Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 26

< 25 September	27 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Cyclonic separation. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone dust collector

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

delete (nominator) -- Article content is either a duplicate of Cyclonic separation‎, or just plain wrong (See Talk:Cyclonic separation‎). There is no content that needs merging as, due to the short length of this article, the other article covers all the points here User A1 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will nominators please not pre-empt AfDs and remove articles while the AfD is still open. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its been over a week, the AFD period has expired, and no-one has done anything. I was surprised anyone noticed. User A1 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it's time that an uninvolved admin closed the AfD (Presumably as "No consensus", in this case), or else re-listed it for longer. Either way though, neither of us (as involved editors) should close it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of the problem is that this isn't a correctly formed AfD. Apart from the missing header on the AfD article here, it was never linked from the AfD index pages. No wonder it has never been acted upon. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete It's a poor article and needs writing (there's little there to start with). However cyclonic dust collectors are an important commercial market and there seems to be enough distinction between the theory (Cyclonic separation) and instances of its application (Collectors) to justify two separate articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, I would not object to someone writing a new article, for sure, but the content here is not worth keeping. User A1 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete, per User A1. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted with correct header Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with cyclonic separation to the extent that there's anything worth keeping. If at some point there is enough specific content within cyclonic separation to justify a separate Cyclone dust collector article, it can be re-created. --Macrakis (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against merging this, on the grounds that if the article did have any content worth preserving then we'd be better preserving it in situ.

My view is shifting towards delete anyway (Unless someone gets editing this week). There's just nothing here worth saving: a clean slate would be simpler. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate (and a badly written one at that) of the existing topic Cyclonic_separation. Duplicate image, poorly paraphrased intro paragraph. Burn it. Down. Scatter the ashes. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still scope for a separate article (just not this one). Separation is a theoretical principle, dust collectors are workshop equipment in a much narrower scope. There is still justification for an article here (and slaying the static electricity dust explosion canard would be a good section within that). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyclonic separation‎. Page title is a valid search term; no reason for deletion. --Lambiam 01:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Cyclonic separation‎ per Macrakis above. Keristrasza (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if anyone wants to recreate a better article, they should just go ahead and be bold, but this should go. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. This should be a no-brainer, in fact, this could have been done without debate. Clearly the same thing! This article is not written as well as Cyclonic separation, so there may not be much to merge. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I echo P199 in full, and I think a trout is in order for A1 for deleting an article he put up for AfD. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:24, 4 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Hamas terror campaign

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

WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. This article takes the statements of an Israeli security official that Hamas has begun what he calls "terrorist attacks" and presents that as a fact. It then combines what the creator of the article feels is part of that "terror campaign". The sources for the existence of this supposed campaign are either Israeli government officials or partisan organizations. The actual reliable sources on each of the attacks that the article combines do not actually say they are part of any "terror campaign". Nableezy 23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-sourced article about a widely-covered campaign of terrorist violence sponsored by the government of Gaza.AMuseo (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sigh. Another attempt to delete any article related to Hamas activity. We have nominations for the individual acts and now we have a nomination for the entire scheme. Pretty soon, terrorism itself will be nominated for deletion. The recent extreme jump in terror activity was noted by numerous sources. The allegation may stem from Israel intelligence reports, but its coverage is clearly significant and undoubtedly meets WP:GNG. Any POV concerns or article name concerns should be taken up at the talk page.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEWP, and fix up. The nom's apparent rationale, that the existence of a campaign is only the assessment of Israeli security officials and scholars, is false. Hamas itself has declared a campaign of attacks against Israel with the stated aim of derailing the current Middle East peace talks, in which "all options are open" (i.e. attacks targeting civilians): [1]. In the title, "Hamas" should be changed to "Palestinian", since the agent of the campaign is a broad coalition of Palestinian groups (see the source). Also, if there is a significant POV that this campaign is not a terror campaign, the word "terror" in the title should be changed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the article is in rough shape, but it's being worked on by a legitimate editor, is actually cited, and is about an event that is still in progress. I would support a rename to make it more neutral, but I would not delete it. Coincidentally, this looks like an edit war in the making, so I would advise both Nableezy and AMuseo move away from the page for a while. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this is not about "an event", it is about several events that have been synthesized together into one "campaign" on the basis of an Israeli security officials say-so. And I have no intention of editing this article, I corrected one blatant falsehood and that is about all I intend to do besides argue for its deletion. nableezy - 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, an edit war ending in ArbCom action and topic bans may well be just what Wikipedia needs here. This wikiwar is getting tiresome. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.

Keep The nomination makes no argument for deletion. The article's sources demonstrate the notability of the topic and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont write clearly bogus comments. A clear argument for deletion is given in the nomination. That you either do not understand or do not agree with that argument does not make it not an argument for deletion. nableezy - 02:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more clear: the litmus test is the article sources. I quote: 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. There are a lot of arguments to avoid in AfD discussions. The nomination makes no proper argument for deletion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is a blatant falsehood. An article being a POV-pushing SYNTHesized OR essay is a "proper" reason for deletion. Please do not continue to write things that are not true. nableezy - 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nab, I guess topic is not accurate, I'd go with "Hamas reaction ...". Nothing is artificially synthesized, sources note that it is in context of current round of peace talks, this is Hamas reaction. sources put under "a topic". I guess you disagree, but that's ok. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV essay which attempts to link a number of likely unrelated events as part of a "terror campaign." Tendentious "Original Research" at its worst. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.

Except, of course, that the article has reliable sources such as the editorial staff of the Washington Post who call this a deliberate "campaign" by Hamas to disrupt the peace process.AMuseo (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AMuseo and the Washington Post. Hamas regularly refers to its own resistance efforts. --Shuki (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AMuseo. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My initial reaction was to !vote delete. However, the sources do tie the attacks with the peace process[2][3][4][5] and/or make it clear that it is some sort of campaign involving multiple attacks[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Since we all know in the I-P area of Wikipedia that some people are supporters of one side or the other, I will just come out and say it: Both supporters of Hamas (or at least violent resistance) and Israel should be approving of such an article for POV reasons.

More policy and guideline based: The name needs to be changed. "Terror" is one way to describe it but not the only way. No, "terror campaign" is not always used as the nominator points out. So retitle it something similar to "Hamas attacks during the 2010 peace talks" (of course something more clever and less wordy). I was thinking that merging the article into another would work but it would then be the perfect candidate to be spun out into an independent article. The wave of attacks meets the general notability guideline and probably the events one. Numerous sources putting the attacks together or relating it to the peace process. It is ongoing (just started though) independent coverage from reputable international sources. It is safe to assume that there will be some lasting impact but that is something we will have to wait and see about. Cptnono (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article provides reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the concerns raised in the nomination seem valid. Here's another Washington Post ref: Hamas retains deadly reach in West Bank: "Hamas has pledged to follow up on the attacks, which appeared timed to the relaunch in Washington of direct peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority." And attacks do seem to have continued since then. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the MAIN ongoing news stories in Israel presently. Though it may come from one-sided sources, this is not a reason to delete, only to modify as need be. But it does come from reliable sources. Linda Olive (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N and WP:V. WP:NPOV is not a reason to delete anyway. article can and should be improved--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is mentioned several times at WP:NOT which is reasoning provided at WP:DEL so NPOV could be a viable reason. However, any neutrality concerns in this article (namely the title) are easily fixed.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; seems like a good article with originality. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 'originality', or synthesis, one of the reasons this article was nominated for deletion? I can see no particular rationale for an article on '2010 Hamas terror' in any case. Is there any evidence that Hamas plan their actions on a yearly basis? Why do their actions (or alleged actions) need to be broken down in this arbitrary way? Cannot the article be merged with other articles on Hamas? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at some of the sources if you have the chance. It is the "campaign" or wave of attacks based on disrupting the peace stuff and PA.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename!; obviously something is going on, in which innocent people are harmed, but using the word terror in the title is the problem. It attributes blame. That's dangerous and simplistic. And it attracts the attention of people who feel uncomfortable with the word. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) tells us to avoid the word terrorist. That logically applies to the word terror as well. Yes, report what has happened. Even write the certain people are calling it a terror campaign (so long as we say who). But don't fall into the trap of repeating the loaded language of one side in the article title. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we rename it to "2010 Hamas militant use of deadly force against civilian non-combatants"? Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names suggests "terror", as the most common description of the Hamas action, is the correct term for the title. Since "terror" is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Contentious_labels doesn't forbid its appearance in the title. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on the talk page where this is already being discussed? Smartse (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article since it is notable, then consider Renaming in line with the reasonable observation of HiLo48. Marokwitz (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic, properly sourced article, i don't see an issue. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there's our basic issue. It IS an issue to use the word terror. Several editors have said so. Wikipedia policies say it is. Anyone saying it's not is simply ignoring others' comments (very rude), ignoring policy, and hence showing obvious POV. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have no problem with the article being renamed/reworded if the word terror is an issue; but this is an AfD discussion, not a renaming/content discussion. i didn't read the entire novel of commentary, just reviewed the article and offered an opinion. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion Link to the rename discussion on the article's talk page, for clarity. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—notable topic discussed at length by the media. Possibly inherently suffers from recentism, but if that is the case then it can be merged into a relevant article a few years from now. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:02, 1 October 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 2010 Hamas terror campaign. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010 West Bank shooting

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

More suitable for wikinews per WP:NOTNEWS; no evidence of lasting notability (since the event occured today). Another similar article by the same creator (June 2010 West Bank shooting) and one by a different creator (June 2010 West Bank shooting) have been deleted at AfD for similar reasons recently. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Can you please retract or clarify your statement that "other similar articles of the same creator have been deleted at AfD for similar reasons recently"? One similar article of mine, June 2010 West Bank shooting was recently deleted and then relisted following a DRV. I'm not aware of another similar article of mine that was deleted recently. Thanks. (And BTW, how is this at all relevant?) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article on the June 2010 West Bank shooting has not been deleted. Rather, was nominated for deletion twice (one AFD, and a review) and each time the article was kept. Now it has been nominated a third time for deletion. There are currently no fewer then 13 terrorism-related articles nominated for deletion.Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism. No fewer than 7 of them area about Hamas-sponosred terrorist attacks.AMuseo (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it was deleted, as a result of its first AfD nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting), and was then restored and relisted at a later date, as information became available later. As I have noted here, the same action is likely to be appropriate here; in a few weeks, it should be much clearer whether or not this subject has the enduring notability required to pass WP:NOTNEWS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's now been deleted again, in fact. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "No evidence of lasting notability"? It happened today. It makes zero sense to nominate an article for deletion the day it is created, especially on NOTNEWS grounds. There is no way of knowing whether the incident will have lasting notability the day it happens. Indeed, as the incidents were intended to derail peace efforts its international ramifications and consequent notability are quite probable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Probably going to be notable" doesn't cut it, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Clearly the article is notable... for the moment. But per WP:NOTNEWS, it's not appropriate unless there is enduring notability. It's far too soon to determine whether or not there will be enduring notability. Write the article on wikinews and come back when this can be covered in an encyclopaedic fashion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second, you're the one predicting (i.e. crystalballing) and I'm the one telling you not to predict. The incident has clearly received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You are surmising that the coverage will die down and the story will become unnotable. However, you have no evidence of that. Your entire deletion rationale rests on your crystalballing theory. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My entire deletion rationale rests on established policy: wikipedia is not a news site, it's not a crystal ball, and an article about a news event needs more than just notability: it needs enduring notability which cannot be established the day that the event occurs. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is impossible to prove enduring notability on the day of the incident just like it is impossible to prove the lack of enduring notability on the day of the incident. I am not trying to prove the former but you are trying to prove the latter. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop misrepresenting my arguments. I am not trying to "prove it won't be notable", nor is that necessary. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, speculation as to whether or not it will be notable in future is not relevant to wikipedia, and a news event which happened today has no evidence of enduring notability, which is a requirement for its inclusion due to WP:NOTNEWS. As I said below, please consider reading and understanding this policy, as you have not addressed the concerns that since this event happened yesterday, it lacks any evidence of enduring notability. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't make an argument and then insist that I view your argument the way you want to frame it. You are the one making predictions that this incident will not have enduing notability. I am not making any sort of prediction. All I am saying is that at this time it has met the notability requirements of WP:GNG. It may turn out not to be notable and it may turn out to be notable. I don't know and I don't have to predict that it will remain notable. We can ascertain its notability at a later time. One thing we cannot be doing is nominating articles on subjects that have received significant coverage in secondary sources on the day they were created on the premise that they will lose notability.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't have time to read another WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT response ignoring my argument and trying to undermine it by pretending I'm saying something which I'm not; I trust the closing admin to recognise WP:NOTNEWS and the fact that there still has been no counter-argument for WP:NOTNEWS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this discussion seems to be going nowhere, with both of us accusing each other of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. I'll let the closing admin adress the strenght of the arguments being made on both sides. I'll let you have the last word below if you like. Best,--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a news story, not an encyclopedia article. These articles belong on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument for deletion above is based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which is intended to screen out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news. A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable.[13] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[14]. Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.[15] Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [16] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)."AMuseo (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no systemic bias; I saw this article, saw that there's as yet no evidence that it will have enduring notability, and rightly suggested (and would have done no matter where the shooting had occured) that per WP:NOTNEWS, it is too early to be made into an encyclopaedic article: it's only just happened. It's perfectly suitable, however, for wikinews. All of the keep arguments I've seen so far are dealing merely with its notability: I have no question that it is currently notable. But the correct application of WP:NOTNEWS is as it states: we consider the enduring notability of news, and that can't be established so soon after the event occured. By all means userfy this article, but it can't be encyclopaedic until its enduring notability has been established. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and has been a subject of continuing media coverage. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing media coverage?!?!? You are aware this happened hours ago, correct? nableezy - 02:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, true that new stories pop up at regular intervals on news google, in fact, I can see in my rystal ball that there will be a story in exactly eight days about the baby's brit and his name.AMuseo (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't exist to report what you predict will happen in the future. You can't establish a trend this soon after an event. It is entirely possible that there will be some level of coverage about this for a couple of weeks, and then it'll be out of the news. This should be recreated if and when it is shown to have enduring notability. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Newsworthy but not historically notable incident. Wikipedia is not your source for breaking news, nor is every shot fired in the interminable Israeli-Palestinian Civil War worthy of an article. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.

Where is it written that an article must be historically notable to be WP:Notable? I have looked at the guidelines pretty carefully,[17] and events that get wide (national or international) coverage and have some significance beyond a local community (such as a political impact) are WP:notable. Requiring "Historically notable" is an original claim .

