Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 15

< 14 October	16 October >

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 speedy keep. Nomination by a sock puppet of a banned user with no other significant arguments for deletion. –MuZemike 14:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Major[edit]

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

Character is already briefly summarized through the main article Animal Farm and List of Animal Farm characters and does not need to be it's own independent article. Anonymax (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This work has been extensively analysed and critiqued in numerous works such as this. It is an allegory and so the characters have special significance and so merit good coverage. Their names are natural search terms and so make good article titles. It is our editing policy to keep such good material. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters in which we see that the list has been created as an improper copyright violation of this article. The nomination is therefore untenable and should be speedily closed per WP:SK #2. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am fine with keeping the individual character analyses if the List of Animal Farm characters is deleted; or with deleting the individual character treatments if List of Animal Farm characters is retained. This is an extremely influential allegorical work and expanded treatment of primarty characters is fully appropriate, in my estimation. Sourcing of the article needs to be improved. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual character articles existed before Anonymax (talk · contribs) made the unilateral decision to combine them all by cutting and pasting the contents to a single article, thus destroying the edit history of the individual articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 16 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. Nomination by a sock puppet of a banned user with no other significant arguments for deletion. –MuZemike 14:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon (Animal Farm)[edit]

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

Character is already briefly summarized through the main article Animal Farm and List of Animal Farm characters and does not need to be it's own independent article. Anonymax (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This work has been extensively analysed and critiqued in numerous works such as this. It is an allegory and so the characters have special significance and so merit good coverage. Their names are natural search terms and so make good article titles. It is our editing policy to keep such good material. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters in which we see that the list has been created as an improper copyright violation of this article. The nomination is therefore untenable and should be speedily closed per WP:SK #2. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am fine with keeping the individual character analyses if the List of Animal Farm characters is deleted; or with deleting the individual character treatments if List of Animal Farm characters is retained. This is an extremely influential allegorical work and expanded treatment of primarty characters is fully appropriate, in my estimation. Sourcing of the article needs to be improved. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual character articles existed before Anonymax (talk · contribs) made the unilateral decision to combine them all by cutting and pasting the contents to a single article, thus destroying the edit history of the individual articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 16 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. Nomination by a sock puppet of a banned user with no other significant arguments for deletion. –MuZemike 14:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball (Animal Farm)[edit]

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

Character is already briefly summarized through the main article Animal Farm and List of Animal Farm characters and does not need to be it's own independent article. Anonymax (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This work has been extensively analysed and critiqued in numerous works such as this. It is an allegory and so the characters have special significance and so merit good coverage. Their names are natural search terms and so make good article titles. It is our editing policy to keep such good material. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters in which we see that the list has been created as an improper copyright violation of this article. The nomination is therefore untenable and should be speedily closed per WP:SK #2. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am fine with keeping the individual character analyses if the List of Animal Farm characters is deleted; or with deleting the individual character treatments if List of Animal Farm characters is retained. This is an extremely influential allegorical work and expanded treatment of primarty characters is fully appropriate, in my estimation. Sourcing of the article needs to be improved. Carrite (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual character articles existed before Anonymax (talk · contribs) made the unilateral decision to combine them all by cutting and pasting the contents to a single article, thus destroying the edit history of the individual articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 16 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. Nomination by a sock puppet of a banned user with no other significant arguments for deletion. –MuZemike 14:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squealer (Animal Farm)[edit]

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

Character is already briefly summarized through the main article Animal Farm and List of Animal Farm characters and does not need to be it's own independent article. No references on this one, although there are plenty of citation needed tags. Anonymax (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This work has been extensively analysed and critiqued in numerous works such as this. It is an allegory and so the characters have special significance and so merit good coverage. Their names are natural search terms and so make good article titles. It is our editing policy to keep such good material. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters in which we see that the list has been created as an improper copyright violation of this article. The nomination is therefore untenable and should be speedily closed per WP:SK #2. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am fine with keeping the individual character analyses if the List of Animal Farm characters is deleted; or with deleting the individual character treatments if List of Animal Farm characters is retained. This is an extremely influential allegorical work and expanded treatment of primarty characters is fully appropriate, in my estimation. Sourcing of the article needs to be improved. Carrite (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual character articles existed before Anonymax (talk · contribs) made the unilateral decision to combine them all by cutting and pasting the contents to a single article, thus destroying the edit history of the individual articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 16 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. Nomination by a sock puppet of a banned user with no other significant arguments for deletion. –MuZemike 14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer (Animal Farm)[edit]

