to no diplomatic relations and history of sanctions, like the reason for no US embassies in Cuba, north korea, Iran like some might say. 3 of the sources are simply direct from the Australian government. one source says "Both nations have given some consideration for the signing of a double taxation agreement between their two nations" giving consideration to what is one of the most basic agreements is not really concrete. other than that most of the coverage relates to sporting field [18]. those using the argument that coverage must exist in national newspapers in national languages, well Australia and Barbados both have English as main languages. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any that were deleted, the smaller ones were merged into one larger article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
over a 100 were deleted not redirected nor merged. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that number was just pulled from your butt. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All this talking past eachother is not really useful. The history of these bilateral relation AfDs is a battlefield, but many marginal articles have been kept and some have been deleted. There is simply a lack of consensus in how to deal with a large % of these articles.--Milowent (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
would suggest WP:NPA applies here. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Biruitorul, you keep saying that in every article like this. That was never established. More often than not, people seem to state that the relationship between two nations is in fact notable. Dream Focus 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"More often than not, people seem to state that the relationship between two nations is in fact notable." that is not true. if they were automatically notable it is not proven through WP:CONSENSUS of many of being deleted. the fact is not all combinations are inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes, the two have relations. No, they are not notable because they, as such, have not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Surely the distinction isn't that hard to grasp? - Biruitorul Talk 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been in the news. It would seem that Biruitorul just hasn't been reading the right news. BBCCaribbean.com, CaribbeanNetNews, Caribbean360.com, CaribbeanPressReleases.com, and all the other 30-40+ various Caribbean newspapers. I haven't had a chance to get to this article as there are other Caribbean articles that require re-writes *and* referencing. So there are other articles that I've been pulling together references on. Barbados' main article requires a massive re-write for example. But Australia has been very engaged in the region in the past few months. For example, just today the government of Australia announced they would pay for the reconstruction of the Parliament building in Grenada.[19] In Barbados, Australia just recently held a meeting (either last month or the month before) talking about several new spending initiatives that they will be undertaking in Barbados and other islands.

Here's the results of some of those recent meetings:

CaribDigita (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

these mainly refer to Australia's relationship with a group of countries in Caribbean and not specific Australia-Barbados relations. if this was Australia-CARICOM relations it would be appropriate. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as no consensus - Noting the ridiculous fracas over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iceland–Mexico_relations_(2nd_nomination), which conerns a bilateral relations article with a similar level of questionable notability but thorough sourcing, it seems that there is no consensus at this time to delete articles of this nature. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily close as no consensus - and ban User:LibStar from nominating bilateral relations articles over and over again. If a bilateral relations articles is truly not notable someone else will eventually nominate the article, and we will not have to deal with disruptive and pointy nominations such as this one. Pantherskin (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
read my nomination, I have given my reasons for how I believe it fails notability standards ie a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, renomination is permitted particularly if the last AfD was no consensus and no subsequent discovery of more sources. asking to close as no consensus is just a masquerade for wanting to keep it. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you both avoid questioning each other's motivations we'll get a better result. LibStar is perfectly entitled to nominate any article that (he?) believes in good faith should be deleted, and (as my vote demonstrates) an editor can believe that this article should be deleted and still recognise the fact that there's nothing remotely like community consensus to delete well-sourced minor bilateral relations articles. LibStar and others should probably hold off on making more nominations until there's community consensus though, so as to avoid wasting everyone's time with a raft of these hard-fought and unproductive debates. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks DustFormsWords, I have never seen "Speedily close as no consensus " except when something is renominated immediately after surviving an AfD. This article lacks sources as one of the weakest bilateral ones, hence my nomination. The problem is that people are headfast keep or delete, I actually recently !voted keep on a bilateral AfD so am not intent on deleting all of them. in fact many (not all) containing pairs of large countries are notable. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen it before I used it in the other one either but once a debate reaches 20-something participants where at least some members of both sides are experienced, intelligent Wikipedians citing policy, it's pretty clear that there's not going to be a community consensus to delete. That's what happened at Mexico-Iceland and, while not all bilateral relations articles are created equal, this Australia-Barbados one seems to be very similar in length, quality and sourcing to the Mexico-Iceland one. Rather than replicating what is, by this stage, a pretty heated debate in both forums, both should be closed as no consensus and the argument moved to a centralised policy discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, searches indicate me far less coverage than Mexico-Iceland. Most coverage is Australia and a group of Caribbean nations and not specifically Barbados. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There few things that are noteworthy here would suddenly become redundant if applied to each CARICOM country (they would be pasted into several articles for CARICOM members and Australia). Maybe a pan-CARICOM article is in order instead, but it's quite clear these articles only exist as cruft, and prioritize things that we would otherwise consider irrelevant, and no one would ever miss. Why? The usual process: stub/sub-standard article -> AfD(s) -> spurious "rescue" attempt -> desperate search for all kinds of sources -> trivia collection/ranting/inventory of photo-ops. Dahn (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks references to establish notability and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's website entry on the relationship here describes only very limited contact between the two countries, most of which apparantly takes place through the Commonwealth rather than directly. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially no relations to speak of; lack of sources speaks volumes. Dahn's point, and CARICOM suggestion, are both excellent. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Groubani style map has been added. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
could you please explain your keep argument. how does it meet WP:N or WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as no consensus As the nominator himself states above that he felt the close by User:One of this nominator's last nomination of this article was incorrect, per guideline, that would call for a review of the close, not sending an article back again to AFD as many times as is needed in a hope that he eventually wears down those who disagree with him. I am also quite concerned that he seems to have made attempted reversal of so many "relations" article closes his personal grail... almost WP:POINTY in scope. His recent edits to the article[20] show his wish that it be seen in its worst light. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let an admin close the debate. We don't need to guide closing admins in doing their job. And there is absolutely nothing improper about this nomination after 12 months since the last AfD. There is nothing about this relationship that is notable. The relationship has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources so it is impossible to have a reliable article. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The relations of these two countries are even less notable than most on the world stage. None of the sources study the topic as a whole in that context, but merely report events. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep , notable topic covered by several RS (I count 10 in the article), and which represents an essential contribute of WP, exactly for the reason that it is an obscure but notable subject we successfully managed to cover in a good fashion. The article deserves endorsement and improvement, not deletion. And please trout LibStar for the disruptive and time-wasting book burning exercise in attempting to delete notable articles. --Cyclopiatalk 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
three of the sources are from the Australian Government so not entirely independent of the subject. BHP Billiton has extensive operations worldwide, so simply where they operate in country X does not automatically translate to Australia-X relations (also note that BHP Billiton is no longer a full Australian company). LibStar (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Am not opposed to an organizational merge of content elsewhere, but no good reason has been offered for why verifiable content should be deleted from the project.--Milowent (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", and thus meets the GNG. Or is the associated press now seen as too cozy with the Australians to consider it truly independent? Buddy431 (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
three of the sources are from the Australian Government so not entirely independent of the subject. one source says that BHP is one firm of 3 bidding of a contract.BHP Billiton has extensive operations worldwide, so simply where they operate in country X does not automatically translate to Australia-X relations (also note that BHP Billiton is no longer a full Australian company). LibStar (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle (talk · contribs) and the general lack of substantive, germane reliable sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 15:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note—the fair-use image in the article has been nominated for deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 15:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the coverage in sources like The Barbados Advocate, the BBC, and the Australian Associated Press is good enough to convince me that this subject meets WP:N. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at recent nominations, I think there's a tendency simply look at the country names, notice that one of the two is a small country and they are on opposite sides of the world, and conclude non-notable. Some such pairs might not be notable, of even if notable have enough information for an article, but that shouldn't be assumed as a matter of course, The material here, especially as added to by RAN , is sufficient. Extensive commercial relations, with substantial reliable sources for them. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not look at the names, did you look at my gnews search? you have previously mentioned trade, embassies and agreements etc make for notable relations. there exists no bilateral agreements between these 2 countries (only multilateral CARICOM), no embassies, very little trade. they have very little not extensive commercial relatons, just BHP Billiton having a contract there. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient reliable sources to allow for a decent, stand-alone article. I think DGGs comment about the manner in which these articles seem to be nominated is quite perceptive. I also wonder whether this continuing campaign to delete these types of articles adds to the systemic bias that already privileges articles on European and US topics to the detriment of the rest of the world. -- Mattinbgn\talk
how is this systemic bias? all Australian newspapers and news services such as ABC publish online? Australia and Barbados both use English so there is no bias with non English sources. LibStar (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do think there are far too many "X-Y relations" articles on Wikipedia and some of them are plainly silly, but this one is actually reasonable given there is some history to Australia's representation in Barbados and the oil and gas stuff. Beyond that, the sources appear to exist to support this one. Orderinchaos 03:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable relation, as stated by others and plenty of sources to back that up. Dream Focus 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator is the same who sent this to AFD a year ago. I'd like to point out, once again, that many countries do not see any reason to waste money having an embassy in every single country, there no possible reason for it these days, since you can instantly communicate with anyone around the world, and very easily fly someone over to meet in person if necessary. Lack of an embassy does not signify anything. Dream Focus 14:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
embassies facilitate not only tourism but establish important trade links in a country. for example, if a Chinese company wants to do business in New Zealand, they can contact their embassy in NZ. if there is no need for embassies because one can fly or phone then why are governments opening new embassies all the time? especially in former Soviet countries and Eastern europe and emerging Asian countries especially China. a lack of an embassy is an indicator of a lack of desire for strong relations. embassies and consulates also assist large migrant populations who want to establish links with their home country, and assist tourists from home countries. Australia has a consulate in Bali due to it being one of the most popular destinations for Australians, this is not some random coincidence. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also looking at the hundreds of bilateral articles that I have seen, if 2 countries have embassies they are rarely deleted because it naturally follows that they have established links and is shown in wide coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why do countries open embassies? Beijing opened an embassy in 1992 following establishment of diplomatic ties. Even a tiny country like Vanuatu knows the value of embassies. opening of the embassy will help his government’s policy of empowering the rural population of Vanuatu through infrastructure and capacity building initiatives of course why bother opening one in China if they can fly there? LibStar (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what has the strength of relations to do with the notability of the content. To document that "Countries X and Y don't want anything to do with each other" is no less encyclopedic than the opposite. --Cyclopiatalk 14:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
they are related in terms of how much coverage they generate. of course if they have conflict they also generate coverage which is another special case. If they have "weak" or limited relations unlikely to generate coverage and therefore satisfy WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let's stick talking about coverage instead of using the embassy red herring. --Cyclopiatalk 14:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a red herring at all, out of the bilateral articles that have been deleted almost all have no embassies either way. it's an indicator of weak relations and hence often follows by coverage. same token people should stop saying "coverage exists in national newspapers" or "disruptive nomination", and not provide evidence of actual coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a red herring because it is only a vague indicator. The only thing that counts is sources availability, we don't need proxies for it. Evidence of actual coverage in national newspapers is in the article already -just look at ref 11 for example. --Cyclopiatalk 15:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please learn some logic. The fact that bilateral relationships that were deemed non notable often ones without embassies doesn't mean that not having an embassy is a good predictor of being not notable. Lots of criminals drink water; this doesn't mean drinking water makes you a criminal. --Cyclopiatalk 15:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on embassy in Barbados this is one of the rare cases where a country has decided to move their embassy to an adjacent country. the fact that Australia could afford an embassy in Barbados but moved it elsewhere is highly significant. this is not a case of Australia never having an embassy in Barbados. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant in the meaning that it is a significant fact to include in this article. Again, the fact that has been moved recently means zero on notability. WP:NTEMP : notability of stuff isn't time-dependent. --Cyclopiatalk 14:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cost of keeping an embassy open is rather high. If you don't need a staff down there full time to deal with things, then there is no possible reason to waste money for it. It doesn't mean the countries don't interact. Dream Focus 20:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to: "also looking at the hundreds of bilateral articles that I have seen, if 2 countries have embassies they are rarely deleted because it naturally follows that they have established links and is shown in wide coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)" I'd like to respond:[reply]
Do you have a list of the articles deleted? I believe they were deleted from lack of coverage, not lack of embassy. I recall many stating that lack of embassy does not signify anything. Dream Focus 20:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they were deleted for lack of coverage and not for lack of embassies per se. But it has been observed by myself, Libstar, and others that there's a very good correlation between no embassies and no coverage, and conversely if there are embassies then there are often sources. Yilloslime TC 20:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I haven't noticed that at all. A recent article was kept, despite having no embassies. [21] Is there a list of all bi-lateral articles somewhere? I see you making the same case over at another discussion [22], but the overwhelming majority of people there so far say to keep the article, there plenty of coverage even without embassies, so it'll probably be kept also. Dream Focus 06:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone who has voted in opposition to the nominator, I do however think there's been far too much focus in this AfD on the nominator's alleged intentions. I think this was a reasonable nomination made for the right reasons, and the community has responded appropriately to it by determining on the facts whether it should be retained or deleted. Orderinchaos 01:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, Orderinchaos. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that he nominated several of these things, that he had previously nominated, for deletion again, we thus having to just repeat the same discussion as before. And some of the other ones ended in keep, not just no consensus. Dream Focus 06:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there is no rule against renomination after several months. If we can't renominate why does WP allow this? simply using renomination as a basis of a "no consensus" !vote is really a masquerade for keep. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renomination is fine if relevant policies/guidelines have changed in the meantime. Otherwise, I think it's akin to forum shopping, i.e. "repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like." Yes, I know it's (unfortunately) technically allowed; it doesn't make it less dishonest IMHO. --Cyclopiatalk 09:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Okie Dialect[edit]