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Not a speedy delete, need more time to see where this goes. Seems to be part of the recent increased campaign of Arab violence in effort to create a new uprising. --Shuki (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AMuseo LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS and multiple sections of WP:EVENT, including WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:PERSISTENCE and the depth of coverage section. Articles like this belong on Wikinews, not here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a news agency. It fails WP:EVENT, because terrorist attack are regularly reported, just check BBC News Online, Al Jazeera, or Voice of America. How can lasting effects and significance be determine the day of the attack. Lasting significance surely can't be found the day of, but perhaps five, six months after the attack. Look at the sources, they are all news agencies; this is an article best reserved for Wikinews. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the lasting effect cannot be determined on the day of the attack, why would you call for it to be deleted on the day of the attack? Surely we should err on the safe side and keep the article pending clarification of its lasting effect. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not start the article as a userspace draft or in WP:AFC. My point is these are do not belong on Wikipedia until notability is determined, essentially what policy says. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the keep !votes are referring solely to notability: I suggest reading WP:NOTNEWS carefully and considering whether or not its notability the day after the event is really sufficient for it to be kept. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS policy, there is zero indication of any "enduring notability" with regard to this event - take it to WikiNews. I also agree with Giftiger wunsch when he points out above that most of the keep !votes are not addressing the reason for this nom. Codf1977 (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable article about something that is nothing more then a news story: WP:NOTNEWS --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2010 Hamas terror campaign, or Keep if there is no consensus to merge. Marokwitz (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2010 Hamas terror campaign it is a better idea to have one article, discussing all of these attacks, rather than many different articles, repeating the same thing, this also makes it less like news. Smartse (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS or merge as suggested above. Several people were shot in various US cities today, per press reports, , and those are also the stuff of Wikinews rather than permanent individual encyclopedia articles. Edison (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason for rushing to create an article about a minor incident such as this. It would better to wait and see whether the incident acquires enduring notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? Why not to 2010 Hamas terror campaign?AMuseo (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify. I believe that this article should be kept per WP:Event. What I quesiton is the reasoning used by editors who want to delete it, rather than merge it. Why do they want the useful, valid information collected here to disappear?AMuseo (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and the other recent shooting articles into one article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need an article for every incident that is news worthy. The incident is already mentioned and placed in context in Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010.--Jmundo (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
note I want to add a practical/mechanical reason for keeping articles like this. When notable incidents occur, it is easy to write a well-sourced, accurate article. This is because major newspapers cover the story. On the other hand, if you wait a few weeks and try to write such an article, it becomes very difficult because the news sources disappear behind walls and you have to "pay per view" for each article. Most of us don't have unlimited funds. Therefore, it makes sense to keep well-sourced articles like this. Looking back in a couple of years after emotions have cooled, notability will be easier to determine. But once the information is deleted, it will be very hard to recreate.AMuseo (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with AMuseo. It does no harm keeping articles like this, especially if they are properly sourced. If, in the fullness of time, the incident fails to meet the 'enduring notability' criterion, it can be deleted, or merged with into a larger article documenting the timeline of terrorist incidents as they relate to whatever conflict -- Israeli/Palestinian, US v pretty-much-anyone, etc -- they are part of.Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2010 Hamas terror campaign WookieInHeat (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2010 Hamas terror campaign (still needs a new title over there). Right now it is not clear if it is emphasizing breaking news but it is fresh enough that I am assuming it is. The article can always be split of the subsection over there grows with ongoing coverage in the future.

Side note: See WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE for some related info, AMuseo.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 1 October 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 per consensus of lack of notability. Cool Hand Luke 03:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson's Curse (band)

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

Delete. WP:NN. No references. No blue links. A failed band that lasted 3 years in the last century long forgotten by everyone except its members. Student7 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep soon - one of the post-GOD bands. Could be subsumed into there if I can't find sufficient independent references in short order. Yeah, it is a pretty crap article right now - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a non-notable band. I couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Not just reliable. ZERO unreliable and reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 28 September 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 National Express Coaches. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2007 National Express coach accidents

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

At the time of these accidents, especially the main one, there was a whole bunch of news coverage. Coach accidents aren't very common in the UK; our roads are generally quite good (even if I grumble that accross on the English side of the border the A1 still isn't dualed...) and so news coverage was inevitable. It looked likely to remain big for some time. However, there has been no lasting impact and there is no long-term notability. WP:NOTNEWS applies; yes, a coach crash is gonna get news coverage. But no laws changed, no anything changed, and - tragic or possibly beautiful though this fact is - life goes on. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No historical significance. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would only support this if the information contained therein was merged into National Express Coaches and used to expand the relatively small Incidents section so that the info/sources aren't lost. _Will^Dow (Talk) 08:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No objection to properly merging over any sourced info to the National Express Coaches article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per massive coverage in WP:RS more than sufficient for WP:NOTE; as the nominator observes, incidents such as this are quite infrequent, which also suggests notability. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply, because this subject isn't "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which the policy proscribes. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT. No lasting impact. Bus crashes may be rare but it's still just routine news, like any other rare accident that is news worthy but not encyclopedia worthy.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with some pruning of excessive detail) to National Express Coaches. The incidents fail WP:NOTNEWS and infrequency does not equate with notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above and possibly Transwiki the details to Wikinews. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a classic case of recentism I like this subject matter not news and no lasting notability. The article fails on each of the above policies spectacularly and prime for immediate deletion on those grounds.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to National Express Coaches per Jimmy Pitt above. Keristrasza (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:EVENT requires significant coverage, lasting coverage and lasting impact. This certainly has significant coverage, and it appears to span two yeras until November 2008, so it meets the first two. That leaves impact. This BBC report from February 2010 says that NatEx added Alcolocks its entire fleet as a direct result of the event, which for me is a lasting impact. On this basis it meets all three requirements so is notable. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as this is by no means routine coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS concerns. No lasting significance or historical impact, a one-time event. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not notable on its own, but too good to waste. Sources and all should mosy on over to National Express Coaches per willdow. Another case of "All N are V, but not all V are N" Sven Manguard _Talk 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexys Becerra

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

Only notability asserted is through some minor roles with notable things, and notability is not inherited. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The article lists appearances in a number of major films, but imdb and other sources make no mention of her. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while willing to accept that she may have neen in the films listed in the article, that fact that IMDB does not include participation could only mean her roles were so exceedingly minor as to not even merit an "uncredited" at IMDB. All I could find there was her work as a prosthetics technician and one named role in the film Saving Ronald Regan (2006).[18] So she fails WP:ENT. We have one 1994 news article from San Diego Union which speaks of her applying a prosthetic to herself when attending a Sci-Fi convention in San Diego,[19] and a 2007 article in Printweek stating that she is the organiser of the London Harry Potter Meetup Group.[20] So she fails WP:GNG as well. And unless they win some major awards, make-up artists have a tough time showing themselves as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per MQ Schmidt. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations

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

The article is a list of non-notable congregations. Not even one of them is notable for its own Wikipedia article, and the creator of the article started the discussion page with "Taking steps to copy the list of Messianic congregations from various web searches and personal knowledge." This is a violation of WP:OR. The article is not encyclopedic; it is something more suited to a personal blog. Furthermore, the article was once deleted for these same grounds. This is the second time it has been created. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox. Listing non-notable religious congregations only serves to boost the profile of the congregations so listed. Wikipedia is not for: "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise." Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing? - Lisa: You may want to review the WP:Canvassing policy. You recently invited several editors (BusStop, JayJG, Avi, etc) to provide input on this AfD [21] ... a better approach is to put notifications on project pages, or just let editors find this AfD thru the normal AfD notification process. That will ensure a more representative cross-section of opinions. PS: I have no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not. --Noleander (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Note: Five editors were canvassed concerning this AfD.[22][23][24][25][26] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (edit conflict) Canvassing would seem to be a concern. The article as it is just a link farm. Are any of these congregations notable? I think at least some of them need to have articles for this to be kept. Note that Bus stop's rationale is not valid as the list is not inherently promotional. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not "inherently promotional"? A Wikipedia listing provides prominence and a boost to the organization's profile. This is true even of comparable notable entities. The difference is these entities are given greater visibility without having first demonstrated notability for Wikipedia purposes. Bus stop (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have that effect but that's not the point of the list. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one view. I think certain MJ editors are using Wikipedia to create a public image of mainstream-ness. This article was recreated after the number of such congregations was challenged on Messianic Judaism. The editor who recreated this article had repeatedly tried to put a higher number in that article on the basis of WP:OR, and this article was intended as a support. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune dramatically. Some few of the congregations are notable, particularly those which were among the first congregations in the movement and are discussed at some length in the relative literature. Many or most of the others are not, however, and they could and should be removed. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. The criteria is too general - so far it is using congregations in the U.S., but then it will surely extend into the rest of the world. Congregations will open and close - this article makes it look more like a directory from a central organization of Messianic/Hebrew Christian congregations than an encyclopedia article. Any piece of useful info can be incorporated into the relevant master article, as can any note documenting the growth of this sect. Shiva (Visnu) 23:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article contains not a single congregation notable enough to have an article of its own and is not much more than a link farm.

Note - I don't think that the fact it was deleted under the same title before count as precedent, since it was speedied before the discussion could conclude.
Full disclosure - Although I was among those asked to comment here, I have edited the article in the past and would probably have found my way here, anyway. I don't think this should prejudice my ability to comment here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I too would have commented here regardless of whether contacted or not. I commented here only days ago, and I was aware of these proceedings, and I would not have passed up the opportunity to express my displeasure with what I perceive as an unworthy use of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to clarify what canvassing is not. As the guidelines states: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following ... On the talk pages of individual users, such as those who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." I, too, have no opinion as to whether the article should be deleted or not, but note that the conclusory comment above to the effect that canvassing has indeed been engaged in was, IMHO, not reflective of a sensitivity to this aspect of the guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Every last synagogue, church, mosque, ashram or religious shrine in America or on Earth does not "qualify" for an automatic listing on WP. Unless they can be written up as articles, even as stubs, and found to be fairly notable. That is something better left for Google or other search engines. Thus List of Messianic Jewish organizations exists and is enough, whereas the list in this AfD is a laborious violation of that by grand scale WP:Content forking. For the record, regardless of being contacted by the nominator, I always check Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism every time I log on to WP, so that I would have come here from there regardless of what is posted on my or anyone's talk page. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LINKFARM. I shudder to think what List of Roman Catholic congregations would look like, especially if notability was not a criterion for inclusion. St Anselm (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be an even better reason for deletion than the ones I listed at the start. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:LINKFARM. Note: I was one of the editors contacted about this AfD, but I also noticed it on list of Judaism-related deletion discussions, and would have commented anyway, so the point is moot. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification re: canvassing I had thought that posting the notice on the discussion page of the article was sufficient. When I didn't see any responses on this page, I was surprised, and posted requests on the pages of five other editors to get their attention. If this constituted canvassing, I apologize. But please note the time stamps on the creation of this AfD and the requests I made to those 5 editors, and you'll see what I'm talking about. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Messianic and Hebrew Christian Congrations would make a fine Category but a list is sheer non-sense The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A major purpose of list articles is to identify (by redlinks) articles that are needed, but one rabbi has an article and none of the congregations. Most have a footnote, but this appears merely to be a link to their own website. If kept, the list should be converted to a table, with the link as one column and the pastor/rabbi as another, but on the whole it might be better if it did not exist, as long as there is a directory elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not link farm, not directory, OR, non notable. He iro 04:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: At what point does this AfD end and the consensus get implemented? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I notice that none of the congregations on the list appears ot have a Wikipedia article. So I clicked several of the links, randomly, some led to dead pages, some to collective web sites, the few that led to pages for the individual congregation did not even have buildings of their own. In a country with many churches and temples, these are pretty marginal. So, while I understand that believers can allow their enthusiasm to carry them to create Wikipedia pages, I think this list should be deleted.AMuseo (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I appreciate John Carter's comment, but casting about on google for some of these congregations, I did not find any of them to have sufficient coverage to justify notability. Absent articles on notable Messianic and Hebrew Christian Congrations, I see no reason to keep this list. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:18, 3 October 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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xxoffann

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

Unsourced BLP that makes only a very vague and unsupportable claim ("one of the most famous and talented disc jockeys currently active in Maldives") as to notability. PROD removed by User:121.45.55.169 without comment. --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Started in 2008, still a stub, no sources. Ezhuks (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is a non-notable dj. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Salama

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

A very meritorious person, but probably not suitable for an encyclopedia. Another bio where there are borderline references, but I do not think they show any actual notability. I speedied, but was requested to reconsider, so I'm sending this here for a decision. (The references were not present at the first AfD.) DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judging by the cited sources, Salama is only newsworthy by association with Mark Bingham, not independently notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO, none, but one, of the references is about the subject. The one that is, is only his status with the California Bar. There is not even a claim of significance or notability in the article.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is an off-topic puff-piece about a non-notable person -Drdisque (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added in a notability sentence and cited it with an online reference (reference number one). Please let me know if that changes your positions. You guys work fast! Thank you all for your input and integrity to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexylamb69 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but the changes don't persuade me to change my opinion. Much as I agree with the comments about what an admirable person he seems to be, simply saying that he is "noted for" something doesn't establish "notability" in the fairly narrow sense in which Wikipedia uses the term. I see a lot of articles, here and on new pages patrol, where the subject seems a thoroughly admirable individual who undoubtedly deserves more widespread recognition, but that's not Wikipedia's function. Believe me, I take no pleasure from !voting 'Delete' in situations such as this -- there are a lot of pages that I'd love to see disappear first, but the harsh fact is that, whatever our individual opinions, they do meet the community's consensus regarding notability, and this article still doesn't. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking "Significant coverage in reliable sources" - WP:VRS, WP:GNG. Chzz ► 03:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is no longer an orphan.Sexylamb69 (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added in more secondary sources re notability.Sexylamb69 (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, the issues are none of the references are actually about Mr. Salama or of anything he is directly responsible for. One of the references you posted was in fact just a rehash of another that was already in the article. Being a candidate in a local election does not meet notability either. WP:BIO and WP:Politician are the policies you will need to look at for a chance of inclusion.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mr. Salama sounds like a person we would all like to have as a friend and confidant. However, under our current Notability guideline requirements or any of the sub-guidelines headings listed under Wikipedia:Notability (people) Mr. Salama fails the primary requirements
- 1 The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
- 2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

At this point Mr. Salama has obtained neither that I could find in my research. Though the article contains references, they are either blogs – special interest website – or local coverage. Sorry to say, this does not meet our criteria for inclusion. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you all for your input to date. Salama was just interviewed by the local newspaper - The Marin Independent Journal - for his candidacy for office, and there will be an article written about him in the countywide newspaper in the next two weeks, possibly sooner. Once this comes out, I can add it to this wiki. There are also debates all next week, the results of which are expected to be online. Once they are, I will seek your approval under politician, 3. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."" Thank you. Sexylamb69 (talk) 19:28, 29 September 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dj littlefoot

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

Notability seems very doubtful, but there are two refs present that, by a extremely strained interpretation, might conceivably be thought to meet the GNG. As it has been several time re-created, I've brought it here, to see if the community supports my view that this does not show notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Article of a local Des Moines, Iowa DJ. The subject fails notability established by significant coverage through reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While the article is not formatted correctly, apparent references include one article in a local college newspaper, a self-published notice on local website www.iowanightlife.com, a self-published notice on The DJ List social networking/promo site, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and the subject's personal website. This article was speedied three times with the author/subject removing speedy tags several times. Subject is not notable at this time per WP:GNG, therefore, I recommend deletion of the article. Cindamuse (talk) 19:50, 26 September 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 as wrong venue. Redirects are discussed at RFD. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 04:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coanda-1910

Coanda-1910 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

See for details [27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsorin (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment The article has not been tagged. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close because:
1. Speedy close no rationale given. Nominator should summarize their reasoning instead of having us trudge through a discussion to find it.
2. Procedural close as Coanda-1910 is a redirect, and redirects are deleted through WP:RFD, not AfD.
- 76.66.200.95 (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.W.A. (New World Agenda)

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

Contested prod. Article fails notability criteria for albums. And as this album will be released in Februrary 2011 it fails also WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted because it fits guidelines more than other albums here that have not been nominated for deletion. Take Detox for example. Not a single released, nor a release date in sight and it is still a huge article. 50 Cent's latest album also has had no singles and is still a huge article. We should not delete it because not only does it have two official singles, but two official remixes and two official music videos. I say we leave it. - broomtherapper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broomtherapper (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 September 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, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. No tracklist, cover or release date = no article. Also Broom uses that exact argument on every album he likes that gets nominated for deletion. Red Flag on the Right Side 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." This article appears to meet these criterion. And yes, Broomtherapper (talk · contribs) should stop using WP:OTHERCRAP. --Kvng (talk) 15:25, 29 September 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. Seems to be relatively equal weight and proportionality of comments for delete/merge or keep, with some significant viewpoints of value with respect to both. -- Cirt (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Newry car bombing

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

I prodded this under WP:NOTNEWS with the rationale:

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT - no deaths, and no demonstrated historical significance. All news reports are from either the event or the day of the arrest. More Wikinews content.