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

Character is already briefly summarized through the main article Animal Farm and List of Animal Farm characters and does not need to be it's own independent article. No sources or references on this one. Anonymax (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This work has been extensively analysed and critiqued in numerous works such as this. It is an allegory and so the characters have special significance and so merit good coverage. Their names are natural search terms and so make good article titles. It is our editing policy to keep such good material. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters in which we see that the list has been created as an improper copyright violation of this article. The nomination is therefore untenable and should be speedily closed per WP:SK #2. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am fine with keeping the individual character analyses if the List of Animal Farm characters is deleted; or with deleting the individual character treatments if List of Animal Farm characters is retained. This is an extremely influential allegorical work and expanded treatment of primarty characters is fully appropriate, in my estimation. Sourcing of the article needs to be improved. Carrite (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual character articles existed before Anonymax (talk · contribs) made the unilateral decision to combine them all by cutting and pasting the contents to a single article, thus destroying the edit history of the individual articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 16 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. Nomination by a sock puppet of a banned user with no other significant arguments for deletion. –MuZemike 14:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin (Animal Farm)[edit]

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

Character is already briefly summarized through the main article Animal Farm and List of Animal Farm characters and does not need to be it's own independent article. Anonymax (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This work has been extensively analysed and critiqued in numerous works such as this. It is an allegory and so the characters have special significance and so merit good coverage. Their names are natural search terms and so make good article titles. It is our editing policy to keep such good material. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters in which we see that the list has been created as an improper copyright violation of this article. The nomination is therefore untenable and should be speedily closed per WP:SK #2. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am fine with keeping the individual character analyses if the List of Animal Farm characters is deleted; or with deleting the individual character treatments if List of Animal Farm characters is retained. This is an extremely influential allegorical work and expanded treatment of primarty characters is fully appropriate, in my estimation. Sourcing of the article needs to be improved. Carrite (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual character articles existed before Anonymax (talk · contribs) made the unilateral decision to combine them all by cutting and pasting the contents to a single article, thus destroying the edit history of the individual articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 16 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. Nomination by a sock puppet of a banned user with no other outstanding arguments for deletion. –MuZemike 14:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pilkington (Animal Farm)[edit]

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

Character is already briefly summarized through the main article Animal Farm and List of Animal Farm characters and does not need to be it's own independent article. No references on this one. Anonymax (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This work has been extensively analysed and critiqued in numerous works such as this. It is an allegory and so the characters have special significance and so merit good coverage. Their names are natural search terms and so make good article titles. It is our editing policy to keep such good material. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters in which we see that the list has been created as an improper copyright violation of this article. The nomination is therefore untenable and should be speedily closed per WP:SK #2. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am fine with keeping the individual character analyses if the List of Animal Farm characters is deleted; or with deleting the individual character treatments if List of Animal Farm characters is retained. This is an extremely influential allegorical work and expanded treatment of primarty characters is fully appropriate, in my estimation. Sourcing of the article needs to be improved. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual character articles existed before Anonymax (talk · contribs) made the unilateral decision to combine them all by cutting and pasting the contents to a single article, thus destroying the edit history of the individual articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 16 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. Nominated by a sock puppet of a banned user with no other significant arguments for deletion. –MuZemike 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jones (Animal Farm)[edit]

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

Character is already briefly summarized through the main article Animal Farm and List of Animal Farm characters and does not need to be it's own independent article. Anonymax (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This work has been extensively analysed and critiqued in numerous works such as this. It is an allegory and so the characters have special significance and so merit good coverage. Their names are natural search terms and so make good article titles. It is our editing policy to keep such good material. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters in which we see that the list has been created as an improper copyright violation of this article. The nomination is therefore untenable and should be speedily closed per WP:SK #2. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am fine with keeping the individual character analyses if the List of Animal Farm characters is deleted; or with deleting the individual character treatments if List of Animal Farm characters is retained. This is an extremely influential allegorical work and expanded treatment of primarty characters is fully appropriate, in my estimation. Sourcing of the article needs to be improved. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual character articles existed before Anonymax (talk · contribs) made the unilateral decision to combine them all by cutting and pasting the contents to a single article, thus destroying the edit history of the individual articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Nominator of this AFD has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 14:05, 20 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes (cheese)[edit]

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

Unnecessary article, no internal links. Michał Rosa (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Emmental (cheese). --Lambiam 07:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add suitable references. This certainly shouldn't be merged into Emmental because there are plenty of other cheeses with holes. Bazonka (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Errr ... Bazonka, would you care to offer a rationale to keep this article? For my part, this is not only a standard attribute in certain kinds of cheese (and mentioned both in those articles and in the main one), but no different from other descriptors. I don't see a Yellow (cheese) or a Soft (cheese) article. Ravenswing 21:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing - Yellow and soft are adjectives, whereas eye and hole are nouns. So the article is not about a description of cheese, but about a specific thing. Bazonka (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Your point being? Ravenswing 13:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...valid.