The result was keep, with a merge discussion highly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod. The de-prodder said the presence of a source "demonstrates notability of the subject", but it's not a question of notability (whatever that's supposed to mean with reference to languages) but one of verifiability. The article lists two sources – one online, one dead-tree – neither of which qualifies as a reliable source as neither is written from a serious, scientific linguistic point of view. It's not even easy to tell to what extent these "sources" have even been used in researching the article; in fact, the article appears to be virtually entirely original research based on editors' personal experience and observation. And what do actual linguists say about the "Okie dialect"? That the English of Oklahoma is at the interface of Southern American English and Midland American English, both of which already have articles. +Angr 11:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. +Angr 11:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have not been able to find the book mentioned as a source (Amazon.com says it's "Out of Print - Limited Availability", and WorldCat lists only three copies in Oklahoma libraries), but the identically named web page less a dictionary or a work of dialectology than a humor page. To wit: "Notice in a field: The Rancher allows walkers to cross this field for free, but the bull charges". There is no explanation or analysis of the language used, and in any case such punning is hardly unique to Oklahoma. This appears to be largely a piece of original research, possibly supported by one or two pieces of dubious "scholarship". (I say possibly since the lack of in-line or parenthetical citations makes it hard to see if there is a relationship between information on the page and information in those sources. I note that there is no reference to "twang" or syllable lengthening, to "Well-known people with an Okie accent", or to "Recordings of the Okie accent" on the cited web page.) Cnilep (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The only mention of Hardcastle's Okie Dictionary that I have been able to find is a blurb in a publisher's catalog calling it a humor collection. Hardcastle appears to have been a novelist from Oklahoma. Cnilep (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and rename "Oklahoma dialect") - At first glance I also though that this article might not meet notability requirements, however the discovery of a published book on the topic of the direct subject at hand satisfies the criteria for inclusion per WP:GNG, and it is therefore presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This topic has received significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. The book (cited in the article), and to a lesser extent the web-page (also cited), address the subject directly in detail - which meets the definition of "Significant coverage". Moorsmur (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not the only criterion for inclusion at Wikipedia, nor is it at issue here. The sources cited are not reliable; the content is not verifiable. Verifiability on the basis of reliable sources is also a requirement of Wikipedia articles, and this articles fails on that account. +Angr 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the search term "Oklahoma dialect" I found several more reliable and verifiable sources including [23][24][25][26] [27] [28] [29] which have now been added to the article. Many more exist and will be found by the editor who looks for them. Moorsmur (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked out the sources added by Moorsmur. All are problematic as either unreliable or not directly on-point. For example, neither The Dialect Survey nor the web page of the Oklahoma Historical Society use the terms "Okie" or "Okie Dialect". See Talk:Okie Dialect for details. Cnilep (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, since Moorsmur suggests renaming the page, neither refer to "Oklahoma dialect" as such, either. The Dialect Survey does, however, break out its raw data by state, therefore including a page on Oklahoma. Cnilep (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The resources that Moorsmur provided seem to be reliable with one or two exceptions. I would argue that "Okie dialect" and "Oklahoma dialect" are almost synonymous. Okie dialect may refer specifically to the migrants from Oklahoma who went to California during the Great Depression, or generally to present day Oklahomans.Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the Southern American English article has a shaded map that includes Oklahoma does not mean that this article should be merged. The real question is whether or not the article passes the general notability guidelines.Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. The question of notability is pretty much meaningless with respect to languages. (How do you determine whether a source is "independent of" a language?) The real question is whether the "Okie dialect" has been identified and described in reliable sources. +Angr 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the the notability guidelines cannot not apply to languages and dialects. For a dialect we are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. "Independent of the subject" basically means there is no conflict of interest. Such a conflict for a dialect could exist, for example, if a small group of local folks from, say, Birmingham, Alabama decide that they speak a "dialect" of English, "Birminghamian", and are seeking to promote awareness of this dialect. If they were to publish significant coverage in a number of reliable sources (several books) on the subject they would meet all of the general notability guidelines except "independent sources", since they are closely affliated with the subject. If a third, independent party were to publish significant coverage of "Birminghamian" in a reliable source then there would be no conflict of interest for that source. Although this example is a pretty specific case that would rarely occur, we are still talking about satisfying the general notability guidelines. I'm unaware of any specific guidelines for languages Narthring (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Southern American English. No reliable sources can be found to establish the notability (or existence) of this dialect. SnottyWong talk 22:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sources for it being separate. Besides the ones in G Scholar listed above, check additional ones under "Okie English". The standard for notability is not several books, a level much closer to "famous" than "notable". DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "sufficient sources"? There is not one single academic source identifying an Oklahoma dialect that's distinct from Southern American English and Midland American English. +Angr 07:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the top of the AFD you can click the links to search in Google news, Google books, and Google scholar. All of them give results, and looking over the summaries and sources of those results, I'd say it was notable. The article why it is separate from other dialects. It also has references to backup that "John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath using an Okie dialect for the main characters. He consulted Farm Security Administration reports written by Tom Collins as a source for the dialect." Some official government reports used this dialect in them. Dream Focus 01:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Harrison, Australian Capital Territory. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mulanggari, Australian Capital Territory[edit]