An editor changed the article a little and contested the PROD but did not, IMO, address the concerns in my PROD. Article is a news story about a horrible event - but there does not seem to be anything to show an enduring notability. All sources are written from the time of the event or at the time of the arrest. To prove my point the one retrospective source, written several months after the event, mentions the incident in 2 lines.... that is not enduring notability :)

The right place for this content is some sort of list or overview article. Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have the kindness to read the article and sources before making assertions in deletion debates. Contrary to the assertions that "All news reports are from either the event or the day of the arrest." and contrary to assertions that "there does not seem to be anything to show an enduring notability" This article, which is on the page, [28], and which was written months after the event, puts the event in the historical context of a spate of terrorist attacks in 2009-10 that we must all hope represent the last years of "hardline Republican" terrorism.AMuseo (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amuseo, I did read the article, thanks, and in fact in line with my AFGD nom policy I made at least a half hour search for sourcing material, with no luck. The source you highlight I already touched on, it supports my point. The article you references is not about the event - it mentions it as a recent event, in a couple of lines. That is all. The content that was sourced from that link was predominatly synth - or at the very least stretching the source to breaking point --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment reflects the nom's failure to do a good-faith search of sources beyond those found in the article. An AFD is supposed to be about ongoing notability, in the case of a recent event, notability is reflected by ongoing soverage and discussion and analysis of the event. Which this bombing has had in spades. It is inappropriate for an experienced editor to nominate an article for deletion without forst doing a google search and reading some of the articles such a search turns up.AMuseo (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - News story, not a historical event. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
Merge - To The Troubles in Newry, one of those ubiquitous lists for towns in Northern Ireland, affected by The Troubles. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments for deletion above are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to screen out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated bombings by militants who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news. A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable.[29] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[30]. Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [31] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by AMuseo (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The event does not have widespread coverage. The notability guidelines are very specific in wanting historical or permanent significance; neither of which items this has. As I said, an article covering all events is the right place for this. While you are correct this is not a paper encyclopaedia that is not a license to dump a vast array of events with little historical significance - such a thing is pure noise and detracts from the significant material. We should aim for a comprehensive but clearly laid out encyclopaedia. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are not the type of events alluded to in the unfortunately diffuse statements in WP:NOTNEWS. This has been clearly established by consensus in previous AfDs, and it's about time some examples of what goes and what doesn't are added to that guideline document to reduce the volume of unnecessary AfDs. __meco (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it is exactly the sort of thing NOTNEWS is about. However if this is unclear would an RFC be appropriate --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the news cycle beyond a single day. NOTNEWS doesnt apply. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, you might be referring to WP:EVENT rather than NOTNEWS. The NOTENEWS policy insists that most news items are not relevant. WP:EVENT clearly states; Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. In this case the only coverage is immediately surrounding the event, and then immediately surrounding the event. Which does not satisfy the requirement for further analysis or discussion. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From [32] (cited within the article) "It was the first dissident car bomb in the North for 12 years", referring to Northern Ireland, where this type of violence had been fairly routine in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Except for that context, there would be no historical significance to this event that (fortunately) did not injure anyone. Mandsford 20:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article also noted a bomb attack the previous year on the policing board. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many bombings and attempted bombings since 1998. This just happened to be the first successful car bombing for seven years (the last was on 22 August 2003). ~Asarlaí 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unique attack had important political significance as attested by a persual of the article.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a unique attack. There were over 10,000 bombings in NI between 1969 and 2001. There have been bombings since then, and there have been another three car bombings since the one in Newry. ~Asarlaí 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to The Troubles in Newry - Fails the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Codf1977 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Troubles in Newry. Wikipedia:Notability (events) refers to "enduring historical significance" which, in full context of The Troubles, is unlikely to happen with the event that this article covers. Wikipedia and its readers would be better served by incorporating this particular event in an article that ties the whole thing together. Location (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Troubles in Newry. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Although he may not have seen this AFD, on 7 August 2010, in response to a prod, User:Demiurge1000 wrote: (a fairly large car bomb attack on a law court in a heavily built up area, substantial damage, and a major police investigation; notability doesn't seem in question)AMuseo (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been notable enough if it had happened in a city in Britain...but, in the context of Northern Ireland, it's not that notable. ~Asarlaí 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is Wikipedia:Systemic bias, treating terror bombings differently because they happen in parts of the world that have suffered from many bombings is biased. This is not a paper encyclopedia. No harm is done in keeping an article that has had ongoing international coverage and that qualifies under WP:EVENT? But real harm is done is treating people in Northern Ireland as though threats to their lives are less important than threats to the lives of people in less troubled parts fo the world.AMuseo (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as notable because it's just one of the many bombings that have happened in NI since 1998. There have been three more car bombings since this one and they also continue to be mentioned in news articles. ~Asarlaí 18:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The proposed target article The Troubles in Newry, is about the wrong decades. The The Troubles in Newry are dated from the late 1960s and considered by many to have ended with the Belfast "Good Friday" Agreement of 1998. This bombing is notable because it hapened after the troubles where wupposed ot have ended.AMuseo (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source? I don;t disagree with that notability claim, but have yet to see a RS that makes such a distinct claim. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many bombings since 1998; this is just one of them. There have been another three car bombings since the one in Newry. ~Asarlaí 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This bobming was being widely cited in late September as an example of the operational capacity and intent to commit further acts of terrorism on the part of dissident Republican groups. I added a couple fo the references to the article, but a current news google search on newry court bombing turns up many more.AMuseo (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note To closing administrators puzzled by the existence of this AFD. I mentioned the Newry car bombing in AFD discussions about a bombing in Iraq, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks ", asserting that Wikipedia:Systemic bias was involved because similar recent bombings in English-speaking countries are not nominated for deletion.

There appears to be WP:BIAS at work in attempts to delete articles about terrorist attacks in Iraq, when articles about terror attacks and attempted attacks in The United States and Britain are not deleted. See, for example, 2010 Newry car bombing.AMuseo (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense. That article has the same problems as this. Just no one has got to it yet. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:tmorton immediately proposed this for deletion.

I am not asserting that this is relevant to the deletion debate. Only that the a Closing Administrator may be curious about the context of this debate.AMuseo (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect - it's already covered in Timeline of Real Irish Republican Army actions and Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process. The only reason this story got widespread coverage is because it was the first successful car bombing in NI for seven years (the last was on 22 August 2003). There were over 10,000 bombings in NI between 1969 and 2001. There have also been another three car bombings in NI since the one in Newry—they don't have their own articles and nor should they. ~Asarlaí 17:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. It got widespread coverage in addition to ongoing coverage and analysis. This is what notability is made of.AMuseo (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this bombing is thought to have been an attack on the Hillsborough Castle Agreement. I am still adding to the article form the many sources that have discussed in in the months since it occurred, including several in this weeks news.AMuseo (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As User:Mandsford quotes above, "It was the first dissident car bomb in the North [of Ireland] for 12 years". While some contributors have tried to argue that the news cycle disposed of this story quickly and attempted to use this to show lack of notability, we cannot rely on inattentive and easily distracted news editors to be our criterion for notability. The media often move on quickly. The first car bomb in 12 years is notable and historic, whatever the media does. A historic peace agreement was forged with numbing difficulty in Northern Ireland, and something as potentially devastating as a car bomb is a historic breach of the peace in a notable way; it is not a "minor" instance of post-terrorist gangsterism. It is true that many car bombs were detonated in Northern Ireland in the past—to the point of a grisly anonymity—but this one has the dubious distinction of being the first one after so long. It is a notable and worrying sign of endangered peace and is a prominent episode in a drawn-out history, not for large casualty figures or damage, but for what it indicates about the fragility of present Irish circumstances. --O'Dea (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Jewelers

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

A lovingly crafted advertisement with paper-thin sourcing, deleted as spam but undeleted as it had been around too long. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've added a couple of sources from the Wall St. Journal & The New York Post but they only appear to be notable for the lawsuit they were involved in. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: While I partially agree with the nom in that the article is slightly spammish in its current form, I think with some work, it could pass. I'm going to give it a shot later tomorrow. ~dee^(talk?) 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Plenty of hits for the individual brand names, particularly Kay Jewelers. Stub if necessary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to create articles on the brand names and then either stubbify (although I don't think that's justified at the moment) or delete the article on the parent company? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clicking on the Google Books search link at the top of the article finds loads of sources to demonstrate notability. Is it really too much to ask that deletion nominators, especially administrators, should follow deletion policy by only nominating "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" for reasons of sourcing rather than making wild guesses as to whether sources exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 28 September 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. With the additional added sources, it appears that he just squeeks by. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Trosch

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a former attack article which has been pruned down and now has two sources - trosch.org and trosch.org. Oh, and a supporting link to trosch.org. If you were to infer that this is the subject's own website you would be exactly right. The subject appears to have been a tabloid cause du jour for a short while some years back but there is no evidence of substantial biographical coverage, only commentary about his controversial statements. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But needs work. Doing a Lexis-Nexis Academic search in the category of "Major World Publications" with the search "david w/1 trosch" (the word "david" within one word of the word "trosch") turned up 87 articles from newspapers including the Washington Post, USA Today, and New York Times all indicating he is a well-known anti-abortion "militant." I'm going to go ahead and put in a couple of these to bolster the article. Can easily see that this is one of those controversial entries (keyword "abortion") that could be a battleground, but am convinced he's notable enough to include. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a few more cites from major newspapers. Ok, of those 87 articles in Lexis-Nexis Academic, a number are "false drops" (satisfy the search criteria, but not about the subject in question). However, there are still a number of relevant cites on the subject of this article that convince me that he is notable enough for a wikipedia entry. The original delete proposal was perfectly relevant based on the original article. This article still needs some work. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable. We should get the article right, which may take a lot of work, but that's not a reason to discard it Vrivers (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Appears to fail BLP1E. Yes there are articles about him from years after the event, but they appear to still be focusing on what he said surrounding the murder, and the consequences of this, rather than on his work elsewhere. Could be merged into the main article on the event. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage runs from 1993 to 2003. It would save everyone time if the nominator did a stroll through Google News archive first. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources exist (as demonstrated above) and have been added to the article. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable & sufficient sources exist. - 22:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Botnia

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

Non-notable organisations' single event Paralympiakos (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Paralympiakos (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage by reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources show notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable MMA event. Fails WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Botnia: Second Coming

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

Non-notable organisation's single event Paralympiakos (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Paralympiakos (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage by reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources that show this is notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable MMA event. Astudent0 (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Hawn

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

Fails WP:MMANOT. No content, no sources. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Paralympiakos (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games, athletes are presumed notable if they compete at an Olympics. According to the article, Rick was a in the 2004 Olympic Judo team. If he was, and he competed, and RS can be formed to confirm it, then the article is salvageable. I agree, however, that no source is provided presently. EdChem (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[33] provides a source in regards to him being on the US Olympic Judo Team. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as an Olympian is presumed notable, but the article needs sources. Jimmy Pitt talk 23:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the article needs these sources now then. We can't just keep it in the hope that someone will source it, because that rarely happens. Unsourced BLPs are to be cracked down. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've sourced the Olympic team membership claim. He's not notable as an MMA fighter. Papaursa (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but there's still no content to the page. Content needs adding or this should still be removed. One source does not a page make. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's not much content in the article, but I thought that source was enough to show he competed at the Olympics (which I thought was sufficient to show notability). Papaursa (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability guidelines for athletes by participating in the Olympics. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 28 September 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 per reasonable suggestions that something else can be done besides deletion. The issue of merging, renaming, rewriting, or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional law firms

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

Another unsourced list of questionable notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no basis on which this particular list would be deemed notable. Per nom, etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't fulfil any of the purposes of lists. It doesn't serve any navigational purpose since the articles linked have very little in common, it doesn't provide a useful information resource and there don't appear to be many sources discussing fictional law firms (as opposed to simply describing something as a fictional law firm). Hut 8.5 10:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to write about the perception of lawyers in fiction a better place to do that would be in legal drama or another related article. Hut 8.5 16:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the material that I have added addresses the perception of law firms in fiction, and not of lawyers generally (although there is plenty to be written on that). Law firms are a different creature. While more than half of attorneys in private practice are now affiliated with multi-lawyer firms, the remainder are still solo practitioners (granting that most solo practitioners are still in their own "firm"), and of course that excludes all of the lawyers who work for the government or are in-house in corporations. Law firms are also more than lawyers. They are businesses, with secretaries, paralegals, accountants, gofers, and sometimes even HR departments, IT departmetns, in-house graphics, and marketing people. Based on my personal experience, one of the major affronts to reality exhibited by fictional depictions of law firms is how understaffed they are with non-lawyers. bd2412 T 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Perfectly legitimate and useful list, helpful to anyone trying to recall any fictional firm. bd2412 T 13:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete - unencyclopedic cross-categorization, loosely associated topics, WP:NOTDIR.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- without sources that establish the notability of the topic, we cannot justify an article on it. Reyk _YO! 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added a reference to a source earlier today. That source exemplifies how the existence and conduct of law firms is a recurring theme in legal fiction, so with a little bit of patience, that information can be developed nicely. bd2412 T 21:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have added additional sources demonstrating the notability and range of study of this exact topic. bd2412 T 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have further expanded the article with reference to the sources added, and have laid out a standard of notability. I would respectfully request that this AfD nomination be withdrawn or deferred pending additional work on the article. bd2412 T 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ the new lead into Legal drama, delete the list for listing unconnected trivia. Category:Fictional law firms can continue listing those law firms that have an article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not finished reowrking this article, but I can assure you that not all fictional law firms are found in dramas, and there is sufficient coverage of firms in other genres to support keeping this separate. bd2412 T 16:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  - Changed to keep and rename to Law firms in fiction. This is a very different article now from the originally AfDed article. Merging is still an option, but discussion for that should take place on the talk page, not here. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sgeureka. The information that was added recently is interesting and useful, but we are better served if said information is added to the Legal drama article. None of that information addresses the problem of the triviality of the list. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can not just "add" the information to a different article while deleting the original content from this one. This destroys the edit history, in violation of the GFDL. bd2412 T 16:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have continued adding information with citations. The article is now completely different from that which was originally nominated. Does anyone object to keeping the article as it is currently composed? Cheers! bd2412 T 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your content would be better in an article on Lawyers in fiction (or even Law firms in fiction). Any page at this title is going to have to be focused on the list, which is unencyclopedic. Hut 8.5 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article to a title that more accurately describes the current content is definitely a viable option. Lawyers in fiction would be too broad (and would exclude much of what is actually goes on in law firms); Law firms in fiction would be appropriate to the direction in which the content is developing. bd2412 T 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an unencyclopedic cross-characterization, perfectly suitable list. If there's a strong desire to do so, every entry can be sourced from primary sources. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Move to Law firms in fiction and remove the sections that are lists of fictional law firms. The information about how law firms are portrayed in fiction is encyclopedic. The list of specific instances of fictional law firms is trivia. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , possible with the title change Karnacs just suggested. The lists, however, belong as part of the article. Important plot elements in notable fiction is appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting debate to obtain additional views following substantial rewrite.

Keep Legal dramas are quite common and this article provides a good survey of this notable field which serves as an index where we have separate articles such as Dewey, Cheatem & Howe. Our editing policy requires that we keep this good material. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the pitcher

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

Made up in one day ttonyb (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as non-notable drinking game. First you need a pitcher, a larger pitcher is better because it could hold more beer. Next you need friends, men only. Finally and most importantly beer. Hmmm, come to think of it, I reckon a redirect to He-man Woman Haters Club might apply. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
Delete I could only find this entry at Urban Dictionary. It looks like, it is not notable enogh to be included on Wikipedia. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 19:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per W:MADEUP Ezhuks (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. No speedy criteria applies, but SNOW will sooner or later. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 27 September 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 An Unearthly Child . Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Unearthly Child (pilot episode)

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

PROD declined. Fork of An Unearthly Child. Topic is sufficiently covered there. Most of the other text is copied verbatim from the TARDIS Index File (Wikia), and hence has no sources to speak of. — Edokter • Talk • 14:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to An Unearthly Child - minor differences between this and the broadcast version are enough for a section, but not an article in itself. This pilot was never even shown, so the notability is very low. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pilot was broadcast, but 28 years later; see An Unearthly Child (pilot episode)#Story notes. I can add a ref for that if you like. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, were it not that the BBC elected to headline one of their video & DVD releases with the fact that it contained this unaired pilot, so clearly (many years later) they felt the distinctions were "notable". 86.176.0.95 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it was broadcast once, and it was on a DVD...and that makes it notable? Does every single Doctor Who Confidential now become notable? "[T]hey felt the distinctions were "notable"." - or they felt it was a good sales gimmick. That doesn't confer notability. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@86.176.0.95: the version on the VHS & DVD versions was not the same as the broadcast version - up to the entry into the TARDIS they are the same, but from that point different. This was because two recordings were made from that point on, and one "take" was used to make the broadcast version, the other "take" used for the VHS version. The DVD has both "takes", but only one of them is edited onto the first half.