No seriously, this would be like an article on craters. Yes, its a tad of a stretch, but it's the same basic concept. See my !vote below for more. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - Holes (bread), Bubbles (soft drink) anyone? Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or even Holes (chocolate), Bubbles (meringue), Bubbles (wafer) ? --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those pages do exist. Bubbles (soft drink) is Carbonation, holes (bread) is leavened bread. There is no better name for holes (cheese) but there is a precedent for it. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep per bazonka or merge to cheese Aisha9152 (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP is not a dictionary. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:46, 22 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) 05:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This isn't a dictionary, but this is a common scientific phenomenon, like oxidation. It will never be as big as oxidation, but it has sources, is notable, and at least in my opinion, should be kept. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge in to cheese. A well-written article, with sources, about a common phenomenon. I don't see any problems with this article. JIP | Talk 08:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Cheese ripening, as per the precedent established with Carbonation and Leavened bread. This article is more about the process and not the actual results, and the title should reflect as such.--hkr Laozi speak 09:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eyes are a significant topic in cheesemaking. They're obviously not specific to one type of cheese. Nor are they merely part of cheese ripening - recent concerns have been expressed over a reduction in cheese eyes, seemingly caused by changes in behaviour before this ripening stage. This seems like a perfectly justifiable topic for its own article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've mostly rewritten the article, adding references to a cheese science textbook. There is some overlap with topics such as Swiss cheese and Propionibacterium freudenreichii, but as holes also appear in other types of cheese and as a result of the activity of other bacteria, the topic doesn't fit only into those articles. A merge with Cheese ripening would be possible if we ever have that article. There is much more to cheese ripening than just holes. Sandstein 11:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created an article for Cheese ripening, incorporated both Eyes (cheese) and some segments of Cheesemaker, and now am heavily expanding the article. --hkr Laozi speak 12:20, 23 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CrossFire Fusor[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrodynamic Space Thruster - basically the same reasons as that AfD. Unreferenced, original research; bordering on pseudoscience in some parts. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please, be fair and specific in saying whether something is pseudoscience or not!

I think saying something is pseudoscience without explaining why, may sound as calumny.
As far as I can understand, pseudoscience is something that is unable to prove its claims such as producing unlimited clean energy; thinking in this way, all fusion concepts up to now, such as NIF, Tokamaks (JET, ITER), and so forth, should be put in the realm of pseudoscience for not proving their claims even with decades of heavy investments and scientific support.
Crossfire reactor uses same ideas that are used in some of these fusion concepts; it has a little different setup in comparison to Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor and Polywell. And as far as I can see, from description, calculation and drawings, the setup is technically reasonable and feasible, and it does not use exotic things to be considered as pseudoscience.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Probonopublic (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything to establish the notability of this reactor, or anything to establish it scientifically, only a few mentions on helium.com. Although I agree, if you're going to call something pseudo-science, you should back it up. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; complete lack of notability, although the Cavalry should have learnt by now not to bandy the term pseudo-science around. Naughty boy; must be the seawater leaking into your ears. Safeguard, full clips. Ironholds (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's a blizzard of references, but none passing WP:RS that are actually about this subject. Whether it's pseudo-science or not is immaterial to its utter lack of notability. Fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL. Ravenswing 21:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 17 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 deletion. (G11) -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:J.mat corporation[edit]

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

Self-promotion in userspace Confession0791 ^talk 21:37, 15 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) 23:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twin (windowing system)[edit]