Mulanggari, Australian Capital Territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An entry on a map for an entity which has never existed Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VoiceChatter[edit]

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

Article simply an advertisement of a non-notable product. Calltech (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Delete - The nominator is probably correct about notability, though there is some weak independent evidence that the product is notable among gamers. However I do not agree that the article is "simply an advertisement" - the article is more descriptive than promotional. It should also be noted that it is not the work of one or only a few editors. It may be suitable for cleanup rather than deletion if notability can be established. Thparkth (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only substantive work is by one WP:SPA user, Hobbiticus. Nearly all other edits are minor, tagging, or tests. Calltech (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roxwel[edit]

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

This article is about a web site with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article provides no independent sources. All references in the article are to their own web site. My own search finds only press releases. Although not a reason for deletion, it is worth mentioning that the articles reads like a press release, and there is the possibility of a conflict of interest. Whpq (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this article constitutes original research, and so should not be merged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrapure Water Explained[edit]

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

this looks like a personal essay full of original research finished with an advertisment for a journal. previous versions suggests to me my opinion is true: "NOTICE: This article is written by the author listed at the end. The author is associated with the publisher of References 1 through 6, who grants copyright permission. The References used with this text are to provide background information and to validate the statements made in the text by the author." previously prod saying "The article is not encyclopedic, reads more like a review or research paper. Article is not wikilinked, is orphaned, referenced incorrectly, denotes ownership, not linked to any existing categories. No edits have been made to improve this article to get it up to standards" was removed by creator. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this may not be a popular viewpoint, but there appears to be some good information here. Granted, the sources are thin and this particular article isn't up to standards (awkward title, "NOTICE" at the top, etc.), but having had a few brief conversations with the author, I believe it was written in good faith. The author of the article is, from what I gather, at least something of an expert in the field. I don't know if "ultrapure water" is important enough to have its own article (regardless of its writing quality) but would like to see some of this information included on a separate article-- say, Water Treatment. Thoughts? AlexHOUSE (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POHORABAWA SCHOOL[edit]

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

No mention of notability, no reasonable target for redirection. delete UtherSRG (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; right, no indication of why it is notable. — Timneu22 · talk 10:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmm... the article as stands needs a lot of work - it doesn't even say what COUNTRY the school's in, as far as I can tell! (Google search on the name brought up 2 or 3 places by this name in Sri Lanka). Still, given some of the information, it SEEMS like it MIGHT be a high school (the 'multimedia lab' for instance) - or at least contain one. Since high schools are deemed notable by default, this MIGHT be keepable. OTOH, doing a news search, I find nothing, and doing a regular search I don't find anything helpful, which doesn't suggest a lot of notability. David V Houston (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We need someone who can read the language which is plastered across all the photos in this article, which is mostly a photo album. These photos lack any source info, and I have a concern that they might be copyright violations. If it is a high school, we need to know exactly where. The article was created by a new editor who also created Pohorabawa, in "Ratnapura District in the Sabaragamuwa Province of Sri Lanka," so that is likely the location. There is not formally any inherent notability for high schools, just the AFD result that they usually have been kept recently, largely because they are important cultural assets of a fairly wide geographic area, in contrast to the typical grammar school, and references can be found in newspapers of the state or region. Edison (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text accross the images simply describe the buildings, "first building", "library" etc. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing verifiability and notability for organizations unless multiple reliable sources can be found which indicate it is a high school and which have significant coverage. Edison (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The few words in this photo album belong in the article about Pohorabawa, which is the name of two fairly sizable cities in Sri Lanka, according to this. I can't see keeping any article that simply displays large photographs and little context, although I attribute that to someone being unfamiliar with the protocol for a Wikipedia article. While we do have notability where it is verified that a school graduates students, the link to the school doesn't work, and Wikipedia is not a webhost. Mandsford 13:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, propose to list tag as a CSD. To me, WP:CSD#A1 WP:CSD#A7 applies for this article. Article clearly lacks sufficient information. I also think that this is a test page. Optakeover(Talk) 14:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schools can't be A7'd, I'm afraid. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. However I provide no change to my vote, article is still unable to show subject notability. Also I don't seem to be able to find adequate sources online to help the article. Clean-up has taken place but now it's just an article describing a school, its educational level and its principal and a small description of its history. I understand that wikipedia has no deadline but if that is all that can be described of the school, I don't know why this article should remain on Wikipedia. Optakeover(Talk) 05:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought secondary schools were deemed notable but this is so far from being an article, the best thing is "rub it out and start again". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've cleaned the article up a bit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article creator also created Pohorabawa. As far as this article's content goes, to me that article was created to provide an avenue for the creator to create this article. Optakeover(Talk) 05:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viral syndrome[edit]

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

Too general. Each viral infection has its own treatment and symptoms and is covered in the appropriate article. Not apparently rescue-able or rewritable. delete UtherSRG (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete , there is no such thing as a generic "viral syndrome" to my knowledge, and the article only confirms this impression. --Cyclopiatalk 12:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete New contributor, contribution appreciated, but this doesn't seem to be anything but a definition of a phrase that isn't well-known and seems to be another way of saying that a person is "coming down with something". If I went to a physician and she or he diagnosed viral syndrome and prescribed antibiotics, it would be change of doctors syndrome for me. "Symptoms of a viral syndrome include sinus congestion, fatigue, sore throat, swollen glands, headache, cough, nausea, vomiting, muscles aches, diarrhea, fever, and rash or it may just produce a general feeling of not being well." That kind of covers everything. Mandsford 14:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Viral syndrome has a variety of meanings. It can describe any combination of symptoms without evidence of bacterial infection. It can refer to any one of a number of specific acute or chronic viral syndromes (e.g. Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, sudden acute respiratory syndrome—SARS, etc.). The article, as written, would best be described as "common cold" (but not exactly). There's no obvious redirect target. A redirect to infection could be considered. Virus is too broad and Syndrome isn't informative. ("Syndrome" needs some serious work.)Novangelis (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Udgikerian (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Movies that are not supported by reliable sources to be considered "monster movies" should be removed. However, the list itself has a sufficiently clear scope. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of monster movies[edit]