@Totnesmartin: I'm not arguing for "keep", but putting right some incorrect assumptions. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was thinking to merge into An Unearthly Child at first, as a section within the more obviously notable first episode article. However this is already quite a sizable article, with seeming justification to be so, so on the whole WP:UNDUE suggests that the best and most readable structure is as it is here, as two articles.

I wouldn't oppose a merge, but would strongly oppose a delete. The content here, piece by piece, is all pretty much worth saving. Dr Who is a pretty significant series and this episode is important, even if little known, in the history of broadcast sf programming. Keep vs. merge is a question of how best to lay out the encyc. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should note that most of the content was copied from the TARDIS Index File, and has major sourcing issues. — Edokter • Talk • 13:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that would be a copyvio problem and would best be cleaned up before looking at the question of deletion for the remainder. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked (energy drink)

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

Rejected CSD#G11. Nothing but an ingredient list. No evidence of notability. Where is CSD#A7 for products? The-Pope (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PRODUCT. WWGB (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Energy drinks is a recognised category. As long as the article is not a blatant advert it shoud be kept for possible expansion and appropriate tags should be aded. Other articles in this cat also have little more content. See 180 (drink). (BTW, I do know about WP:OTHERSTUFF ! ) --Kudpung (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Show me where it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I'll withdraw the nomination. Every product that is sold does not deserve an article here, even if a suitable category exists. And notability isn't temporary, and despite this project not having a deadline, I'm sick of tagging and waiting for others to improve - in 99% of cases, it never happens. Read WP:PRODUCT too, whilst you are researching what does and doesn't belong here.The-Pope (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does fail WP:PRODUCT. Jenks24 (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Eggleston

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

Poorly sourced BLP which does not demonstrate notability Jonathunder (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has been around for over five years, yet still lacks anything to suggest that the subject is notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN minister of a NN church.Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 30 September 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 as a hoax JamesBWatson (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siebe Snip

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

Unverifiable/possible hoax. No references, Google search doesn't return anything relevant either. (Originally proposed for deletion by me, deletion tag was endorsed by Reconsider the static (talk · contribs), but removed by an unregistered user - probably the article's creator.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-Reconsider | speak 12:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article's creator is blocked at Dutch Wikipedia, reportedly for creation of the same article and sockpuppet abuse. (Can somebody confirm this? I don't speak Dutch.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mike, i did use the Dutch Wikipedia but under another account name and i have not created a Siebe Snip article there. Also why is the Siebe Snip article open for deletion? Also i didn't touch my article other than making some small edits i did not remove your banners. --Alientools (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what a remarkable coincidence that you have chosen to use exactly the same username as a user on Dutch Wikipedia who created an article with exactly the same title. That really is the most amazing innocent coincidence I've seen for quite some time. The coincidence is even more remarkable for the fact that you tell us you too have edited Dutch Wikipedia. The completely different user with the same username as you has been indefinitely blocked from Dutch Wikipedia for longterm vandalism, and, if I have correctly deciphered the Dutch, has also been found to have been involved in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (I am doubtful enough about the Dutch to be unsure which). The article "Siebe Snip" has been repeatedly deleted from Dutch Wikipedia as vandalism. Perhaps you can tell us what your username on Dutch Wikipedia is, since you tell us it is not "Alientools". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. There are no sources about this person. Google-search results are posts by this person. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the circumstances, I agree; I am marking the page for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:51, 26 September 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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Al-Yass

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

I am unable to find any proof that he played with Al-Hilal. The club's website has no mention of him. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the information is verifiable. I can find no record of him at goalzz.com, rsssf.com or the-afc.com. Jogurney (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable player. Its news to me that you can be classed as a youth when you're 28. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not notable under WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, no evidence he exists, and if he does, no evidence he is notable. Giant Snowman 12:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Meditavism

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

this art movement manifesto was posted on blogspot on 17 september 2010.... seems suspicious Melaen (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find no other sources – and the blogspot post itself has currently zero replies. There is no sign that this is a notable movement – or even a movement. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails GNG. I could only find these press release outside the blog. This is clearly not enough. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 September 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of successful Hail Marys in American football

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

Too much SYNTH and OR to make this a viable article. Lacks enough references while editors have added commentary. Not enough sources link the list items as being notable into the topic. Also, RECENTISM (doesn't go back far enough). A complete purge would result in the list being incomplete (even though it is already). Does not appear to be salvageable as is. Cptnono (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Turns out that it was salvageable (in my opinion at least). Cleanup is still needed but that isn't enough of a deletion issue since the list's prevalence of OR has been significantly reduced. The other issues presented look to not be sufficient to others. New talk page section here Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether one likes or does not like this type of page, it is unusually well-sourced for a sports article. It's suggested that this could never, under any circumstances, be a viable article; but I don't see any objections ("not enough sources", "doesn't go back far enough", etc.) that can't be cured by the usual editing process. Mandsford 22:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure trivia. American football has been around for over a century, and this open-ended list starts just a few years ago. Not to mention the fact that "American football" entails all levels from Pop Warner to the Pros, inviting entries to this list of thoroughly non-notable instances of effective Hail Mary plays. Imagine if this was a list called List of holes of one in golf... That's exactly what we have here. Feel free to add your team's name to the list, kids! No matter how well-intentioned in conception, in practice this is not a rational list due to it's open-ended nature and inevitably trivial content. Now, if you want to convert this to something called List of successful Hail Marys in NCAA bowl games, let's talk... —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.

And shoot me a message if that happens since that would narrow the scope to something workable and kind of cool.Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hardly "trivia" by any stretch. Lots of reliable sources, notable events, and a good solid start on a list. It needs more history added, sure--but that's an editing issue, not a deletion one. As for the argument of "Pop warner football hail marys" -- hey, if one gets coverage in USA Today, ESPN, Sports Illustrated... then it's probably notable for one reason or another and would actually belong on the list. As for the argument that "kids" will start to add their names to the list-hey, "It will probably get vandalized" is not really a reason to delete it either. If that does become a problem, the page can be protected.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As currently structured, the list is limited to major college and pro "Hail Mary" passes. In that form, no real risk of kids adding their Pop Warner or high school plays. Solid sourcing as well. An interesting and useful compilation. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What defines what exactly constitutes a "hail mary"? It is far too subjective to make such a list feasible. A 80-yard pass on the first play of the game or a 20-yard pass to tie or win? Grsz¹¹ 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Response. Neither of your examples would be a Hail Mary. The term has been used to refer to a long pass (typically 40 or more yards) thrown by a team that is behind on the scoreboard in the last minute of a game to tie or win the game. Dictionary.com defines it as "a long forward pass in football, esp. as a last-ditch attempt at the end of a game, where completion is considered unlikely."[34] There may be some "gray" as to whether a particular pass is a "Hail Mary", but the ones on the list appear to be clear cases. Indeed, the press reports on these plays typically use the term "Hail Mary" pass. If folks start adding ones that are debatable, these can be discussed on the talk page. In its current form, I think it's a useful compilation. 05:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      - Further note. Actually, the list includes several examples of passes thrown in the last minute of the first half. These do not appear to qualify as "Hail Mary" passes in the classic sense, as defined, e.g., in dictionary.com. There is a need for a clearer definition within the article of what qualifies as a "Hail Mary." Cbl62 (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        A simple solution is to make sure that the source states that it was a hail mary so that it is not SYNTH. Several do not have any source. The fact that people are even discussing what a "Hail Mary" is punctuates one of the biggest concerns with this list. And adding highschool and lower ball would be easy enough with the current title and perceived scope. That also goes back to the recentism issue. Is someone going to be pulling hard copy sources from 1981 on a college team? We also haven't even addressed if the subject (individual plays) is notable.Cptnono (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm doing that as we speak. Secret ^account 00:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought perhaps the best definition of a "hail mary pass" could be found at the Hail Mary pass article which is linked in the list article in question: "~ refers to any very long forward pass, long bomb, or dragon made in desperation with only a small chance of success, especially one thrown at or near the end of a half."--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the referenced definition would be the best definition, particularly since there is no source. Not sure what the difference is between a "long forward pass" and a "long bomb" and just what is a "dragon"? Probably better to go with the one, quoted above, from dictionary.com. Cbl62 (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another thought if some six year old kid can throw a 40+ yard pass to win a game in pop warner football, I say list it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. To address User:Cptnono's concern about "RECENTISM (doesn't go back far enough)", I did some research and added early references to the term from games in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Cbl62 (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That made a huge difference. Enough people are saying keep and that just took care of much of the problem. Assuming this is kept, the only major concern are the entries without sources saying "Hail Mary". But that is a clean-up issue and not a deletion discussion issue so this might be able to be closed out now if someone wants. We might run into a scope issue down the line but that can be addressed if it ever comes up.Cptnono (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been improved considerably with reliable sources to back up this incredibly rare event in football. Notable subject. Vodello (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim the non-hail marys, rare play football's equvalent to a no-hitter. Secret ^account 00:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came here by accidentally visiting that article. What a load of trivia. Please, this kind of thing damages the WP brand. Apart from this, it's poorly written, poorly organised, and has a hint of POV in elevating what many readers would consider superstition to an unquestioned status. Tony (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pavao Keglević (Croatia) - Peter Markland (England) 1975

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

This chess game does not seem notable. SyG (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a regular high-level correspondence chess game, but there is no evidence of this being the subject of much attention. The comment about this game being excellent despite lack of computer assistance appears to be original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't take part in this discussion, because I had written this article, but I had written only from the literature, and I do not know whether is it true what is written in the literature or is not. Sorry, my English is not the best, isn't it. User:Budija, 26. September 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I don't see that this game is that notable, and the article seems to be trying to make a point about computers in chess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is a good-faith attempt to improve wikipedia, but this particular chess game doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an article. Quale (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. We have articles on a handful of famous games, such as the Evergreen game, Immortal game and Kasparov's defeat to a computer, but this game does not meet those high standards - I don't see the notability.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This game was not notable. 29 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.253.15 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Markland

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

This person does not seem notable. SyG (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Having a bit of trouble locating sources which give in-depth coverage of Mr. Markland, but I have a hunch that has to do with his best performances being in the 1970s, and therefore the best sources on him are probably not online. He is untitled, and his current rating is 2390, below the standards where we usually keep chess bios, but in 1972 he had a rating of 2510, #63 in the World [35]. The claims of Olympic participation in 1972 and 1974 are easy enough to verify [36], [37]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Sjakkalle points out, a very strong player in his time - unfortunately his OTB career wasn't quite long enough to pick up norms/titles, although he was, for a brief period at least, playing to grandmaster standard. As well as his Olympiad performances, he played board 3 in the England ETC team of 1973, ahead of Whiteley, Botterill, Wade, Stean and Miles (all titled players past or future). Also finished top British player at Hastings 1970/71, equal with Wolfgang Uhlmann, ahead of Robert Byrne, Robert Wade and Ray Keene, defeating Vlastimil Hort in the process. Nowadays an ICCF Grandmaster, another considerable chess achievement. Brittle heaven (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good enough at his peak. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chess Olympiad appearances are sufficient for me. ICCF Correspondence GM is also a claim of notability although no reference is cited. Quale (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wrong judgement of nominator. Please see wp:Not notable. This person got enough significant coverage to meet the criteria. Spatulli (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Mafia-related words

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

I think that this glossary should be transferred over to wiktionary. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 11:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do glossaries as a standard type of article. See glossaries on sports, for example. The argot or cant of the Mafia is highly notable and it is easy to cite numerous third-party glossaries which appear in the many works about this organisation. I have made a start on polishing the article and our editing policy is to continue such improvements rather than to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^verbalize 03:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Instead of explaining each word over and over again in hundreds of articles, they should link here for a further explanation. The article looks a mess, so should be tagged for cleanup, instead of deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a useful reference for all the terms aids in understanding. Dream Focus 07:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep already has multiple RS, trite/improper/unsourced entries can be removed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Dupont

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

Apparent BLP failure. The article has existed for some years without unequivocally establishing notability or addressing the unsourced original research or self-promotional POV text the article primarily consists of. There seems little reason to expect these issues to be addressed with primary independent quality sources in the near future. I find no evidence of notability in Google News or Google Books. Fæ (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new edition of Monsieur Dupont's book was published in the United States last year: http://ardentpress.org/nihcom.html

That a publisher in the US would reprint their work speaks to notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.162.45 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition it should also be noted that Monsieur Dupont's book Nihilist Communism is the subject of an internet discussion forum at this address http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=273, a section of the book has been republished in the most recent edition of the journal Anarchy AJODA (issue 68/9) http://www.anarchymag.org/ (see the contents page) as well as numerous other internet discussions/references which may be accessed via a google search. Monsieur Dupont's article, 'Revolutionary Organization and Individual Commitment' has been translated into Portuguese http://salon.lettersjournal.org/viewtopic.php?id=1249 and Russian (http://free-people.pp.ru/zhzh-informatsionnaya-lenta-uchastnikov-ada/monsieur-dupont.-revolyutsionnaya-organizatsiya-i-lichnaya-otvetstvennost-3.html).

The above represents interest in the subject matter by a geographically diverse group of people and the record of this only needs to be included in the Monsieur Dupont page to prove its suitability to remain within wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.211.169 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Oh dear, oh dear, wikisoapboxing at its worst. Every one of the references cited in the article is self-published, as are the references mentioned in the argument above. The only exception a tiny niche publication called "Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed", which seems highly unlikely to qualify for notability itself. Fails WP:BIO by a mile. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion lacking in independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above someone claims that publication by Ardent Press and Anarchy Magazine is evidence of notability. Ardent Press is one person. See: http://aragorn.anarchyplanet.org/about/ "My name is Aragorn! and I spend a LOT of time at the keyboard. I work in IT, I write, I used to publish a magazine, now I publish a site-to-be-a-paper, I publish books, and I distribute them." The phrase "I publish books" is a link to the web site of Ardent Press. One person's self-funded publishing operation is not evidence of notability. This person's blog here http://aragorn.anarchyplanet.org/2010/06/12/letters-of-insurgents-1-the-great-lesson/ writes that she or he has until recently been the published of Anarchy Magazine: "“Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed” which I have until just recently been a publisher of. My five years of publishing Anarchy magazine." Ardent Press and Anarchy Magazine are both self-published ventures, published in fact by the same individual. The article includes a citation of a review by Mute Magazine. Mute Magazine is an open publishing web site: http://www.metamute.org/login-to-post

Not notable. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellabaker (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect to state that: a. Mute is simply an open source publishing organisation, it commissions reviewers and pays £80 a time, the review in this case was commissioned b. It is also a fallacy to state that because a single person runs a publishing operation that this somehow does not constitute a publishing operation; c. Of course it is possible to discover underlying previously existing links in any small milieu, I don't see why this should be evidence for non-notability – despite its enormous reach even mainstream publishing is controlled by a relatively small number of people, many of them familiar with one another ... in that case 'notability' is probably even more 'arranged' between publishers, newspapers and other media outlets; that is the nature of the publishing game... ahh, your eyes glaze over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frere z (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The basic notability criteria are given in WP:GNG. These are a consensus definition for Wikipedia that should be met by all articles unless there is a local consensus for a particular article or article type. If the case cannot be made that the article meets the notability criteria or is a valid exception in this deletion discussion, then it seems highly unlikely that the article would ever be suitable for Wikipedia. Fæ (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this like Inherit the Wind?

Of course, notability is based on a consensus but the interpretation of whether a particular page meets the criteria of notability is not based on consensus, it is decided by a very small group of individuals who have in effect come to constitute an editorial oligarchy. It is impossible to know whether this group of interested individuals is simply upholding the definition of notability at the correct level at which it should be applied, or whether the idea of non-notability or negative notability has gone into a state of runaway. In other words, the application of the letter of the law appears very rigid, and yet it also seems highly selective, this is not a happy situation and as far as the function of Wikipedia goes, such a rigid application of the notability rule will do more harm than good in that interesting, experimental material will be lost whilst the integrity of the rules that are being defended will become more and more abstract and incomprehensible.