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

Nonnotable piece of free software by an unknown person and of unknown value. No independent respectable references. Lorem Ip (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, there are two very reliable source references I found almost immediately (but I was trying): [1] and [2]. — HowardBGolden (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I was trying too; I saw some of adverts myself, but I failed to see any notability in this piece of software: how many people use it, how good it is, etc. There are millions of freeware goodies, described in various freeware magazines. Why bother to repeat their descriptions in wikipedia? Lorem Ip (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your question could be asked about any article. Why don't we delete all of them? Since there's no original research in WP, someone should be able to find out about it even if the article's gone. Just because there are "millions of freeware goodies, described in various freeware magazines," that may be good enough for you. I like being able to look things up in WP, because I'm likely to get a pretty good description and some pretty helpful links. I don't get that immediately from a search engine. WP isn't here to serve just your needs, or just my needs. That's why I don't want to delete articles unless there's a really good reason to do so. — HowardBGolden (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand your point; indeed wikipedia is a great starting point for reading about anything. But for this very reason there is a danger for it to become a vehicle for blatant advertising and promotion. For this reason wikipedia has notability thresholds, which covers your request for "really good reason to do so". My point is this piece of software is below it and I explain my reasons. I have no problems if other people prove that my points are insignificant or irrelevant. But your answer does not do this. Once again, if the only references about a software product are the ones which basically repeat its used guide or promotional pitch and nothing else, then I doubt its notability, and thus its right for a place in wikipedia. Lorem Ip (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand the concern about blatant advertising and promotion. In this case, that's not what's going on IMO. Please look at the two articles I provided above. The first is a long article (in German) from a well-known German Linux magazine. (I read German well enough to be able to look at the pictures (just kidding!)) Actually, I know enough German to get a pretty good idea of what's being said. It's a very substantial review of the software. The second is also a review of the software. The source is in Brave GNU World, the major newsletter of the GNU project, which is the basis for many software packages (including Mediawiki). Also, it seems to me your concern about blatant advertising and promotion doesn't really apply, since Twin is free open source software, available at no charge. I believe that I have met the threshold of WP:GNG. Therefore, I request that you withdraw your nomination. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for your answer, but you seem to miss my point: references about a software product are the ones which basically repeat its used guide or promotional pitch and nothing else. The two links you gave are just that: they say nothing about the impact of this product, its user base, etc, just retell what it does and what it may do. Also, from wikipedia it does not look that Brave GNU World, is "the major newsletter"; it is just someone's personal column. Finally, you are mistaken that free software is free from blatant self-promotion. I can give you quite a few examples, but this is not the place. Concluding, you didn't convince me to change my opinion. Anyway, if you are right, and I am wrong, you don't need my withdrawal, and I will no longer discuss this insignificant subject. Lorem Ip (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS reviews are the major source for 3rd party references for showing notability of software. They just have to talk substantially about the software. It's the existence of the reviews which shows notability, not what they happen to say about it. They show that outside specialist thought the software worth reviewing. (basically that's the GNG, and it is accepted as the usual way of showing notability here.) DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the reviews found by Howard Golden. Lorem Ip, FWIW, the GNU World review does in fact touch on the impact of this software in terms of it's light use of hardware resources and ease of use by the visually impaired. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:02, 22 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. Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Breeden[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer with no professional appearances Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree with the others that he's not notable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all relevant notability criteria. Playing no higher than that of my home-town club doesn't make you notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. —Half Price 15:30, 19 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 List of largest cities and second largest cities by country. Sandstein 06:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of second cities[edit]