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

List with ill-defined scope. We do have a monster movie article where landmark films are discussed. But the list here is not manageable. Pichpich (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Confused nomination. 1)Having a monster movie article does not make the list redundant (quite the opposite, they reinforce each other) 2)I fail to see why the scope is ill-defined or the list is "not manageable". --Cyclopiatalk 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I wasn't clear enough. What I meant by "we have a monster movie article" was simply that it might suggest that the scope of the list is clear. However that's not the case. Is Freddy Krueger a monster? Is any alien a monster? Does that make Mars Attacks! a monster movie? Is any ghost a monster? Is Ghostbusters a monster movie? How about Casper the Friendly Ghost? The introductory sentence of the article is all over the place. This is what makes the list unmanageable: it will always be someone's arbitrary list. Pichpich (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. It is enough to have a source which defines it a monster movie, or that makes it clear it matches the description of a monster movie. This will require some pruning and work, but deletion is the opposite of improvement, see deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 15:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leonard Maltin's 2009 movie guide uses the term "monstrous demon" referring to the Freddy Krueger movies. "The horror film reader, p 232" says Freddie is a monster. Monsters in Ghostbusters? Yes, per "Heroes, monsters & messiahs, p187. Monsters in "Mars Attacks?" Yes, per "The war of the worlds: Mars' invasion of Earth," page xviii. "Caspar the Friendly Ghost?" No refs found indicating it was a monster movie, and I do not see that it was listed in the article. We do not delete lists because someone might add an inappropriate member. But this is a topic which belongs on the article's talk page. AFD is not an editing process. Edison (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scope is broad, but it is clearly defined in the introduction - using its own criteria the answer to the above questions would be yes for all of them. Kmusser (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well a list that links Casper the Friendly Ghost with Nightmare on Elm Street is dangerously close to a random association of loosely related topics. More fundamentally, it's original research. Pichpich (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment only means that the list needs editing, not that the article subject is intrinsically not suitable. --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]talk 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the definition was necessarily correct, just that it was clear and thus that the list is definable. What that definition is would be a content debate and outside the scope of AFD. Kmusser (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary list that is more fancruft than encyclopedic. And "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is not a monster movie! Joal Beal (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then remove it from the list. WP:UNENCYC covers the rest. --Cyclopiatalk 15:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was a "monster movie" is discussed in "France and the Americas: culture, politics, and history, Volume 1, page 584, which says it was conceived as a monster movie and a love story. In the original novel, Hugo has characters refer to the hunchback specifically as "a monster." But this discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Edison (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hunchback of Notre Dame was the first of the seminal Universal Monsters that pretty much defined the genre for much of the 20th century. It likewise starred Lon Chaney who is also associated with the genre. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A helpful and appropriate list which goes with Monster and Monster movie. If there is an entry which does not belong, then remove it via the editing process, or bring up your concern on the article's talk page to see if there is a consensus on the appropriateness of the item in the list. There are many reliable sources, such as books on movies and books specifically on monster movies, so it is not "original research" to say that the various "Frankenstein" movies are "monster movies." See Google book search and specifically "The essential monster movie guide: a century of creature features on film". Only monster movies notable enough to have a Wikipedia article would go in such a list, and lists are complementary to categories. Standard books on movies describe many as "monster movies." Edison (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defined list on a notable subject. Lugnuts (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scope of the list is just fine. AFD is not cleanup but I have added an appropriate category, reflist and sample entry (Snakes on a Plane) with a citation to show how it's done. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it's clear that the article will be kept, it provides no useful information -- the year of release is of zero benefit in determining anything about a film -- nor do I expect that it will in the future. Essentially, every addition to the list follows the same lazy format of a title and a year. The most recent additions are from a bunch of IP-addresses who are under the delusion that they are contributing something [30]. I can imagine saying to themselves "that's a good movie, that's a good movie, that's a good movie" (yes, I suppose that we could call The Terminator a "monster movie", though most people wouldn't). I applaud Colonel W. for setting an example by adding a source, but what this list really needs is something describing what made the movie a "monster movie", not what year in came out. Many of the titles are self-explanatory, but most aren't. I think that if someone were to make a note of what the "monster" was, they would see that a lot of the additions don't belong on here. Mandsford 14:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of good points, none of them is relevant for deletion. You describe a lot of reasonable issues which can all be dealt with editing, so no reason to remove it. --Cyclopiatalk 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is for keep anyway, so after it closes, the pruning can begin. Mandsford 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is necessary. But, before I argue, if you're gonna delete this article, you might as well delete every single list from Wiki. If you want a "encyclopedic" site, there should be no lists. But, there are so many lists and people need lists for research INCLUDING on the history of monster movies that this should be kept. I worked hard on making this article on or more wiki standards. 174.16.80.109 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several people appear to be working on this list, so I expect that it will progress beyond a group of names in alphabetical order. It certainly has the potential to become an interesting and useful article. Mandsford 14:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well defined genre, so a list of thosefilms notable enough to have WP articles is appropriate4. That makes it nont indiscriminate, gives a good basis for incclusion, and has the potential to be more than just the list of names. (I don;t understand the argument that the year of release is irrelevant--very useful for browsing for those who do not already have an encyclopedic knowledge).
  • Keep Useful list of valid encyclopedic information. Dream Focus 08:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- despite being poorly sourced, more than a little crufty, and the inclusion criterion being a rather vague (what makes the Invisible Man a monster for instance?) I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. It's possible that these are problems than can be fixed by regular editing, though I have serious doubts. And please note that a provisional keep now would not prevent the article being renominated in six months or a year if the promised improvements haven't happened. Reyk YO! 03:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOW. Although it is neither interesting nor useful right now, I think that it will become so. I'm not entirely sure how to do a sortable table, but that would be a good improvemen. Mandsford 23:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most Influential people on Wall Street[edit]

The most Influential people on Wall Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure where the list comes from, but no sources, although it's probably from some definitive one, so it's a copyright issue. If it's not, then it's original research. Title isn't a possible search term or redirect (or if it is it can be done much better on its own). Shadowjams (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be taken directly from this CNBC feature. This particular grouping of people doesn't meet the general notability guidelines since this exact list hasn't received attention in third-party sources. The article also suffers from original research and verifiability issues since it claims to be definitive but it is only a particular news writer's opinion. So we either change the title to "CNBC's list of the most influential people on Wall Street" and delete it as being nonnotable or we keep the scope the same and delete it because the information is original research. Either way the outcome is the same. ThemFromSpace 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- copyvio of a subjective list. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The most Influential people on Wall Street in 2010's first quarter is the following businessmen." Well, maybe they is and maybe they isn't, but either this list was plagiarized or it's original research. Mandsford 14:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Some famous, recurring, notable lists appear on the source's article, which in this case would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_Investor_%28magazine%29 (though it would need to be expanded to all 25 investors from the list). Having said that, there's nothing amazingly notable about the list, and the Institutional Investor article has no framework set up, so the best way to go is probably to just delete this. Blue Crest (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speed A7 UtherSRG (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arzu Forough[edit]

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

WP:N, anybody? KzKrann (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or possibly Speedy A7 - Where's the assertion? Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Torrero[edit]

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

DGG declined a BLP prod on, although even he questioned the "cites". Frankly having cites like "ASCAP" and "BMG" as citations is absolutely insufficient and if simply putting anything in a ref template is enough to defeat BLP prod, we've accomplished nothing through that enormous deliberative process; but I digress.

This appears to be a promotional article with COI issues, the claims to notability are doing radio personalities on LA stations, managing musicians (the sources here are things like "BMG", "ASCAP", "Billboard Magazine") and acting.

According to the article, Torrero did some acting on soaps too, but he's not listed on IMDB. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Near as I can tell, there are no refs. None. We have citations, telling us in vague terms where we might find information, but we don't actually have the information. The comparison would be citing someone's death to a specific article in the New York Times (reliable) versus saying "This guy died, it said so in the New York Times". It may be true, and it may be relatively simple to actually find the information by going to the NYT, but that's just a hand wave - we need actual references. I also looked at the facts cited, and none of them indicate notability, under our policies. The subject is CEO of an incorporated entity - wonderful. But that doesn't inherently confer notability, especially if the corporation is not itself notable. IMDB isn't perfect as a source, but they usually do a pretty good job of confirming existance - and the lack of IMDB data about the subject is telling. The tone is a problem, since the article requires a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic - which, incidentally, is criteria G11 for Speedy Deletion. If I cut everything unsourced, I'm left with "Jesse Torrero is an American Actor, businessman, and Radio Personality." And that's all, and we keep that only because of WP:AGF. I don't see a way to keep this one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, hence no notability. Has the unmistakable twang of self-promotion. I'm sure that if someone wanted to go into the web sites of all those radio stations, some verification of work could be found. But that would not result in notability. Evalpor (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I may have been a little too quick to detag this one, as i can find no better sources. Lots of miscellany on google, but not all that convincing. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Karate Babes[edit]