The number of individuals involved in making the case for non-notability does not exceed in magnitude the number of individuals who have joined the above mentioned study group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=273) and who find that the matter under discussion is notable. At what point does the interest of one group of individuals counteract another's? It seems that despite evidence of notability I have given above, this is never sufficient and yet how could such a small matter ever achieve notability when the world is not a natural environment but is the product of endless editorial conditions? In other words, the decision concerning notability now comes down to the interpretation of a few individuals made against the interest of a few other individuals where one argues for a general rule whilst the other argues for a special case. It seems to me that this set up of the disagreement causes more harm than whatever benefit is gained.

The very fact of this continued discussion and its circulation also marks the point at which your condition of non-notability itself passes recursively into an objective condition of notability. Sobeit, my final summing up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frere z (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, deletion is based on the General Notability Guideline, which you seem to be ignoring. The purpose of deletion debates is to give people the chance to argue why an article does or doesn't meet this guideline, and I have to point out that neither posts to forums nor self-published web pages count (or pages on Wikipedia, for that matter). Wikipedia is not a public service for people to publicise their pet projects, no matter how interesting and experimental they consider them to be. That is the way Wikipedia has always worked, those were the rules on which Wikipedia built its reputation on, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Message Board

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

Subject is a message board web site; it does not appear to meet the any of the notability criteria of WP:WEB. VQuakr (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just someone gushing about the epic lulz in their little corner of the internet. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spammy and not noteworthy. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nuke it from orbit. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:25, 30 September 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. 7 11:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Spiegel

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

The subject seems to fail basic notability tests. The sources to do not seem to show she's noteworthy. Moreover, this seems to be a potentially significant BLP problem because of the sensitive, arguably lurid subject matter and allegations (e.g. that she was involved in a "sex cult") Bad edits r dumb (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The author of the article claims to be Spiegel herself. Not sure how or whether we would verify something like this, but if it's true, this poses COI and NPOV issues. If false, this makes the BLP violations all the worse.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G10 - the article is clearly being used to publicize highly controversial and potentially derogatory material, and includes inappropriate private material, apparently with a singular purpose of highlighting the experiences of the author. As there is a clear BLP issue, I have nominated it for CSD:G10 and blanked the page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC) (updated 11:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Ekard

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

Minimal assertion of notability. --ZhongHan (Email) 09:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not found any source, which discusses the subject in detail. They are merely passing mentions. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any sources to establish notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not even clear what the claim to notability is here VASterling (talk) 19:45, 30 September 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. Please contact me for userfication if any of these are likely to pass ATH or GNG. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyer Allen

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

Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Cohen (rugby league) I am nominating this and the following articles created by Youndbuckerz (talk · contribs) on North American rugby league players which are likely to all remain Permastub's. Rugby league in North America is not a professional sport. None of them appear to have received significant coverage as per the WP:GNG. While some of them may have played for either the US or Canadian RL team, the recent discussions on the RL notability criteria at WP:NSPORT concluded that that was not likely to show that the players would likely meet the WP:GNG and there for these should be deleted.

Before this nomination I posted this list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league#More Youndbuckerz RL players for comment. Codf1977 (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete all except Akarika Dawn. Dawn played and started in Division I college football with Colorado. --TM 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going through a few random ones, I found several (like Zack Padgett, Phil Sipos, Conway Maraki, David Faimanifo, [Vea Ofa]]) who competed for the US national team. I suggest that the nominator go through more thoroughly.--TM 15:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as I say in the nom, that is no indication of meeting the WP:GNG and in this case they don't. Codf1977 (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist selectivelyI think the wider community standard is that reliable evidence of being on the national team is sufficient to prove notability,; the GNG is not the only means of showing notability, and it says as much on the guideline page. The relationship between WP:N and specific standards can be whatever the community decides. In any case, has the nom checked for additional refs, for every individual one of the people who have been on the national team? DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through the list and as I say in the nom, the list was posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league#More Youndbuckerz RL players for a week so others could likewise look at it. Codf1977 (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing for the US national team is most certainly not notable in rugby league. There is no wide community standard to that effect. The community standard in NSPORT is quite the opposite: that playing in a national team is only an indication of notability for a few countries (eg Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, England). We need to face a few realities. First, these are totally non-notable amateur footballers. Secondly, they are BLPs on the watchlist of one editor. A batch nomination and deletion is entirely appropriate here because the articles clearly fall foul of the very sensible standards that the community (in this case, in an exceptionally mature decision process) has set for rugby league players. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Community consensus regarding notability of sports persons is not uniform across all sports. In the case of rugby league the current consensus is that national teams such as those of the US and Canada do not automatically confer notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 23:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As much as I hate to say it, they all don't meet the notability guidelines and so they all have to be delete. Mattlore (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all most of them are well created pages i have tried my best to create them and i know they dont look the best also another thing to point out they say that rugby league in the US, Canada is just an amateur sport but that is the case in most other countries except Australia, England and Wales, New Zealand and France you look at countries like Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, Ireland, Scotland, South Africa, Italy, Serbia, Lebanon that have some of their national team players on wikipedia i think it is fair to just keep them all, they are developing quite quickly (Canada got 1,400 fans to their first game in about 15 years http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2764322 YB 07:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Youndbuckerz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Spatulli (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How they look is not the issue, it is all about are the players listed notable, and at this time RL in North America is a very minor sport and despite my post to your talk page here you made no effort to work on them to establish notability all you did was post to the project page here saying that "They have represented their counrties so they should be notable. If you keep deleting my pages i will not bother to improve rugby league pages on wikipedia anymore" which was not helpful. Codf1977 (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because every page i create is almost all the time up for deletion i log on to wikipedia and it says, new messages. Im sick of that. Stop nominating my pages for deletion. That goes for all of you, i know what i am doing i have been editing for about almost 4 years now. I know how to create a page and there are thousands of other people who come on to edit wikipedia. This is a place where people come and read information about certain things and i am here to provide the best possible details about things that i know about, stop deleting them you are wasting my time and other peoples who go out and try to provide the information and it ends up getting deleted if you want to make a proper contribution why dont you's all go out and help me improve them? Why do you all keep trying to find ways to delete my pages especially Mattlore, Codf1977, Mkativerata. I am one of the best rugby league editors on wikipedia and you dont want me :( YB 08:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:Notability (sports), playing for the US national team is not notable in rugby league. Spatulli (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another one who meets notability is Siose Muliumu who played for Limoux against Wigan in the Challenge Cup, before all these gets deleted i suggest that they get checked thoroughly through references provided in pages and through google. If playing in a world cup qualifying match does that mean they are notable enough?YB 23:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Playing for SL club in the Challenge Cup is an indication of probable notability, but playing for any Elite One Championship side is not, where as playing in a match in a World cup tournament is, but not in a pre-tournament qualifying match (unless it is for a RL county who playing for the national side is an indication of notability any way). Codf1977 (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom and Mkativerata. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press library of Guantanamo Bay detainee dossiers

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

Notability is not established. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTREPOSITORY. IQinn (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
Delete. Everything of relevance is already present in List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and there is no additional information here that warrants merging. The "library" itself is not notable as there is no evidence of coverage (significant or even minor) of the "library" as such. Not likely as a search term either, so does not warrant a redirect. Nsk92 (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Nsk92. Nothing more than an index to AP library. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital innovation

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

I searched on Google News for sources about this neologism. Although there were quite a few articles that used the term, none of them discussed it in a significant manner. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks to be a fairly self-explanatory term, unless one mistakes it for referring to a new improved finger (with Vitamin G24). I can't see an article being necessary to define it. I removed some text from the creator's talk page that appeared to be promoting a blog on this subject, so prehaps this is an attempt to promote the term - especially as the blog used the same name as the creator. The blog hasn't appeared in the article in question here, by the way. Peridon (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, largely vacuous; nothing particularly new here. Hairhorn (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable neologism Spatulli (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Murphy Kennedy

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

Notability is not inherited. Other articles provide in-depth descriptions of Kennedy ancestry D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, there is no indication of notability. Being a relative of notable persons does not make her notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kennedy family as suggested on the article page. The subject was not notable in life and is not notable 160 years after her marriage. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Armbrust. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:32, 3 October 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 Gladden Fields. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estelmo

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

This character is a non-notable minor character. Suggest merge or redirect, not sure to which article though, I would leave that up to someone more familiar with that section of Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gladden Fields , assuming we can substantiate that he's actually mentioned in the primary sources. He's not referenced there, so a single sentence merge should suffice. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gladden Fields, as we do have available sources that speak of him: [38][39][40][41][42]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 September 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. Ok I think it's safe to punch this one now. Yes I did comment here but not on the merits of the the article in question. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Apokélypse

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

Pokemon Apokelypse isn't a real movie. Even the sources say it will never be shown. Does not significant coverage in mass media: generally limited in Youtube and in fan forumsJL 09 ^_{q?_c} 05:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Deletion rationale is faulty - in this case, it does not have to be a real movie to be notable. Sheng Long, for example, is clearly not a real Street Fighter character, but is notable for being discussed in reliable sources. Similarly, reliable sources discuss this. And as for the second rationale for deletion added, it clearly does. Crave Online, Kotaku, Cinemablend, The Escapist, and GamesRadar are multiple reliable sources in mass media. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm calling bad faith nomination - the article makes it blatantly clear that it is still a work in progress. Making a decision that it is not notable when the author is still not done writing it is acting in bad faith and putting them in an awkward position. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Well-written, referenced article meeting #1 of WP:WEB. Just because the actual film isn't going to be made doesn't mean it isn't notable. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 05:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually going to say that an admin give a speedy closure of this - like I've said, nominating it for deletion so close after its creation is bad faith and assumes that this work in progress is not going to expand past its current state (which is well-referenced and clearly shows reliable sources commenting on the video). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not sure I agree that it's a bad faith nom... Plenty of articles are deleted or nominated for deletion when they are still in progress. It looks more like the nominator just needs to read up on deletion and notability criteria. That's just my $0.02, though. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 05:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe not bad faith, or not intentionally so, but the fact that it was clearly being worked on should have prevented such an AfD from happening so early. From what I see, the nominator only nominated it because of what it was. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search of sites that the video game project deems reliable by consensus at WP:VG/RS returns ten pages of results, not to mention the reliable sources already in the article. Note that whether or not something is a "real" film, whatever that means, or is merely a short small project is not a criteria to keep or delete an article, so I have only addressed the nominator's claims that there is insufficient reliable coverage. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the above. This is plenty prima facie coverage of this to easily pass. –MuZemike 06:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because something is a confirmed or likely hoax, it does not mean that it not notable enough to be included somewhere in the encyclopedia at the least (either as its own article or as part of another one). –MuZemike 06:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it even means anything... I'm surprised how well developed the production and reception sections are. Tezero (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can this be closed as snowball keep already? The article should be finished within a day or two and ready for GAN, and I've still got a good paragraph of reception thanks to GamesRadar to add tonight to boot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconding snowball keep. I'm pretty sure that even someone who has "voted" keep can declare snowball keep. I mean, it's pretty unlikely that 18 delete "votes" would appear - ie, the number that would be necessary for the result to even be delete. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep We have a well sourced, well written article, that confirms its notability through multiple reliable sources. A film is not required to have international theatrical distribution in order to be found notable, as notability may be found in a topic exceeding the requirements of WP:GNG and also meeting those of WP:NF.[43] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it difficult to find an admin willing to speedy close this due to WP:AN#AfD's generally closed too soon. I know I'm not touching it with a 10-foot-pole until its time period is up. Anyway, there's really no harm in it waiting out its full seven days. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 01:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, IAR closes under WP:SNOW were mentioned as exceptions. That thread was mostly concerning "non-snowable" AFDs closed between days 6 and 7. This one is borderline at this point. Another possibility is to ask the nominator if he is willing to withdraw. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have now asked him Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the topic itself is easily found as exceeding WP:GNG, I can only in best respects suppose the nomination of an article in the process of it being expanded and improved might have been due to a misunderstanding of notability criteria... or perhaps a lack of understanding of the deletion policy advisements at WP:ATD... and a hurried nomination of an article with such potential runs contrary to WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT. While you might not wish to touch it for another 7 days is fine... but WP:OUTCOMES and WP:BOLD might prevent a long and drawn out discussion when the results that WP:IMPROVE the project seem inevitable... specially in the face of improvements that continued[44] since its nomination... turning this into THIS. When a discussion is moot, it is moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I understand your points in that it is highly unlikely that this is going to receive many/any delete !votes. However, I agree with several people in the AN thread that following the 7-day policy is not hurting anything. I don't feel like this has much threat of becoming a long, drawn-out discussion, as everyone seems to agree (although it is threatening to become a drawn-out extension of the AN discussion). I will IAR if something is harming Wikipedia, or if it will dramatically improve something. I think closing this early does not fit one of those criteria. If another admin feels like closing early, be my guest, but I plan to leave it until its 7-day-mark. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 03:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Well, sure... a few more days will certainly not hurt. However, I have just a few moments ago asked the nominator reconsider in the face of continued improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently up for GA/N, so this may be viewed as problematic. Also, in regard to the comment you left on my talk page, the quotations around votes were to suggest that I know that they aren't votes - it's just easier to say "votes" than "proponents for deletion". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GAN backlog is considerable; it was nominated earlier today, so that it is currently up for AFD is likely to be irrelevant by the time a review is actually started. It isn't unusual for items to be listed for several weeks (if not longer) before they are reviewed. It would probably have been wiser to wait for the AFD to be completed before initiating a GAN, regardless of feelings over the merit of the AFD. A week is nothing, and there would have been only five more days to wait. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wow, quick on the GA/N. I have faith in the GA reviewers to look over this discussion, however. As for the comment on your talk page, I left it there so as to try not to lead this discussion to far off topic. If you'll notice, I mentioned that the quotes demonstrated that you understand they're not real votes (similarly to how I use !vote). I was just curious about the 18 delete !votes comment. Perhaps we should stick to talk pages to keep this nom more on topic? — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia has articles on numerous other fan videos, and the video itself has become quite popular and noticeable across the internet. Evilgidgit (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stonecold GX

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

Non-notable something-or-other in the music industry. Orange Mike | Talk 04:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND unless I'm missing something, but I'll leave this here to generate consensus since it's already listed. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 05:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and possibly dumb.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND and has not found any substantial coverage. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet again. No indication I can find of notability; fails WP:BAND. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are ghits it, but the sources don't look particularly reliable. I wouldn't expect a review in the Daily Telegraph, but nothing I saw looked more than forum level. None of the members of the 'collective' are blue-linked. One was but as this led to a disam page with no link to the person concerned, I've unlinked it. (Another appears now to be dead.) Peridon (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Member, not link... Peridon (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Z. Lehrer

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

Self-promotional article fails WP:PROF, academic work is largely self-published. Kosmos Kagool (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a previous AfD nominator, I will merely note that there are too many such non-notable parataxonomists who are at war with others, claiming that they are under attack and only publish books and private brochures in an apparent effort to fulfil certain ICZN requirements. In the past the main claim for notability has been the fact that the subject published a book. This has to be weighed carefully - particularly in the light of the vanity of the author and repeated personal attacks across Wikipedia. Shyamal (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one reliable source found on him, which scarcely establishes his notability and says his work matters, but should be treated with caution. Also written by the subject, who has been trolling around here. —innotata 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ——innotata 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read the Romanian version which is a lot more expanded and I did not think this person is notable. Essentially that article is so full of "Genus discovered by him: xyz Lehrer...., New species discovered" $%$#^# Lehrer" that I sincerely doubt that his claims are actually widely recognized. The article was also started by a user who only edited on this article... Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the only third-party source that we have on his works (the Rognes review) is quite negative, WP:BLP seems to apply. The source is reliably published, so it's ok to use it (and maybe necessary to use it if the article is kept, per WP:NPOV). But in a borderline case such as this, when a properly sourced article on the subject is likely to be negative, I think we should err on the side of not having an article at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone else wrote an article about him. A reliable published source. But delete until a proper article is written with this information included. --JaRoad (talk) 07:57, 28 September 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. and rename to Orsha offensives (1943). I've tweaked the article and the dates, someone more knowledgeable might want to look at it further (Orsa/Orsha?) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Orsha (1943−1944)

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

Completing nomination for IP. Jujutacular ^talk 04:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the articles history, since its inception in early 2010, no inline citations have been provided to support the article. A single book has been provided but not in English nor have any page numbers be used to allow authenticating even any of the article with the source; a major breech of Wikipedia guidelines. In addition tags have been in place for over two months further reinforcing this point and no action has been taken by the article’s creator or major contributors to improve the quality or coverage since then.

The unsourced information provided in the lede in regards to the strategic effects of Germany not being able to redeploy forces south is at odds with the sourced information in the background section of the Operation Bagration where it states Germany did so as this where they expected the Soviet summer offensive to come from.

Maps provided on other eastern front articles i.e. Bagration show Orsha being well behind the German frontline prior to the Soviet summer 1944 offensive and the online Russian presentation of the Great Patriotic War show no offensive being launched in the general area during the dates provided in the article, thus raising concern. Google searches do not find anything that relates to the specific winter battle this article describes and the two month old orphan tag makes one lean towards the opinion the article is some form of hoax hence i believe a discussion should be opened on AFD.

Regards86.4.81.225 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although there does seem to have been a Battle of Orsha, the facts don't seem to fit this article. See this Google search and this forum discussion which has a scan and translation of a book. Both of these sources place the battle in June 1944, not the winter of 43-44. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not knowledgable enough to say whether or not this is a hoax, but it is at least wildly inaccurate. The claim of over half a million soviet casualties, if true, would surely be easily verifiable but searches are not turning up anything on this alleged battle. The user who created this article is blocked indefinitely for creating disruption after being challenged in several other articles for similar exaggerations. The "literature" cited is available on google books in snippet view but nothing is returned in a search for "Orsha". Admittedly, none of this conclusively proves the battle did not exist but even if it did it would be preferable to wipe this dubious article and let someone write a better one from scratch. SpinningSpark 09:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Rename to Orsha offensives (1943). There were three failed Orsha Operations (Oct. 12-18, Oct. 21-26, Nov. 14-19 1943) - continuation of the larger Operation Suvorov, followed by (also failed) offensives against Vitebsk and Bogushev, and another Orsha offensive in the beginning of 1944. David Glantz called these events, combined, the 1st Belorussian Offensive [45]. This would make a fine merge target ... if it existed in English wikipedia. Bagration was something completely different; why it pops up in discussing the events of 1943 is beyond comprehension. Whether the three Orsha offensives need to (or may) be combined into one article (as in, for example, ru:Оршанская наступательная операция) is not an AFD matter. But the nominator is correct - for obvious reasons Soviet historiography stayed aside from this debacle, and the Western historians followed suit. The finest sources are in German. East of Borschov 11:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have 1st Belorussian Front. We also have Vitebsk–Orsha Offensive which is 1944, part of Operation Bagration. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and both are irrelevant. Events and formations of 1944 are only distantly related to events of 1943. By this logic, the Dieppe Raid should be incorporated into Operation Overlord, should it not? Both happened somewhere in France. East of Borschov 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. I seem to be dwelling on the 1944 Battle of Orsha still, which does seem to have been a real one. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note to say the author of this article User:Blablaaa has been blocked and would have been unable to add references or comment here. Saying that he did not make any attempt to rectify the tags when still active. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per East of Borschov. Good work for looking into this closely. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless references can be added to demonstrate its notability and to prove the reliability of its content, which has been seriously challenged. Anotherclown (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
currently iam blocked, so i cant take part in the deletion discussion. This battle is relevant. All informations regarding this battle are out "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Vol 8." . Numbers are also out of this book. In my opinion there is no doubt about the relevanz of this battle. The scope alone; several hundred thousand soldiers took part. But there is an issue with lemma, this period of eastern front especially around Orsha is bad researched and so its hard to find a good lemma for it. Perhaps somebody finds a better article name. A combination with other operations in this area is possible. This battle has nothing to do with Operation Bagration.... Maybe somebody is so kind to copy my text to the discussion Blablaaa (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Copied from Blablaaa's talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs expert review and solid inline references. With the vast amounts of books on WWII, there shouldn't be a problem with verifying the facts. Obviously, if it is a hoax or woefully inaccurate, than speedy delete. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:42, 3 October 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 Bad Acid Trip. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiotic Slavery

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

Non notable album, fails WP:NALBUM Only trivial coverage CTJF83 chat 03:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Bad Acid Trip as it is a non-notable album, but is a valid search term. Could not find any non-trivial coverage. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 27 September 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, based on unanimous opinion that it was a hoax, and that the Portuguese Wikipedia equivalent (where they would be presumed to know about this award if it existed) has been speedied as a hoax.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soul and Jazz Awards

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

Unsourced article that only comes up with Google hits of Wikipedia articles and mirror Wikipedia articles and no Google News hits when searching for "Soul and Jazz Awards." It seems unlikely to me that a Brazilian award would be giving all these awards to non-Brazilians, that there would the be more Pop and R&B categories than soul categories and no jazz categories given the name of the awards. Aspects (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Hoax. Reads suspiciously like a favorite artist list for User:Jonhmayer-fã. I note that in the history the award program has shifted from being established in 2002 with winners for several years to its current state of a brand new award program that has only awarded things in 2010.—Kww(talk) 03:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The day Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson, Lady Gaga and Colbie Caillat are either soul or jazz artists is the day the record industry self-destructs. Completely unbelievable, and I don't like using the H word in a nomination because it's against policy, but this is definitely a hoax. Nate • (chatter) 07:27, 26 September 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. 20:27, 1 October 2010 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Edd Plant" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Plant

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

NN, fails WP:BAND, no coverage, that I can see CTJF83 chat 03:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. I can't find no sources, which describes him in detail. There are many with passing mentions, but this is not enough. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious vanispamcruftisement for non-notable "musician". --Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 30 September 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahavath Torah

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

Non-notable building and religious congregation TM 02:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't come to a conclusive decision, but at the very least it should be merged/redirected to Stoughton, Massachusetts.
Oppose. Almost ~~100~~ 120 years old, oldest synagogue in the city. Notable institution. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument for inclusion Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--TM 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting essay, but unrelated to my statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply existing for any amount of time is not an indication of inherent notability. It fails WP:GNG, as the only sources are from their own website and a local book.--TM 03:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must keep perspective. A Jewish synagogue that exists for over 90 years in Christian America where Jews are a very tiny minority is notable. There are few like it. Please use logic and not just WP:LAWYER. Also note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book isn't "local": Arcadia Publishing is a national publisher that publishes local history, which is something completely different. Also, WP:GNG is a guideline that is often helpful in general, but doesn't cover this (and other specific situations) well. That's why, for example, there are many specific notability guidelines for academics, books, numbers, etc. That's also why all high schools are considered notable (or at least have been in the past). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address this specifically. The book you call "Stoughton History" is in fact a book called Stoughton (Postcard History Series}. The entry you presume discusses the synagogue in detail is in fact a single snapshot on page 12, of Stoughton's First Congregational Church, the caption of which says "The First Congregational Church later sold it to the Ahavath Torah Synagogue in 1958. The structure is now used for residential apartments." To suggest that this discusses the subject of the article in meaningful detail, or to imply that this constitutes a source heavily bolstering the notability of this synagogue, is mind-boggling. Ravenswing 01:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a later book. The source I had in mind was the 2001 book Stoughton (same author and publisher), which has more information. The article now cites material from page 31 of that book. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is WP:NOTABLE as per Jayjg. It is a big part of the history of that city and region. IZAK (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see two editors claiming it is notable without saying exactly how it is notable. Has there been significant coverage in multiple independent sources? No, so it doesn't pass GNG. Is it on the National Register of Historic Places? Not to my knowledge. It is a blatant example of what WP:LOCAL refers to and your votes seem to indicate that you just like it, so it is notable.--TM 06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two editors you mention do know something about this subject being long-time Judaic editors. Note that it does not have to be cited in the sources you mention. It is a notable synagogue with an even longer history. See also [46] that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here" and the same applies here. According to the criteria you cite basically no synagogues would qualify as notable. IZAK (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a self published source, which obviously fails WP:RS. Other than that, I see a local book which does not in itself justify keeping. Just because it is a synagogue does not mean it doesn't have to pass the same standards as other articles. If you can provide other sources, please go ahead, but as it stands now there is no way it is notable.--TM 07:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look, since your last comment much work has gone into upgrading the articles and it now cites over 10 very good and reliable sources. IZAK (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The article has now been upgraded with additional important WP:RS content fulfilling WP:CITE and WP:NOTABLE with over 10 new references that makes the importance of this synagogue very clear. The nominator is kindly requested to withdraw his nomination in light of the new improvements. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't prove anything beyond the notability of the Rabbi. They don't talk specifically about the synagogue, but only about the Rabbi. I think WP:NOTNEWS also now applies.--TM 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more carefully. The sources clearly mention the cutting-edge (essentially controversial) political activism that is presently taking place at the synagogue itself, while the rabbi's role is much larger since he goes out to speak at events outside of the synagogue. IZAK (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lead states why it is notable clearly. The only question remaining is "Is the oldest ________ in _________ inherently notable?". I feel that Izak makes a reasonable case that in this case the synagogue is notable. Joe407 (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there is an electronic echo chamber on here. What claim to notability does it make other than existing? No serious editors (of which I have no doubt all three of you are) can really discount GNG and all of the other guudelines I've mentioned.--TM 13:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The arguments to keep are terribly threadbare. First off, the references to the rabbi are irrelevant, except to the rabbi's own notability, an issue not under discussion here. Likewise, that a number of speakers who've appeared there might be notable doesn't make it any more notable than any other venue; notability is still not inherited. Almost all the references in the article are not, in fact, about this synagogue, and refer to it only in passing it at all, a violation of WP:V and WP:GNG.

Secondly, Jayjg's startling implication that WP:GNG shouldn't apply because it "doesn't cover this ... well" is founded nowhere in policy or guideline. There is a curious notion found among some editors that (using this as an example of the syndrome) if few churches achieve notability through the GNG, the GNG shouldn't therefore apply to churches. Nonsense; it means, rather, that few churches are notable, and that the reliable, independent, third-party sources to sustain articles do not exist in such cases.

Thirdly, I do hope IZAK isn't seriously suggesting that only editors with involvement in Jewish-related articles have a voice when it comes to such AfDs. Were that accepted practice on Wikipedia, my retort might be that having been born and raised in, and being a current resident of, a city one town away from Stoughton, and living the next block over from what was the oldest synagogue in the South Shore until its closing last year, I am considerably better qualified to judge what is or is not "a big part of the history of that city and region" than someone who I expect is neither a resident of Stoughton, the South Shore or Massachusetts. That being said, if you believe it to be, IZAK, prove it. I challenge that it's either.

Hi Ravenswing: Obviously any users can participate in any AfDs. That being said, it is also true that every area of knowledge on WP has its long-time editors with proven expertise in particular subjects, as verified by their co-editors. Such opinions are important. I know nothing about neurosurgery or astrophysics so therefore I would think twice or thrice when venturing opinions in the presence of editors who over the years have proven they are masters of that field. So let the debate go on because I am obviously not placing any restrictions on anyone, just calling for a common sense approach to opening up the subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthly, that high schools have automatic passes and that there are specific notability guidelines for academics, books, musicians and the like are irrelevant; neither case applies to churches, as Jayjg and IZAK well know.

WP:V and WP:GNG are quite clear; they require reliable, third-party, published independent sources which discuss the subject in significant detail. Requiring that articles meet this fundamental standard is not rules lawyering; it is the core issue at stake in most deletion discussions. As far as I can see, the only argument proffered for retention is that this is the oldest synagogue in Stoughton. So stipulated, but so what? Stoughton is an average Massachusetts suburb; we're not talking the oldest synagogue in New York or London. There are numerous other churches in Stoughton ... Catholic, Unitarian, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal. No doubt they're all the oldest churches of their denominations in Stoughton. Do they all merit articles by that fact alone? TM's right; that's nothing more than an ITEXISTS argument. Ravenswing 17:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, I find your comment confusing; if there are all sorts of cases that aren't well covered by WP:GNG, why wouldn't this be relevant? Why isn't it possible that this too is a case that isn't well covered by GNG? Now I'm not suggesting all synagogues should have Wikipedia articles; indeed, I've initiated the deletion of many such articles myself. But why wouldn't the fact that high schools are apparently exempt from GNG be relevant to whether or not some synagogues also are? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're making a straw man argument; I do not, in fact, claim that there are areas not well covered by the GNG, and have historically been quite solidly against the premise that high schools should be exempt. That they are is due to enough editors claiming they ought to be to make forming a consensus to the contrary futile. No such pressure group exists to exempt churches ... and since you are not, by your own admission, claiming that all synagogues are notable by default, exactly what is the point you're attempting to make? Ravenswing 01:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All policy on Wikipedia is "by consensus", whether or not it's reflected in a guideline such as WP:GNG. In fact, as you apparently admit, Wikipedia consensus regarding high schools is that they are all notable, regardless of what WP:GNG says. In other words, either they are exempt from WP:GNG, or WP:GNG does not reflect Wikipedia policy - there's really no way around this conclusion. My point is that this particular synagogue, almost 120 years old, the oldest in Stoughton, is, by that virtue, notable, regardless of whether or not WP:GNG comments on this issue (just as it doesn't comment on the notability of high schools). And please call synagogues "synagogues"; that's what we're talking about here. A synagogue is not a church, that's why English has different words for them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article makes credible claim of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient references in RSs reflecting notability when (if) one checks the article, the 30 gbooks hits, and the 102 gnews hits. There is sufficient wheat there, when separated from the chaff.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. Most of the google book hits are either a trivial directory listing or already in the article. Obviously it exists in a major media market in a western country, so there will be gnews hits. As for the article, there are still not sufficient, non-trivial independent sources to pass GNG.--TM 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. The gnews hits are not to be dismissed, as nom suggests, because "it exists in a major media market in a western country". That's a novel argument for deletion that is curious, but not reflective of policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Yoavd (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Churches and temple that exist for over a century, construct buildings, expand those buildings and hold programs that generate more than local coverage, as this one has done, are notable.AMuseo (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make a policy-based statement rather than a personal opinion-based statement??--TM 01:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice the words "generate more than local coverage" in his statement or are you of the opinion that generating coverage is irrelevant to the question of notability?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:43, 3 October 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 Quarl ^(talk) 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary C DeCaires

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

Written like a resume, and does not fit under wikipedia's guidelines. Borderline CSD G11. Someone nicely put a Prod BLP tag on the article while I was putting this up for deletion. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 01:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Speedy tag for CSD G11 has been placed. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 02:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, biospam, not much to discuss. See also Rosemary DeCaires posted by a separate account. Hairhorn (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Hairhorn. Someone needs to keep her from removing the deletion templates, too. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, she's well on her way to a perma-ban, which seems like a perfectly good solution. Let her knock herself out; I have all the time in the world for reverts at the moment. Hairhorn (talk) 03:37, 26 September 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. The consensus is to delete - the 'keep's cite an award which does not appear to be notable, and IMDB which is not counted as a reliable source -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chessie Chaney

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

Appears to be self-promotional, lacking reliable sources. None of these appearances or recordings appear notable. Perhaps in a few years, written by an objective party. JNW (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wait a few years. I'm sorry, Chessie. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no reliable enough sources, and doesn't appear to be notable at all. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dream the impossible dream and all that, just not in an enclyclopedia VASterling (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She received a Youth Hero Award from a City Organization. She's also on IMDB.209.2.60.88 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Youth Hero Award and IMDB. 24.185.98.23 (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two above comments come from WP:SPA IPs that have never contributed edits before. There is no evidence that the award is notable, and IMDB is not considered a reliable source. JNW (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Youth Hero Award is Notable and IMDB seems to be pretty much reliable. Here are a few files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Blunt most of her credits are (uncredited). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imani_Hakim and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tequan_Richmond. I recommend to Keep and give her some time to build her profile. Chessiechaney 16:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessiechaney (talk • contribs)