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

Non-notable computer game. Per WP:NOT. MBisanz talk 06:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone comes up with some spectacular sourcing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. KzKrann (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep. Well, context aside, here's IGN review, and short Kotaku mention. I'm really out on if this establishes enough notability. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's an IGN review, a snippet on GamesRadar and this interviewer suggests that there was media coverage at the time, it's likely to be in mags as well. TBH you timed this AFD to crapfection MBisanz, considering that serious news of the game's sequel apparently surfaced a week ago, 8 years after the original game's release XD Someoneanother 16:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Coverage is on par with other video games. (ZOMG, more porn in Wikipedia!) Pcap ping 17:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm switching due to the above... I guess it did rank "abysmal", which has to be worth something. Shadowjams (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Apparently a sequel is coming, which is likely to garner media attention. This article will therefore come up in searches as the precursor to it. Imaria Prime (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prequel does not become notable just because its sequel does. Appearing in searches is more so reason to keep this article sourced and notability well established. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This game received press from many different sources upon its release and has since been followed with an equally-notable sequel. White 720 (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It's received coverage in multiple independent sources to satisfy notability here. –MuZemike 14:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cold feet (metaphor)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; the page is little more than a dictionary explanation of the idiom "to have cold feet" Cybercobra (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per subsequent improvements to article, my deletion rationale no longer applies. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
  • S.Marshall gives us concrete evidence of scholarly papers upon the subject and you give us what - a guess, an opinion, a stab in the dark? Where is your evidence, please? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a textbook case of WP:NOTDICT. There is nothing here that isn't in my Compact OED. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable and may be expanded further. The article does not have a lexical focus and so is not a dictionary definition. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added the origin of the phrase, which is credited to author Stephen Crane in 1896. I agree with Colonel W that the article isn't written as a dictionary definition, but rather as a discussion of the combination of anxiety, indecision and hesitation that is commonly described by this phrase. Mandsford 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:BEFORE, WP:HEY, and Mandsford. Many times we have had a crappy stub for a notable concept, which needs to be fixed instead of being nominated for deletion. Every time, someone has to rescue it. Past example abound -- sisu, velleity, chaos, nursing in Pakistan, objects visible from space, oligodactyly, even make a mountain out of a molehill. Some has taken it upon themselves the task of fixing it up to minimum standards. They don't have cold feet; they are bold. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable expression found everywhere. Dream Focus 13:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a decent stub with real potential. If there is not much else to say consider a merge but not right away. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is very common usage in popular culture, and therefore, is worthy of encyclopedic information. Dew Kane (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Maariv. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nrg Maariv[edit]

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

Not notable on its own, fails WP:CORP, any usable content can be merged to Maariv Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Maariv; valid content, but a separate article is not justified. RolandR (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wicked Tinkers per weak consensus and per WP:BLP. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Shaw (piper)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007. A search for sources found minor mentions (usually along with a list of other musicians, rather than specifically about Shaw), plus an article written by himself about playing the bagpipes. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per WP:MUSIC (Kurykh's argument) --Joe Decker (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete outright after Alexbateman proposed a rewritten version, which most people seem to like.  Sandstein  05:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Robinson (origami)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007. Author of origami books, but all the hits at reliable sources were about the giant origami penis he constructed to publicise one of these books, hints of WP:BLP1E here. No significant coverage beyond this one event. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Technically it fails the BLP Prod criteria... no assertion is referenced. Instead there's a laundry list of further reading. That might reference this individual (with the common name), or it might just be... further reading. I found some books [34] and some other references. I would probably entertain the notion that this individual is notable in the origami circles, but technically it fails the BLP criteria badly. I'll drop a note at the rescue squad about this article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author in question, sadly far from a wiki-expert. I feel 33 origami books with sales of well into the millions probably ranks me along with several other origami experts who have uncontested wiki pages. I've been awarded a Sidney French medal for services to origami and recently made an honorary member of the British Origami Society, one of only 8 living folders to receive such an honour. I've been invited as a "star guest" to conventions in America, Japan, France, Italy, Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The web has typically fastened onto one notable publicity stunt related to a seaside-humour book, but that's *far* from what I'm about. If you can advise me what evidence you need to keep this article, I'll gladly see if I can provide it. Apologies for just "pasting" this here, I don't know what the procedure is or who to contact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonnick (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Snottywong: Creating an article about yourself is "strongly discouraged", not "forbidden". Mr. Robinson could be interested in Wikipedia guidelines describing using of independent and reliable sources.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I agree that this does appear to be autobiography, but actually I think that Nick Robinson is a notable origami author. I would say that the article probably needs a ground zero rewrite to bring its content stylistically into line. Alexbateman (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had a go at a rewrite of this biography, see User:Alexbateman/Sandbox. I think that this should remove concerns of autobiography and is more focussed on notability. I have kept the further reading section, but given it a new heading to make it clearer what it represents. If others think this is reasonable then I propose to replace the existing article with the new version. Comments please. Alexbateman (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Alex. The COI issue seems to be settled now and I agree with replacing the article with the new version. I've added more sources, hope you don't mind. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with replacing the original with the userfied version, !vote is to keep this version.J04n(talk page) 14:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that you have done good work, Alex - but I still feel that the reference there seems to show that this is a BLP1E - I am not convinced that there is sufficient coverage of Robinson to show that he meets the Notability criteria- the coverage I can find is almost all connected with the giant penis stunt. There is one reference; and of the three external links, one is the same as the reference; one is his own website; the other is the British Origami Society's "Honours" - and Robinson is/was the editor of the BoS's magazine, so not totally independent. I would be more convinced that he meets WP:AUTHOR if I could find significant coverage of his books (rather than the penis publicity stunt) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news shows he gets coverage, his books mentioned, and his giant penis stunt as well. [35] Dream Focus 21:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to SWX Right Now. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota's Best Doggone Zags Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Toyota's Best Doggone Zags Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sports show lacking GHits and GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that you work for SWX, I should point you to our policy regarding conflicts of interest involving parties who work for article subjects. I'm not saying that it's not notable, but that it doesn't have the notability required for a global encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 08:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 04:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable speciality show and apparently promotional piece. Fails WP:N with no significant coverage of this show. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Japanese war crimes. Most people are content to have the article merged. Japanese war crimes was chosen as the merge target simply because it had more votes; if a merge to Japanese occupation of Singapore instead is desired, the issue can be resolved on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Types of torture used in the Japanese occupation of Singapore[edit]

Types of torture used in the Japanese occupation of Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Total orphan with no links to it anywhere in Wikipedia article space. No references. Article can never expand beyond being a mere list, and its material is already covered elsewhere. Material belongs in Japanese war crimes, etc. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should be covered in various larger articles on the history of WW2. Also unsourced, although I'm sure it could be. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThere is no reason to expect that the torture methods described were restricted to or especially chosen for persons in Singapore, so there is o real reason for the article to exist, besides the lack of references, though there have been enough books and articles about torture methods used by various forces in WW2. Edison (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Japanese war crimes: strangely specific, but redundant. Not referenced, somewhat POV... not worth a standalone article. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rescue Valid topic for an encyclopedia. Article is poorly written, probably by some history expert with little editing experience, and therefore, these problems just need to be fixed. Dew Kane (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Japanese war crimes This is the proper place for this. Not its own article (are the tortures used different or more common then elsewhere?).Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sure the torture got coverage in news of the day, or after Singapore was liberated. Using Google book search, I find 500 books do mention it. [36] I could narrow it down by searching for specific names of the torture methods even. Everything listed can be easily sourced. Dream Focus 20:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[37] New perspectives on the Japanese occupation in Malaya and Singapore, 1941-1945 By Yōji Akashi, you can search for the word "torture" in the side panel. It certainly did happen, no one doubting that, and their usual techniques are probably found elsewhere. Perhaps an article for the torture techniques used by the Japanese during World War 2, since it is probably the same methods in every nation they went to. Dream Focus 20:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. obvious hoax DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weisser Academy of Arithmetic[edit]

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

The article Weisser Academy of Arithmetic appears to me to be a hoax for the following reasons:

The Weisser Academy of Arithmetic has no internet presence besides this article. I checked a few names from the list of professors and they don't exist anywhere on the net. It is possible, of course, that living people don't have any visibility on the internet, but usually people with PhD's in math are pretty savvy about the internet.

Also, arithmetic in the U.S. usually refers to adding, subtracting, etc. Calculus and trigonometry, which appear to be the major subjects taught at Weisser, are usually referred to as mathematics.

Lastly, Hazen, N.D. is a small town, possibly too small to support an academy of arithmetic. Google Maps doesn't know of a Hammel Blvd. in Hazen, ND. Susfele (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a good impression about this article. Let's start by just looking at some of the names:
    • Mark Lawnyard (lawn, yard?)
    • Ravajii Namanjori (the full name has 0 google hits, without quotes)
    • Freddrick Narder (see narder on urbandictionary.com) (narder also looks like a legitimate surname for what it's worth)
    • Cathy Farqua (see farqua on urbandictionary.com)
    • Corel Smurfenson (Smurfs?)
    • Shamere Diareah (Diarrhea?)
    • Kaipo Startswifneff (The full name with no quotes has 0 google hits other than this page)
    • Hazel Smithsonier (Smithsonian?)
    • Dr. Phillip Kornwallerson (the term 'Kornwallerson' has 0 google hits other than this article)
    • Nomi Nakatorioshi (The full name with no quotes has 0 google hits other than this page)

Even if it's not a hoax, I'd have to go with delete on this one, until at least something about this school can be verified. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Any OR issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University District, San Bernardino[edit]

University District, San Bernardino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and smacks of boosterism. The only real source mentions a "university district" in passing. TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 03:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Do you doubt that the district exists, is that the problem? There are a ton of references to it under Google News]. Unfortunately most are pay-per-view so can't be cited directly, but they certainly provide plenty of evidence that there is such a place. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, this is OR but the place exists. It is a distinct area separated from other parts of the city.Sarcasto (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This a significant and important neighborhood in the city of San Bernardino, TorriTorri needs to do at least google it and look for his/her self. Take a look at google maps. I would also like to say that you should add a needs improvement tag on the article rather than putting it up for deletion. I am really busy now a days so I don't have much time to edit, but that is not a reason to put an article up for deletion. House1090 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Istok earthquake[edit]

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

Non-notable earthquake article, delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Mikemoral♪♫ 02:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Offshore Oregon earthquake[edit]

2010 Offshore Oregon earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:EVENT. Only a 5.1 with not deaths or deletions. Mikemoral♪♫ 02:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warchild (Def Leppard album)[edit]

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

Bootlegs and demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going Down (SOS)[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable cartoon series. The article doesn't indicate whether this is a web series or what. I searched around but could not find anything online having to do with cartoons. The series was created in April 2010, according to the article. I'm also adding the character page Matt Parker (character). I originally prodded the pages but the prod was contested on the latter, so I'm bringing them both here. ... discospinster talk 01:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Overall, this is leaning towards keep, but with so few !votes I would hesitate to make a judgment call. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roscoe Giles[edit]

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

Appears to narrowly fail the notability standards for Academics. Tim1357 talk 02:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Full professor in two departs at Boston University, a significant research university. Needs a check for publications and citations, though. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When anyone searches for him note that there is a Roscoe C. Giles who is not the same person.--Savonneux (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand what the problem is, he seems notable enough just based on the information and references already in the article. Has multiple publications at Google Scholar ("can't find any published papers"? How about this, this, this, this, this?) has won awards and chaired significant events. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Between keep and merge: arguments for merging appear to be more editing-related in nature, and therefore can be pursued in the future on the talk page if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nouthetic Counseling[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion, not mine. This would appear to me to be a neologism of limited use, only two authors are cited and none of them appear to use the term as the primary means to identify what they are doing. ("Biblical" and "Christian counselling" appear to be the more obvious words mentioned in the article itself.)

This may also be a POV-pushing and sectarian content fork of the main article pastoral counselling, although that stub could use some expansion. This article seems to imply that the proponents' way is Biblical (and, of course, that other approaches to pastoral counselling are not Biblical.)

This came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical Renewal Therapy, and so I am nominating it for consistency's sake. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but very often Nouthetic counseling is used, not as a subset of "Christian counseling," but as an alternative to "Christian counseling". Christian counseling, as its article states, "draws upon psychology and Christian teaching." Nouthetic counseling, on the other hand, wants to use the Bible alone. Which means that the first sentence of this article as it currently stands ("Nouthetic Counseling is a form of Christian counseling") is misleading. StAnselm (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is misleading; "nouthetic" counselling is in one sense a sort of Christian counselling, but its proponents draw a distinction between their approach and others. This is one reason why I tend to think that these several approaches would be better served by a single article, where their differences would appear in higher contrast. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My vote is not a terribly strong one, but it does seem that the person who the article claims coined the phrase viewed it as a form of Christian counseling. Here is a book he wrote. The Christian counseling article is unsourced anyway. And even if there are variants, it doesn't mean that each should have a separate article. Novaseminary (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Actually, it's because in the last 30 years the terminology has developed, and Christian counseling is now used to refer to the theory and practice of people such as Larry Crabb. Admittedly, several his books have the phrase "biblical counseling" in their titles. Which is why it's good to keep "Nouthetic" in this article name. StAnselm (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roadside Heritage[edit]

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

local project with no significance outside a small area. Only independent reference is to a small local paper. No real indication of notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the article could be significant, and I have tagged it for rescue. I don't have the time right now, but it sounds to me like a worthy and encyclopedic cause and I suspect the article could be rescued by some rewriting and sourcing. BTW that "small area" is a highway/valley 220 miles long. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I used Google news search and found this [39]. They have coverage, and have received a 2.5 million dollar grant, so someone thinks they are notable. Dream Focus 01:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have reorganized and partially rewritten the article to make it clearer what it is talking about. It could still use more references but I believe sources will be found sufficient to establish the notability of this program. --MelanieN (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I see a bunch of sources, with several already added. I'm willing to give this a chance to improve, or to at least merge what good there is here now. Arskwad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. IMHO another view or 2 would be helpful before this is closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — there are enough references to warrant this. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - references provided substantiate notability. SnottyWong talk 23:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. However absurd the topic, if there are independent sources with significant coverage, then we keep the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations[edit]

Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

most of the coverage centres around Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland which is adequately covered in its own article. other than that Norway has provided some aid to Congo but so has most rich European nations. those saying that there must be coverage in respective national newspapers of these relations must provide actual evidence. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep he cong has an embassy in Norway, and Norway has even sent them armed forces to supplement their own. If sending troops to support the other countries government isn't foreign relations, I can't think what would qualify. It's a more definite statement of close relations than anything else can possibly be. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sending troops is not a criterion by itself, significant third party indepth coverage is the key test. WP:N WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline reads: "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." You keep changing "significant" to "in-depth" when you paraphrase it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG. At least according to the article, Congo does not have an embassy in Norway. I am missing something? Yilloslime TC 16:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my error. I struck that part out. The military relations remain sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems both notable and verifiable to me [with its rich confluence of source material from the most reliable sources demanded by Wikipedia rules]. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE, could you please explain how it meets WP:N. thanks LibStar (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essays are a fun read and write like Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions but Wikipedia only requires that articles be notable and verifiable. I stand by what I wrote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that's a great argument for keeping Richard. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says in synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." What would the new conclusion be? If I said that the relation was "good" or "bad" or "growing" or "not notable", that would be a new conclusion not in the source material. I don't see that in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"should be kept as a matter of course" is not a criterion for notability. Please explain how it addresses WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you point out that is is notable and verifiable Libstar will just dismiss that too, see my comments above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Well sourced (meeting therefore WP:GNG) and pretty informative. --Cyclopiatalk 12:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mere existence of sources in an article does not establish notability. WP:GNG requires certain types of sources, and sets a standard what kind of coverage is needed in those sources. And this article fails WP:GNG on all counts, therefore it should be deleted. FWIW, this relationship also fails my notability criteria. Yilloslime TC 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline reads: "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." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yilloslime, I am just getting up to speed on the history of these bilateral relations AfDs, and what you put together at User:Yilloslime/BR seems useful and a step in the right direction in creating a framework for evaluation. What's not as useful (to me) is when you say "WP:GNG requires certain types of sources, and sets a standard what kind of coverage is needed in those sources." The very debate here seems to be about whether GNG is met, i.e., whether the net coverage here constitutes significant coverage in this case, with a number of editors so far apparently thinking this is the case. I am certainly not yet satisfied that all relevant coverage has yet been found and reviewed, as I have added a bit to the article already. I would expect most relevant sources to be in Norwegian. Do have any further guidance as to how this one does not pass muster?--Milowent (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the crux of the matter is that I've yet see a source that directly address the topic in any detail. My reading of GNG is that you need such sources; sources that address elements of the topic do not suffice. In building an article it's fine to cite primary, non-independent sources, and it's fine to extract relevant facts from books and articles that are about other topics, but for establishing notability we need sources (plural) that are actually about the topic as a whole. To put it another way, what's the difference between being a historian and being an encyclopedian? I think this article like many X-Y relations articles is great example of wikipedians doing the work of historians rather than work of encyclopedians. Does this make sense? Is there an independent source that you think actually directly addresses the topic of these countries relations? Yilloslime TC 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is your personal interpretation, mathematically 10 facts from 10 sources are identical in their depth as 10 facts from a single source. Of course a single source is easier to cite. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed my point entirely.Yilloslime TC 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think I understand your personal distinction, Yilloslime, but it seems hard to apply in a useful fashion. Any article/source that discusses some relation between DR Congo and Norway is by definition discussing DR Congo - Norway relations. I see numerous news articles that talk about relations between the countries, even if none of them compile all those relations in one source. It sounds like your standard is that you want sources that say, in substance, "Here's a summary of the political relationship between DR Congo and Norway."--For example, this book[40] appears to have chapters about Norway's relations with certain countries in southern Africa (but not DR Congo). No doubt, if such sources are found, notability under GNG is clear. But I'm not sure that if such sources are not found, that numerous sources discussing various relations between the countries don't establish notability.--Milowent (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that book had a chapter on Congo-Norway relations I'd certainly consider it to be the kind of direct detailed coverage required by GNG. But a chapter in a book is not the standard I'm advocating. Articles in newspapers, magazines, and journals could also suffice. But I don't think an article about a specific state visit would suffice, unless it puts the visit in the context of the countries' bilateral relations. It doesn't need to provide "a summary of the political relationship between DR Congo and Norway" but there should at least be some indication of what this visit says about the relations. Are their relations good or bad, are they getting better or worse, etc. As I wrote in User:Yilloslime/BR, I'd like to see such a source spend at least a paragraph on the state of relations themselves before I'd consider the coverage to be direct and detailed. (And by paragraph I mean "book paragraphs" (4 or 5 sentences) not "newspaper" paragraphs in which each sentence gets its own paragraph.) I don't accept that an article on a state visit is by definition an also article the countries' relations. An article on Michael Jordan is not necessarily also about the Bulls, and likewise, I hope no one would argue that because articles on Jordan mention that he played basketball at Emsley A. Laney High School this means that Emsley A. Laney High School Boys Basketball Team is also notable. GNG requires a couple of sources on the topic itself, and this seems like a pretty low bar. For bios, all we need are a couple newspaper article about the person, but if a person known specifically for one event (like a crime) we typically have an article about that event rather than about the person. Etc. Does this make sense? Yilloslime TC 01:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I understand where your threshold lies. As happens elsewhere in the project, it seems in practice some editors disagree about how "significant" a source or sources are when a !vote requires a somewhat subjective weighing of sources. E.g., we get silly debates over whether 4 short sentences are significant but two long sentences are not. WP:WINE has a similar problem with winery articles, and there is much consternation over articles about marginal wineries which many of the Wine Project members don't feel merit separate articles. It has caused huge debates, but we are still left with no real consensus on how to treat marginal wineries. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Valhalla_Vineyards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Creek Vineyards. (In that fight, I lean keep for articles with all verifiable content and at least some notability hook (biggest in area, oldest, major awards, etc.), and delete if there is essentially no verifiable content or its more of a directory entry--which is not uncommon in those articles.)
Here, I see we have a group of editors that want a bright-line rule that all these bilateral relations articles are notable. A bright-line rule has worked well for high schools, see Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) (essay), eliminating much wasted AfD time. But I see no consensus for a bright line rule here.
The folly of the huge "war" going on over these articles is that the end result is just about organization. If Democratic Republic of the Congo – Norway relations is deleted, the separate articles on foreign relations of the two countries can be expanded with the same content, right?--Milowent (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
could you please explain how this article meets WP:N or WP:GNG. secondly the discussion of other sets of articles and the weakness of their notability should be discussed in their own AfDs and thus is irrelevant to this AFD. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Properly footnoted, good veracity, and scholarly in intent. Why is this even nominated for deletion? Carrite (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another fictitious topic. No, news briefs from almost half a century ago about how Norway refused to build a navy for "the Congo" do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". For that, we need a treatment of the actual topic, under this or a similar name. Of course, no one in the real world has ever paid any scholarly or journalistic attention to the subject, and neither should we. - Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Biruitorul, I am open to conversation on the topic, as I saw your name has come up as a frequent delete vote in these AfDs. But much worse articles than this have been kept from my review.--Milowent (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is welcome to add an opinion at Australia–Barbados relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
how is this comment relevant to this AfD? people can find other bilateral articles by themselves. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, it is a friendly notice to get more diverse opinions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those interested in following bilateral relations AfDs can also watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations--Milowent (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that that diplomatic incident already has its own article? Yilloslime TC 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a wonderful argument for notability of this article, since it means we definitely talk of a notable incident. Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 17:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting take on the situation. To me, that existence of the article makes this one all the more superfluous. I guess if this article is kept, we could merge that one here. Yilloslime TC 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relationship between the nations is notable, as proven by ample coverage of things between them. Dream Focus 14:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Saša, Tin i Kedžo. Significant coverage has been claimed but not actually demonstrated. The band is an appropriate target for a redirect; if the band happens to be deleted in the future, this redirect can be deleted without further ado. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Kedžo[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. A weak claim of notability is the reality show and the now-disbanded band, which have their own articles anyway. Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well known and notable Croatian singer. Has significant coverage in Croatia which meets the guidelines for inclusion. Iftelse (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, this would still be a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES problem but you didn't actually demonstrate any significant coverage! Put some in the article, otherwise the argument boils down to WP:BUTITEXISTS. (If you can copy&paste your non-arguments, I can do the same with my retort. :p) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. Without demonstrable significant coverage, also cannot meet the needs of WP:BLP and there fore should be deleted. Considered merge, but Saša, Tin i Kedžo suffers from the same problem and nothing from this article that can be merged at it is all unsourced. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, there's no evidence of notability independent of the TV or band, both of which already have articles. And it's an unreferenced BLP, which by itself is a good reason for deletion. Yilloslime TC 04:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Saša, Tin i Kedžo. Significant coverage has been claimed but not actually demonstrated. The band is an appropriate target for a redirect; if the band happens to be deleted in the future, this redirect can be deleted without further ado. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Samardžić[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. A weak claim of notability is the reality show and the now-disbanded band, which have their own articles anyway. Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well known and notable Croatian singer. Has significant coverage in Croatia which meets the guidelines for inclusion. Iftelse (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, this would still be a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES problem but you didn't actually demonstrate any significant coverage! Put some in the article, otherwise the argument boils down to WP:BUTITEXISTS. (If you can copy&paste your non-arguments, I can do the same with my retort. :p) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. Without demonstrable significant coverage, also cannot meet the needs of WP:BLP and there fore should be deleted. Considered merge, but Saša, Tin i Kedžo suffers from the same problem and nothing from this article that can be merged as none of it is sourced to a reliable source (the one "source" is clearly user editable) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, there's no evidence of notability independent of the TV or band, both of which already have articles. And it's an unreferenced BLP, which by itself is a good reason for deletion. Yilloslime TC 04:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Saša, Tin i Kedžo. Significant coverage has been claimed but not actually demonstrated. The band is an appropriate target for a redirect; if the band happens to be deleted in the future, this redirect can be deleted without further ado. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Lozar[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. A weak claim of notability is the reality show and the now-disbanded band, which have their own articles anyway. Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well known and notable Croatian singer. Has significant coverage in Croatia which meets the guidelines for inclusion. Iftelse (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, this would still be a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES problem but you didn't actually demonstrate any significant coverage! Put some in the article, otherwise the argument boils down to WP:BUTITEXISTS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. Without demonstrable significant coverage, also cannot meet the needs of WP:BLP and there fore should be deleted. Considered merge, but Saša, Tin i Kedžo suffers from the same problem and nothing from this article that can be merged as none of it is sourced to a reliable source (the one "source" is clearly user editable) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, there's no evidence of notability independent of the TV or band, both of which already have articles. And it's an unreferenced BLP, which by itself is a good reason for deletion. Yilloslime TC 04:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fessler[edit]

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

Google only shows me that this person does exist and that he's at UCLA. I don't find any evidence that makes him especially notable. Where's the third-party coverage? — Timneu22 · talk 10:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - If the "person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline", as the article seems to imply, then he may qualify as notable. However, there are no sources cited to demonstrate that assertion. Davnor (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is certainly poor (I just cleaned it a bit), but I think the subject is notable according to WP:PROF #1. Specifically, WoS shows 34 research papers with h-index=11. Some might judge this borderline, however, the collective number of citations well exceeds 300 and I believe this clinches. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep. He has one quite well cited paper (180 cites in Google scholar), but the depth of strong papers is a bit less than I'd like to see for a pass of WP:PROF #1. And he is editor-in-chief of a journal from a major publisher that's been published since 1997, but one of four editors-in-chief of that journal. So I think there's a weak pass of both criteria #1 and #8. The length and sourcing of the article are not great, but what's there is adequately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley Rugby Club[edit]

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

Local rugby club with no indication of notability. Unreferenced. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GROUP. Also lacks a NPOV, but that could be corrected. Davnor (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Changing my vote; Significant changes have been made to the article since its nomination, sufficient to establish at least minimal notability.