Comment The award is not notable because you say it is; IMDB is not generally accepted as a reliable source. Articles are not kept in order to give a subject 'some time to build her profile'. Also, your account name suggests concerns re WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. JNW (talk) 16:35, 3 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Dog Productions

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

Minimal assertion of importance/significance. --ZhongHan (Email) 01:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm bemused by the claim that "the label released 2 top 10 singles on Sydney's Underground Charts"; if the charts are 'underground', how are these statistics compiled and why are they publicly released? (and why are the charts underground anyway?) Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Even their signed artists are non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:47, 3 October 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 United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2010. The Keep rationales are unconvincing. Clearly, this can be re-created should Labno become undeniably notable Black Kite (t) (c) 22:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Labno

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

While I wholehartedly support third party politics in the US, Labno fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN due to the lack of independent sources and a lack of election to public office. TM 20:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TM. I disagree. Candidate meets primary notability criterion (ie, candidate does not fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN) so the article should not be deleted. Candidate Labno is the 4th of 4 named candidates on the ballot for United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010 certified for the ballot by Illinois State Board of Elections on August 27, 2010 according to Associated Press in Chicago Tribune Aug. 27, 2010. Since that date he has been routinely referenced by independent sources alongside Mark Kirk, Alexi Giannoulias, and LeAlan Jones thus meeting primary notability criterion. See: Daily Herald Sept. 17, 2010; Chicago Sun-Times Sept. 10, 2010; and ABC-7 WLS-TV Chicago Aug. 27, 2010. The Chicago Tribune also recently began including Labno in their polling on the race Tribune Senate Poll, Sept. 2, 2010. Cardinal91 (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I am the article's primary author. Note also that the article is currently listed as a stub since the ballot access was first granted by Illinois State Board of Elections on Aug. 27, 2010 -- independent sources will accumulate in coming weeks. Thanks. Cardinal91 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that coverage fails WP:BIO. I am fine with moving this to your userspace until Labno does pass the standard.--TM 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still disagree. Keep. (I am the article's primary author) Cardinal91 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Labno seems to have been the subject of multiple independent news articles regarding his candidacy for Senate and thus meets the basic criteria set out by WP:BIO. Gobonobo ^T ^C 01:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like there are several independant articles at this point.VikÞor | Talk 22:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are those? The only one is from Project Vote Smart. The other ones either simply mention his candidacy or are from his own website.--TM 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - article is being updated from independent sources as information becomes available. Currently only two of the eight sources reference the candidate's website. Cheers. Cardinal91 (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The independent sources trivially coverage Labno. They mention his candidacy and that is about it. Still fails WP:GNG.--TM 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not fail WP:GNG given that at least WLS-TV 8/27/10, Daily Herald 9/17/10, Independent Political Report 8/26/10 and Chicago Sun-Times 9/19/10 references include candidate in significant fashion even if he is not the main topic of each article. All four of those references are reliable and independent of the subject. Therefore I continue to maintain that subject is suitable for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Thanks! Cardinal91 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The ABC, Independent Political Report sources are trivial. The source marked Daily Herald is a link to the Labno website and the Sun Times is a blog. I am going to fix that in a moment, but you need to remember that the trivial sources only cover his campaign positions and nothing more. For a biography, a source cannot just cover a candidate's political positions in an election campaign, but at least details about the person and their career.--TM 04:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least 1/3 of the ABC article covered Labno and the entirety was about the Libertarian Party as a whole earning its spots on the ballot. I fail to see how that much coverage in an article is "trivial". Further, Lynn Sweet is the main political reporter for the Sun-Times stationed in their White House bureau. The link you removed went to an article housed on her section of their newspaper website by another of their political reporters named Abdon Pollasch. Just because the word "blog" appears in the URL doesn't always mean it's a local-yokel. :) I'll see if I can find another link to that same Sun-Times article. The information cited in the source was pertinent to the article. Thanks Namiba. Cardinal91 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could be argued that any ballot-listed candidate for the U.S. Senate is notable, but I don't agree - and that's the only basis on which Labno qualifies. The sources provided in the article are not very significant. The two Sun-Times articles are about other people, with passing references to Lagno. The story from the Independent Political Report is mostly about Labno, but I don't know if it is a Reliable Source. Project Vote Smart lists info about everyone on every ballot right down to dogcatcher; being listed there does not imply notability, and the information they publish is mostly self-supplied and thus not independent. The Daily Herald piece is about Labno's candidacy and the ABC item is about him getting put on the ballot; in my mind those stories are about the election, not about him, and do not make him notable per WP:POLITICIAN, but others may disagree. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so keep per MelanieN's notability argument. Five clear reliable sources and two voter guides is plenty for a Libertarian who has obtained ballot access. JJB 07:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010 per WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the coverage about the candidate is in the context of the election, so (per WP:BLP1E) redirect to the election article. Location (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make sense. "Routine election coverage" is the source for many a candidate article on WP. Cardinal91 (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basically it means that a person has to be notable for something other than running for a position to be notable. He or she has to be covered in non-election related sources. Take the example of Tom Clements in South Carolina. He is the Green Party candidate for US Senate and has received coverage for that position, but also is a widely recognized and influential environmental activist, which is the real reason he is notable. Labno is not notable because the only coverage of him is from his campaign for the Senate. Simply being a candidate and receiving routine press coverage because of that campaign is not an indication of long-lasting notability.--TM 21:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This doesn't make sense. Here's why: As a for instance Joe Walsh, Scott Harper, Bob Dold, Joel Pollak, and Dan Seals are all candidates for Congress from Illinois. None of them is known for anything other than being candidates for Congress. There are many others in Illinois and around the US in similar situations. If simply being a candidate and receiving routine press coverage because of that campaign is not an indication of long-lasting notability why are there articles for them? Do those other candidates only have articles because of they're party affiliations? Please clarify the definition of the rules you're referring to because they appear to be unequally applied. For the matter, why is there an article about Labno's predecessor as Libertarian candidate for Senate from Illinois -- Larry Stafford? ~~Keep.~~ (I'm the original author.) Cardinal91 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might answer your question. Those articles probably need to be merged and redirected as well.--TM 23:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per MelanieN. Routine election coverage like this is not enough for us to write a proper biography about a person. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Location. In the Chicago Tribune poll cited above by Cardinal, Labno was at 3% ... in a poll with a margin of error of ± 4%. This shows that he has not been a significant factor in this election so far. He has received only minimal media coverage. (Although this is not an essential part of my argument, I notice that his campaign web site has no indication of any public or media appearances he may be making.) If he later becomes a significant factor in the election, the article can be broken out again as a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A new poll is out today, and Labno is still at 3% in a poll with a margin of error of ± 4%. [47] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that polling indicates a level of notability one way or another. Polling is at best temporary and artificial and at worst biased (see push polling). Since we can't comment on anything notable he has done outside of his campaign, he still doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN.--TM 19:09, 3 October 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 as a repost of an article previously deleted via a deletion discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FlyTeam

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources provided to verify information in the article and demonstrate notability, may be a hoax. A look at the previous discussion of a deleted article with this title (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyTeam) suggests, in fact, this is probably a hoax. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. No references, no citations. JJ98 (Talk) 08:59, 26 September 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up Mississauga (WUM Magazine)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/What's Up Mississauga (WUM Magazine)

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

Previous AFD from two days ago speedy closed after the author requested deletion. This entry was a duplicate, which I turned into a redirect, which is now an entry again. Same issues as first AFD, non-notable magazine, no sources, and a search for sources turns up little more than Facebook and Twitter. Hairhorn (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pre above reasoning, Sadads (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's up Mississauga. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. First issue is Oct 2010. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's up Mississauga. Spatulli (talk) 16:22, 29 September 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Tree

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

Extremely minor local legend, popularized by a single website and it's publoishing arm, with very minor mentions in local press. No attempt to demonstrate any notability outside of this extremely limited geographic area via multiple, reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I failed to find enough reliable coverage for this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge content to Martinsville, New Jersey, then, if you don't think it deserves a standalone article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: But if this really does pan out, we might consider the notability threshold met. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep including the sources given on the article itself, I find New Jersey Curiosities (linked to WNJ), Coriander (inclusion in a fictional book), Jersey Journal (ha Mr. Case behind the lens) of course the non reliable fansite No. 1 ,2 and 3 and many more, and dozens of Weird NJ publications, and there is upon further searching (and potential expansion) quite a back story for a "Devil's tree". Of course, we would need some resource to claim this connection, but its definitely interesting, and as Daniel brought up, the Travel channel coverage in my opinion, would be great for the article, but it already merits one. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical of many rumor/legend/cool story articles that don't have any notability outside of local coverage and seem to function as a playground for Steven King wannabes. There are a number of other articles sourced entirely to Weird NJ (my favorite, Shades Of Death Road) need to be evaluated for adherence to WP:GNG as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm sorry, were we allowed to elect to omit a reliable source? WNJ is a highly publicized, highly printed, read-by-many (even outside of NJ) publication. I understand dos RS, and in this case we have usage in a fiction book, a local magazine, another book (although linked to WNJ) and potential coverage (ah... seeing into the future can be dangerous...) by a major cable network. Sidenote, even though a New Jerseyian, I feel in no way obligated to keep this from some biased standpoint - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird NJ admits to an editorial process consisting of "interviews with people we meet along the road who we feel have a story to tell, and stories sent in by subscribers telling their own Weird experience living in New Jersey." Not to say it isn't entertaining and fun, but it's definitely at odds with the goal of creating a serious encyclopedia that cautions us to avoid sources that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Aside from Weird NJ, we need multiple reliable sources that discuss "The Devil's Tree" to demonstrate notability that justifies it having its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess this is sort of turning into a meta-source discussion, but I don't think that it is our un-authoritative decision to make, it is information printed in a reliable source, just like any restaurant with a review in the New York Times (albeit that the paper must fulfill this restaurant requirement) or most tenured University professors fully meet the requirements for inclusion. I'm sure any local legend ie. the Jersey Devil, which is admittedly covered 100-fold, began with hearsay like this. I'm not saying that this will ever reach that legendary status, but it is our duty to report what others have said, and not to decide what constitutes encyclopedic value. This topic is covered by WNJ and Weird US, Brief mention by Rutgers Investigation team, a NJ paper, another NJ book of related topics, fictional book, tons of fansites.. ha, I'm good on this for now. Summary, in my opinion, enough RS and coverage, and we can only report from reliable sources, not supposed to put ourselves between that. - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you are collecting folklore, talking to people you meet is how you do it. The rumors are the significant facts. I also wouldn't characterize all their reporting the way Moran and Sceurman do (or did ... I think they wrote that some time ago). I've noticed a fair amount of their recent issues have included work by other people who seem to have a more journalistic background, and it shows ... the story which was the major original source for Action Park cited its own sources extensively.

While I would like more sourcing too (I personally feel the two mentions in other sources (the Star-Ledger is more or less New Jersey's newspaper of record, which to me gives it more heft than the Courier-News, which is more local) are non-trivial, but I do see how opinions can vary), but I don't generally quarrel with Weird NJ's data collection methods, which aren't really that different from what I learned in a graduate-level folklore class (Interpretation of folklore, on the other hand, is best left to professionals). Just because that wouldn't be acceptable for a Wikipedia article doesn't mean it wouldn't be acceptable for a source (see this AfD for the hilarity that ensues when someone does decide Wikipedia policy covers sources as much as our own articles). Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 28 September 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jarnail Singh (journalist)

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

HE definitely does not deserve to be on wikipedia! In my opinion this subject lacks notability! see. WP:NOTE ... The only noteworthy thing he did was hurl shoes at an Indian minister. And since this was after the Muntadhar al-Zaidi incident, it was not even an original idea! Moreover, majority of the article consists of The Shoe incident and Immediate Aftermath which are part of the same incident thus making is unencyclopedic.. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Amartya ray2001[reply]

OPPOSE - Come on buddy, the shoe hurling incident by Jarnail Singh stirred the whole country. If you are from India, You can ask and verify from any of your neighbour that they know Sikh Journailst Jarnail Singh or not? If you have any probelm with contents of article, you are welcome to modify it. But Plz don't mark it for deletion. Quality Check ^(talk)

I'm from India and live in a University campus and no one remembers any such thing. I had to research on it to find out it happened. Guess, people to whom it was an important incident remember it and that's an insignificant section of the world. The logical question, I guess is, should we publish every things that is published on Indian newpapers?

Regards, Amartya ray2001 (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. ~dee^(talk?) 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~dee.SteelIron^Talk 23:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest merge and redirect to Shoeing (or some other appropriate target). I can understand the BLP1E arguments here, but the incident does seem to have received substantial and extended coverage, and some of the content and sources of this article might be profitably added to the discussion of this incident currently contained at Shoeing. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:1E, the prefered result when dealing with a one-event biography is not to delete the content but rather to move it to an article about the event rather than the person.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE this was a notable event in india. the more information and articles on the website, the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.38.70 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 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. Nominator has changed to keep, clearly a far more substantial article then when nominated Ged UK 12:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff kook

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

Minimal assertion of importance/significance, author objected to proposed deletion --ZhongHan (Email) 00:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC) *Absolutely Delete. Poorly written, no significance, no sources, no hotlinking, etc.SteelIron^Talk 01:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After vast improvements, I change my vote to keep.SteelIron^Talk 23:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following significant expansion, this now looks like a pretty obvious keep. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since now expanded. Is there really a need to nominate articles that have been created 1 day ago, without giving them a chance to grow ? Ezhuks (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apologies for biting. --ZhongHan (Email) 00:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage, include page one article in The Wall Street Journal. Appears notable. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fine, well-sourced article, suitable for DYK.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:11, 27 September 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. The delete side clearly makes more policy-based sense, and neither of the three anon keeps provide any justification whatsoever to keep the article. Courcelles 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fred characters

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see any purpose in having an article like this, its fan fluff. I don't think that characters with less than a minute of screen time are notable enough to have entire paragraphs written on them. 117Avenue (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last deletion discussion didn't even have a single "delete" vote, so a further deletion discussion is ridiculous. Note that the nominator redirected this page to "Fred Figglehorn" without even bringing it up for discussion so clearly he has some agenda. He's lucky he wasn't banned from Wikipedia for his nonsense. 108.124.109.158 (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is not "things that 117Avenue likes." Deletion discussion is obviously out of spite because his redirect was reverted. 68.245.2.71 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -• Gene93k

(talk) 18:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Nomination clearly out of spite.