Have updated, Sufficent??? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Whilst I'm not going to claim that a team in the 7th tier of a national league system is hugely notable, I've seen pages on here with much less info, and in my opinion at least, less importance.Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per my comments above.--MacRusgail (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eastern Television. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ETtoday (TV channel)[edit]

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

Is not notable. Juvenal7554 (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parten's classic study of play[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Parten's classic study of play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a close paraphrase of a section of John W. Santrock's Child Development (p. 508), and may be a breach of copyright as the work is not public domain.Claritas (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a direct copyvio, but it's a very close paraphrase. I'm not really sure whether it actually breaches WP policy. Claritas (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, I am afraid that the article is a clear copyright infringement of Child Development: An Introduction by John Santrock, taken from pages 519-520 of the paperback version. I was able to look in the Amazon.com version -- not only is there close paraphrasing, but some of the sentences are copied directly. I have tagged the article for copyright violation. That starts a 7-day period during which the article may be rewritten using original language if anyone is so inclined. But if there has been no rewrite by then, than it will need to be deleted. — CactusWriter | needles 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll make a note at the CP entry to check the temp page. — CactusWriter | needles 19:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that as we're going to remove all the content of the article, and create a stub under a different name, it's probably more efficient to delete and recreate, as the page history isn't particularly substantial. Claritas (talk)
I have rewritten the article (Talk:Parten's classic study of play/Temp) - it should be good enough for a DYK. I tend to prefer old edits to stay in the history, but I am not sure what we do in case of rewritten copyvios. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE -- I have deleted the older version per WP:CP procedure and replaced it with the new non-copyvio version that was written by Piotrus in Temp space. @Claritas, if copyright infringement was the only concern for deletion, than that has now been resolved, and you may wish to withdraw this Afd nomination. (The renaming issue is not a criteria for Afd and should be resolved by talk page discussion.) — CactusWriter | needles 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll do that in the future. Claritas (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine optimization methods[edit]

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

The following is from the Talk:Search_engine_optimization_methods:

I'm not really sure of the correct procedure but I thought I'd mention it anyway. This page seems to be rather pointless. Other than the section on grey hat techniques all the text seems to come directly from the Search engine optimization page. Also it doesn't mention white hat techniques at all. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged or something, either that or someone (not me) should completely rewrite it. 94.193.93.76 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The SEO-category as a whole needs restructuring, and this is one of the problem articles. As mentioned above, it really doesn't have a purpose and does not add anything to the section. I will be recommending it for deletion and will be removing it from the SEO category. Bsanders246 (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main article Search engine optimization would become unbalanced and bloated if comprehensive information on methods were added. We've followed Wikipedia:Summary style by keeping a summary of methods in the main article, and moving additional content to the daughter article. A need for editing and expanding is not a valid reason for deletion. Jehochman Talk 21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jehochman, I disagree. I think the best route is to create/modify a section in the main SEO article that discusses the common methods of SEO. This section could be split into 2 sections: on-site SEO and off-site SEO. Under these subsections, we can provide a short description of the applicable seo methods. If there is a significant amount of information on a specific method of SEO, such as backlinks, then we can provide links to wiki-articles which will provide a more thorough overview. Bsanders246 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith[edit]

Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK -- the article as it stands contains virtually no references to sources. The book must win a literary award to be notable. I can't see that it is notable. Basileias (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is no requirement that a book should have won an award to be notable. A more common way to demonstrate notability is by significant coverage in independent reliable sources, such as reviews and coverage in other books and academic papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slash 2010 World Tour[edit]

Slash 2010 World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG and WP:V. Nothing to establish any notability for this article. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't useful for Encyclopedia . wipe 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC);
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was merge to Purdue Boilermakers men's basketball. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paint Crew[edit]

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

I'm not sure this is a notable sports section. The main source [47] isn't likely to be a reliable source. This blog wouldn't qualify as a reliable source. Neither this source nor this source (short of a single comment there) actually call it "The Paint Crew." Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight: The Musical[edit]

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

Non-notable series of web videos. Practically no reliable external sources. Brambleclawx 01:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mikemoral♪♫ 03:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google News yields, as nom says, practically nothing. PrincessofLlyr royal court 03:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources. Examiner was suggested as a source in the previous AfD: that website is now blacklisted, in fact. All other sources seem to be blogs, personal websites, press releases, vague mentions at the bottom of some article on something else etc. This seems to have been one of those internet flash-in-the-pans that we see frequently these days. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies --Jubilee♫clipman 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons stated above. Andrea (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010. It is true that a good amount of coverage exists. However, this is a prime example of WP:BLP1E: is the candidate notable outside of the context of the election (which he lost)? And the answer is no. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Stout[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate, who has never held office. His only notability is derived from a single US Senate election, where he failed to win the nomination. There is no significant non-election coverage. Contested WP:PROD. -LtNOWIS (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Properly footnoted, not selling a product, written to WP style. Inclusion hurts nothing. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That really isn't an argument for notability. An article can be well written and still not on a notable topic. Furthermore, large parts of the biography section, essentially the first 30 years of Stout's life, are unsourced and likely unsourceable. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my note below. The content of the article is NOT what determines notability. Stout is notable for running for the U.S. Senate, and there are many sources that cover the campaign. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Meets notability requirements under WP:Politician #3. There is significant coverage, from reliable sources, and is independent of the subject. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: User:JustAKnowItAll is the creator of the article.
  • Redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010. If I was in the habit of punctuating !votes with "strong" or "very strong" I would do so here. This guy is not just a failed candiate, he's a failed primary candidate, which means he hasn't even been on a general election ballot paper. He is therefore a long long way from meeting WP:POLITICIAN. There are sources that mention and discuss his candicacy. These should be ruled out on a number of bases: (1) they all discuss the candidacy and not Stout, hence the "biography" part of the article - the most important part - is completely unsourced; (2) as the sources only talk about his failed candidacy, it is essentially a WP:BLP1E; (3) most importantly, any marginal case that he meets GNG is outweighed by his massive failure to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Both the GNG and WP:POLITICIAN create "presumptions" of notability, not guarantees. Any presumption created by this guy passing GNG is very weak, and rebutted by his massive failure to meet our community's standards for inclusion of professional politicians. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, wouldn't most candidates fall under WP:BLP1E? 98.194.243.32 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many would. And they're no loss to the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Leading candidates for statewide office often have prior experience in state/local government, or other basis for notability. This year in Utah, most didn't, which is why the Republican field got axed in AFD. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would appear that the Bridgewater and Lee articles got axed a bit too early, and quite frankly, axed erroneously since both have siginificant coverage. It is interesting to note that based on your criteria Wendell Wilkie would have been deleted since he had no prior experience in government or other basis for notability before running for President and earning the Republican nomination. In the Utah Senate race, Williams received no coverage except an article stating he was running and an article stating that he withdrew. Bridgewater, Eagar, Lee and Stout did have coverage and it was significant. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little objectivity goes a long way. To meet the notability requirement under WP:Politician you don't have to be a sucessful "primary candidate", in fact, based on WP you can even be a "failed" candidate. The criteria doesn't differentiate between a "primary" or "general election" or a "failed" candidate. It simply states unelected candidate for political office where you must next examine GNG. Contrary to your statement, the sourced material deals with the candidacy -- from start to finish -- those sources meet GNG. You argument moves into content which is not to be used when determining whether an article should be stand alone WP:NNC. Lastly -- isn't the community standard found in WP:POLITICIAN? If it is somewhere else, then please let me know. Otherwise, it's uncear to me where the "massive failure" is. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two points, but we should be careful not to lawyer too much over the wording of WP:POLITICIAN. (1) WP:POLITICIAN says candidates can meet the guideline with significant coverage elsewhere, not that they are guaranteed to. Here the coverage is barely significant at all. (2) WP:POLITICIAN also says that the general rule is to redirect candidates and put any information about them on the election page. This outcome should be considered here and I've amended my !vote accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to settle disputes, so we should stick to the wording as much as possible. Significant coverage WP:SIGCOV means that sources mention the subject in detail. If your concern is the number of sources, then that can be rectified. There are newspaper articles, radio interviews, tv interviews, etc. I guess I'm confused as to what significant coverage is, if it isn't what GNG says it is. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete Has never held office. Was a candidate in the primary election at the state party convention, but failed to win the nomination or get on the ballot. Coverage provided is simply about the fact that he is running, which is not enough to satisfy the notability requirements for politicians. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious? Again, not holding public office doesn't disqualify. There is significant coverage -- that's the standard for GNG. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_May_18&oldid=1142640516"