VERY weak keep Don't like the fact that the other two keep votes are anon. However, per the previous AfD, moving all this back to the main article would be a bit bloated. As much as I don't particularly find it interesting, it does seem to be mildly notable… VikÞor | Talk 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I just say that the fact that IPs are commenting reinforces this being a fan page? I like the videos, I have cleaned up Fred Figglehorn, and wrote Lucas Cruikshank, I just think that List of Fred characters doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, like an extended List of FRED episodes. 117Avenue (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why does it matter that IP addresses are commenting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.109.14 (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A redirect should include this content placed into the main "Fred Figglehorn" page but the previous redirect just had all of this content deleted. Might be better to keep this page separate though as it's free from the goofy vandalism that affects the main Fred page. FWIW I don't watch the show but have had to edit various Fred pages a few times to protect them from vandalism. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the risk of being brusque: Listcruft trivia wankery. WP is not a list of things, and where lists are acceptable, there is a generally recognized logic or rationale for grouping things into a list. If we allow a "List of Fred characters" then we must allow a "List of Betty characters" and whatever else "List of X characters" comes after it. Again, no lists for lists' sake.Mtiffany71 (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted because many of the arguments are not policy-based. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost entirely unsourced. Lists of characters are appropriate only in instances where there is enough content to warrant a separate article. If the one-shots were removed, the article would be far too short for a standalone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. There is not enough content to warrant a separate article. Maybe a section in the main article? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:27, 26 September 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. Although there is an article on the Polish Wikipedia, this is no indication of notability as the English Wikipedia defines it (I don't know the Polish Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion). The consensus is that there are no reliable sources to show the notability of the subject -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zbigniew Wąsiel

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

The article does not establish notability. Some prizes are mentioned but without specification and without references. There are almost no references apart from external links from Youtube and other user-created sites. Google search does not show anything significant. This article should either have significant improvement in this regard or be deleted. Tone 20:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

Several interwikis with similar content show a possible cross-wiki spam. (If the result is keep, I take this back). --Tone 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no English web pages about him, apart from his self-made Facebook page. There are 3,500 web pages in Polish about him. Looking down the list I haven't found any reliable ones.--Lester 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is translation of Polish Wikipedii, interesting works materials. HOart † 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 19 September 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, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you provide a reason to keep? There are no reliable sources in the article, the original Polish article is not particularly better.--Tone 14:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reinaldo Zavarce

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

Unreferenced BLP, and I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the subject's notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment A Find sources using a different set of paramaters seems to show many non-English sources. Time to seek input from Venezualan Wikipedians. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, sounds good, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 09:14, 18 September 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, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep es:Reinaldo Zavarce is supported by what appear to be multiple reliable sources providing decent coverage.VernoWhitney (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a solid keep to me given MQS's work at translating the sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:36, 2 October 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, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced BLP. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. I'll do the translations that have not yet been done and see to the sourcing for this Venezualan actor. I still believe that all it requires is a little work, and will do it since others have not... specially since thst seem to be THE concern. I'll report back in a few hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Zavarce has sourcable notability in Latin America for his works for RCTV International and more recently for his starring role in the notable Nickelodeon Latin America telenovela series Isa TKM and Isa TK+. While my own translating of the sources (found through the alternative Find sources I offered on the 18th ) is proceeding slowly, I believe I AM showing improvement was and is possible. The article is shaping up and is already far better than what was first sent to AFD. Closer, please note the work (still ongoing) of just the last few hours. Thank you. And to Spanish and Portugese-reading Wikipedians... any and all help would be appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with VernoWhitney - this is now a solid keep following MQS adding sources. PhilKnight (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, my spanish isn't very good, the sources I can read appear to be passing mention in articles primarily about the works in which he appears. That being said, MichaelQSchmidt has done yeoman's work and made significant improvements and found a number of sources, so I think there's enough potential here to justify a keep. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:30, 2 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire

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

Unreferenced fancruft article which fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:Indiscriminate among others. I did some work on it, but after the successful afd on a related article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire (2nd nomination)), I think the same rationale can be applied here. Yoenit (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A Song of Ice and Fire, trimming appropriately in the process. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 20 September 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, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Overly lengthy article about minor aspects of a work of fiction. There are no independent sources at all, just the books themselves and a fan club, and sourcing an article entirely to the work of fiction itself is very dubious. It does nothing to establish notability, and is inherently prone to original research concerns because it's not actually sourced to the work itself but to editors' interpretations of it. I do not agree with a merge suggestion because I have had a look at A Song of Ice and Fire and in my opinion it already has all the plot summary it needs. Reyk _YO! 19:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reyk. Karanacs (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources to WP:verify notability as per Reyk. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And just to make the point clear, per Reyk. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 1 October 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. Favonian (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Massacre (film)

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

As far as I'm aware, this film has now been cancelled, or at least put on hold for the time being. It has been removed from Uwe Boll's filmography at IMDB as well as the filmography on his official fansite (which includes films in production). The movie was announced in 2007 and it doesn't look as though any details have emerged since that suggested that it ever got as far as principal photography, meaning that it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) anyway. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for film. I haven't found any reliable source about this film. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON. Let production coninue and the project get released and get coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A canceled film with no coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 30 September 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 debate = no consensus -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TAJJ Championship Wrestling

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 19:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:15, 19 September 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, 26 September 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. The consensus is that the article needs more work! However, apart from the nominator, no specific recommendations (apart from an implied keep) were given, so there is no consensus on whether this article should be kept or deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Network Economy

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

Article reads like a neologism with serious neutrality issues (according to somebody?). Has remained the same for about the last three years (excluding format changes). Raymie (t • c) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's a neologism, but it reads like an essay. It's also missing context: The question "What is a network economy?" doesn't seem answered beyond the term itself. Also, an economy is technically a network in itself (even if it's star topology), which may mean the term is either self-redundant or is better used in one of the other economy types as well. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rather vague regarding what it's about, and looks like an essay rather than an article. There are sources that discuss the 'Network Economy' in some detail ([48], [49], [50], [51]), so it may be possible to have a properly sourced, more focused article, but I have the feeling that 'Network Economy' simply means business in the era of the internet, which doesn't seem like a tight enough topic for an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 05:39, 20 September 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, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jargon-filled original essay. I hesitate to advise giving it the boot as a Non-Notable Neologism, however; it seems to be a economics concept with some documented meat. A really bad article about a legitimate encyclopedic topic, in my estimation... Which implies KEEP, per the rules of the road at AfD... Tough call. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.

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

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

The result was delete. The only 'keep' was from the creator of the article; including the nominator, 3 editors felt this should be deleted, and no other editors agreed with the creator that this should be kept. A clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Hensill

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

Seemingly non-notable musician whose main claim to fame appears to be playing in the Tomahawk Blues Band, which was recently redirected to this article after an AFD discussion which deemed that it did not merit a standalone article. No significant coverage found and none of the references are citing significant coverage in reliable sources. Michig (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:MUSIC#5 - musician has released two albums on major label. Wikipedia: Notability (music): Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
* PALETTE BMG UNIVERSAL # MPB 3020: The Klan, L.P. Album, Belgium, 1966.
The Klan, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives. PALETTE BMG UNIVERSAL (BMG is the world's third largest music publisher and the world's largest independent music publisher, UNIVERSAL is the largest business group and family of record labels in the recording industry. It is the largest of the "big four" record companies by its commanding market share and its multitude of global operations (from Wikipedia)).
* EMI # 062.64312 : The Klan, L.P. Album, Belgium, 1981 (Remixed, Remasterised, new Editing & Stereo by EMI).
The Klan, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives. In 1981, EMI remastered, in Stereo and with a quality enhancement of sound, the L.P. Album of The Klan (Belgian band). The master tape was subjected to further electronic treatment by specialist mastering engineers. EMI released a new version of the Album because the original mastering was Mono. From Wikipedia:"Remaster (and its derivations, frequently found in the phrases digitally remastered or digital remastering) is a word marketed mostly in the digital audio age, although the remastering process has existed since recording began. Frequently advertised with regard to CD and DVD releases, remastering has become a powerful buzzword in multimedia industries, and it generally implies quality enhancement of sound to a previously existing recording frequently designed to encourage people to buy a new version on a new release" . Albums References from the Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (national broadcasting organisation of the government of the Flemish-speaking northern part of Belgium) archives. Raoniz (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Raoniz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Spatulli (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one album, and it isn't a Luc Hensill album, he was just part of the band, so Luc Hensill does not pass criterion 5 of WP:BAND, nor any of the other criteria. How is he individually notable?--Michig (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One album? That's your personal point of view but for the Majors, the market and the Belgian official archives, they are two different albums. Why people would go to buy something they already own? That's why the official Belgian archives have registered two albums. The ordinary re-releases are not registered two times, otherwise the album would be registered at least five times. Without those two Belgian official archives, I would never writing those pages in Wikipedia.

Do you mean that because he was part of the band, he did not make anything? If this is true, you have to delete thousands Wikipedia pages. If you want, between thousands, an example of someone who did not make something individually but was part of a band, see Tico Torres. You will have a really hard work if you want to delete all these type of pages :D Raoniz (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Klan (Belgian band): Teiji Kusano of Shinko music promoted The Klan (Belgian band) in Japan: "World Music's Roland Kluger Widens Palette Distribution in Israel and Greece", Billboard, November 4, 1967. Raoniz (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two different LP albums released by two different Majors label !

And more than that, there are five EP's and from 1950 and until now, you have the LP album, the EP album and the Single.

In facts, The Klan (Belgian band) has seven albums released on major label.

From Wikipedia: Extended play: "During the 1950s, RCA published several EP albums of Walt Disney movies, containing both the story and the songs".

"Out of line", E.P. album (Palette Records, 1966)
"Join Us", L.P. album (Palette Records, 1966)
"Wait and see", E.P. album (Festival, France 1967)
"Melody maker", E.P. album (Palette Records, 1967)
"Sitting On My Own", E.P. album (Supraphon, Tchekia & Slovakia, 1967)
"Sans Toi", E.P. album (Palette Records, 1967)
"Join Us", remastered & stereo, L.P. album (EMI, 1981)

Greetings Raoniz (talk) 14:29, 20 September 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, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:MUSIC#5 - musician has released two or more albums on major label.
Wikipedia: Notability (music): Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

PALETTE BMG UNIVERSAL # MPB 3020: The Klan, "Join Us", L.P. Album, Belgium, 1966.
The Klan, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives. PALETTE BMG UNIVERSAL (BMG is the world's third largest music publisher and the world's largest independent music publisher, UNIVERSAL is the largest business group and family of record labels in the recording industry. It is the largest of the "big four" record companies by its commanding market share and its multitude of global operations (from Wikipedia)).
EMI # 062.64312 : The Klan, "Join Us", L.P. Album, Belgium, 1981 (Remixed, Remasterised, new Editing & Stereo by EMI).
The Klan, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives. In 1981, EMI remastered, in Stereo and with a quality enhancement of sound, the L.P. Album of The Klan (Belgian band). The master tape was subjected to further electronic treatment by specialist mastering engineers. EMI released a new version of the Album because the original mastering was Mono.

From Wikipedia:"Remaster (and its derivations, frequently found in the phrases digitally remastered or digital remastering) is a word marketed mostly in the digital audio age, although the remastering process has existed since recording began. Frequently advertised with regard to CD and DVD releases, remastering has become a powerful buzzword in multimedia industries, and it generally implies quality enhancement of sound to a previously existing recording frequently designed to encourage people to buy a new version on a new release".
Note: for the Majors, the market and the Belgian official archives, they are two different albums. Why people would go to buy something they already own? That's why the official Belgian archives have registered two albums. The ordinary re-releases are not registered two times, otherwise the album would be registered at least five times.
Albums References from the Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (national broadcasting organisation of the government of the Flemish-speaking northern part of Belgium) archives.

The Klan (Belgian band) has seven albums released on major label:

"Out of line", E.P. album (Palette Records, 1966)
"Join Us", L.P. album (Palette Records, 1966)
"Wait and see", E.P. album (Festival, France 1967)
"Melody maker", E.P. album (Palette Records, 1967)
"Sitting On My Own", E.P. album (Supraphon, Tchekia & Slovakia, 1967)
"Sans Toi", E.P. album (Palette Records, 1967)
"Join Us", remastered & stereo, L.P. album (EMI, 1981)

From Wikipedia: E.P. Extended play: "During the 1950s, RCA published several EP albums of Walt Disney movies, containing both the story and the songs. These usually featured the original casts of actors and actresses. Each album contained two seven-inch records, plus a fully-illustrated booklet containing the text of the recording, so that children could follow along by reading".
"Some classical music albums released at the beginning of the LP era were also distributed as EP albums — notably the seven operas that Arturo Toscanini conducted on radio between 1944 and 1954"

Equipe Internacional # EQI-2001: The Klan, "Join Us", L.P. Album, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1967. Equipe Internacional was an independent label from Brazil with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable
Teiji Kusano of Shinko music promoted The Klan (Belgian band) in Japan: "World Music's Roland Kluger Widens Palette Distribution in Israel and Greece", Billboard, November 4, 1967.

Greetings Raoniz (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Apart from that, clear wp:COI as article's author has acknowledged being the subject's son... Spatulli (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much WP:COI and WP:POV, doesn't satisfy WP:BAND -- argument about "two" LPs fails on the basis that one is simply a reissue of the other: that's like saying a writer has written two books simply because his one book went into a second edition with a different publisher. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability (music). Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.
55 minutes video excerpt from the feature movie "A Trip with Tomahawk Blues Band" has been broadcasted by most of the TV Broadcast in the world in 1969 like RTBF (national broadcasting organisation of the government of Wallonia-Brussels), Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (publicly-funded broadcaster of radio and television in Flanders (northern part of Belgium)), ...
"A trip with Tomahawk Blues Band" by Marc Lobet was the first movie of the Pop Shop produced by the RTBF, they followed with Genesis (band) , Savoy Brown, East of Eden (band), ...
Wit-lof from Belgium: Publisher: BRT or VRT, Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (Flemish Radio and Television Network), publicly-funded broadcaster of radio and television in Flanders (northern part of Belgium) (BE), 1990, p. 86: Tomahawk Blues Band, isbn = 90-5096-069-3
Wikipedia: Notability (music). Criteria for composers and lyricists: 2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
Tomahawk writed and perform (one month in 1969) the Background music of "L'Aurore rouge et noire" by Fernando Arrabal for the Producer: the "Théâtre de Poche" who is a notable theater in Brussels-Capital (Théatre de Poche in French Wikipedia).
Tomahawk Blues Band Website
Aspasia: Archives & Museum literature asbl Center for Research and Documentation literary and drama of the French Community of Belgium: L'Aurore rouge et noire
Raoniz (talk) 10:30, 2 October 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. The consensus is that this is a neoligism -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positive punk

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

Early term for gothic subculture/gothic rock. The only source ([52]) in the article unsurprisingly deals with two gothic rock bands (Sex Gang Children and Southern Death Cult). There are various options here: Redirect to Goth subculture or Gothic rock, or/and Move to wiktionary as a dictionary term. Matsintok (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per a Google Books search]. It is quite clear that Positive Punk is not the same thing as Goth or the connotations therein, but a true precursor that should be separate from its later iterations. Silver seren^C 18:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speaking as a punk rock fan — Non-Notable Neologism. The Gothic movement is covered elsewhere, as is the Batcave. Merge this trivial stub info to the latter, if so desired. Carrite (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask how it's a neologism, if it's been around since the 80's? And because it is a "trivial stub" right now does not mean that it cannot be expanded. Silver seren^C 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response : It is a neologism, because it was a term coined by some journalist back in the time when goths didn't exist to describe a budding movement that would later be called "goth" and become hugely popular. The "positive punk" label was never really used by anyone excvept for journalists, and became famous later only because of its famous offshoot (the gothic subculture). Also you can't really call goths/gothic rock an "offshoot" of positive punk, as it is simply the actual name of this subculture. "Positive punk" was just a term used by journalists to describe a scene which didn't have a name at this time (later it did have a name, "goth") To sum it up, positive punk is simply "pre-gothic rock". There's no need to have an article about that as all the information is already in other articles. Sincerely, --Matsintok (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well put, Matsintok. This does also imply that a Redirect is very appropriate here, I note. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. Well, I'd rather go for the third option (Move and Redirect to wiktionary), as it's just a term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Further, a more important, obvious problem with a redirect is that it would never be entirely satisfactory, as it can be redirected both to gothic rock and gothic subculture. Matsintok (talk) 16:32, 20 September 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, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism. Doesn't add anything to what is already in other articles. Spatulli (talk) 16:28, 29 September 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) 03:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akiva leffler

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

Non-notable person. Tagged for PROD BLP first, but the author removed the tag without adding a single reference. Vipinhari || talk 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep iff a reliable source is added that he played for the Israeli national team, else delete: BLPProds may not be removed with adding a reference, so you could just have reverted the author and issued a warning for it. Not sure what the proper course of action is now you have already started an AFD though. The article claims that he has played for the Israeli national team, which makes him notable according to WP:Athlete, but I couldn't find a source to back it up. Therefore I made my keep vote conditional, to simulate BLPProd. Yoenit (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked them at their talkpage, before starting this AfD. And according to WP:Athlete, It is not enough to make vague claims about the person's importance—the sourcing in the article itself must document notability. Vipinhari || talk 02:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, that is my I made my keep vote conditional. I just expanded it to clarify I support deletion if no source is added before the AFD ends. Yoenit (talk) 19:07, 20 September 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) 23:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced BLP. Notability is implicitly asserted but not reliably demonstrated. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find a single legitimate source. Considering the vigor of the football fans on Wikipedia, if he were legit, there would be a well made artilce with a sidebox and multiple sources. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:15, 27 September 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.

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.