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

There is the same, and full, list of second cities at List of largest cities and second largest cities by country. Vanjagenije 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to List of largest cities and second largest cities by country per above. Jan 1922 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ and think how to "reconcile" this list with List of largest cities and second largest cities by country. The intent of the discussed article is not "second largest", but in a more broad sense. Probably it must rid of "second largest" and discuss only well-referenced cases of cities second in importance after the capital, such as Bonn after Berlin, despite being "19th largest". Since this is a somewhat subjective criterion, one country may have several "second cities", depending on perspective, or throughout history. Lorem Ip (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect -- changed my vote convinced by JimmyGuano; in favor of creating a normal (i.e., non-list) article about the term, if it is possible at all; i.e., if this concept is discussed somewhere per se, not just usage of the term. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This page used to be the non-list page. It was moved from second city. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. BTW, I expanded the disambig page Second City with Glasgow and Manchester; and Chicago was already there. Any other verifiable usages? Lorem Ip (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And so you repeat history afresh, on a new page. ☺ See this 2003 edit and Talk:List of second cities/Archive 1 for where this very article has trod this same ground long since. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it is 7 years after now. Hopefully the history will run differently this time, according to new and different rules and traditions, and the ground is not the same either. Anyway, I don't quite understand your point besides its obvious (and appreciated) amusement value. Do you have any objections to my expansion of the disambig page? Lorem Ip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect The article doesn't have any source to establish the key point that all of the rest of the content is built upon - the idea that the phrase "Second City" refers to the second most important city in a country. This seems highly questionable as an objective observation. In the UK for example, the phrase "Second City" is routinely used as a nickname for Birmingham, in a way that it isn't generally for Manchester, despite the polling evidence that Manchester is considered more important by a greater proportion of the population. The article's necessary implication that the capital city of a country is considered the "first city" is also highly questionable - wherever is considered the "second city" of the USA, it is surely the largest city - New York - not the capital - Washington DC - that it is second to? At the very least, the opening suggestion as to the meaning of the article title is sufficently contentious to require substantial reliable citation to back it up, with due weight also given to contrary evidence. None is currently provided. Unless this point is established the rest of the article is worthless because it all follows from what would be a false premise. There may be scope for an article on the phrase "Second City" itself, but if so it should focus on the history and usage of the phrase, not the fundamentally subjective and unencyclopaedic activity of deciding which of a number of competing candidates it would be most appropriate to apply the phrase to. The current article, as a list, seems irredeemably focused on the latter task, and is thus better deleted. JimmyGuano (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This list is made up by massive amount of original research. Most entries are not supported by reliable sources. The only section with substantial sourcing is United Kingdom, which is already covered in Second city of the United Kingdom.—Chris!_c/t 21:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting and ironic that editors want to redirect this page to the page that was copied from the December 2007 version of this page. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is interesting and ironic, but is it wrong? Nice chat, but what is your vote? Lorem Ip (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shouldn't the suggested target page have been deleted in 2007 as a fork? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 17 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. Mkativerata (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filter Pilter[edit]

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

Hoax, as far as I can tell. Nothing on Google or Google Scholar. Chris (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to locate anything on it. Eudemis (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as worthless. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete my searches came up empty. — Scientizzle 14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable neologism. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:21, 21 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. Mkativerata (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wind mill design NACA 4412[edit]

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

Unreferenced. This is either an essay, a dissertation, or a project report. I cannot see how it is immediately of encyclopedic value, and I suggest it be deleted, so would the community please decide. It is also possible that the article largely duplicates the content in the Wind power article. Kudpung (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails notability, no reliable sources. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an essay without any sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:18, 21 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. If an editor feels there is noteworthy, mergeable material, he/she can try to merge it to an appropriate article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H.I.S.S.[edit]

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

All the references in this article are to a fansite. No evidence that this is notable. Divebomb (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This doesn't make sense. The 'fansite' isn't just someone saying 'G.I.Joe is cool'. Much evidence exists. Lots42 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A fansite is a fansite is a fansite. --Divebomb (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites don't establish notability. Tfu.info and Seibertron.com don't establish notability for Transformers characters, I think the same would apply to G.I. Joe fansites. Since the site mainly covers G.I. Joe stuff, it's not very third-party, even if Hasbro isn't directly involved with it. (Coincidentally, I'm also someone who goes by a username that's some word with four letters directly followed by the number 42 with no space in between", but not on this site.)NotARealWord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Lots42 has done lots of work with this one in the past, and this one has potential. BOZ (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Somebody worked hard on the article" may not be a very good "keep" argument. But "the article has potential" might work. NotARealWord (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For background, community consensus according to this and this is to keep articles on G.I. Joe characters. Vehicles have not been discussed, but this particle one at least is notable per G.I. Joe vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide pg. 119-120. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles as there is a Category:G.I. Joe vehicles with all very similar poor-quality articles. They may be deletion-worthy individually per nom, but a list may actually be useful for everyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to create that page, and merge the content after the AfD has been resolved. Even if the article does get deleted, they can get it's page history back via WP:REFUND and make the article redirect to said list. NotARealWord (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources prove it exists, but fail to indicate notability. No notability, no page. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:04, 23 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) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:V, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There are no such sources in evidence. Sandstein 07:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent reliable sources are added. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles. Sgeureka's idea sounds good. Yes, someone has to do it... the closing admin perhaps? ;) --hkr Laozi speak 13:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to merge into a vehicle list, no cultural notability and no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can show notability with sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:29, 24 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. There is a strong consensus to that effect and no arguments have been made to keep by reference to relevant inclusion standards. Mkativerata (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brockham FC[edit]

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

Non notable local amateur football team. Mo ainm~Talk 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This club has reached atleast a minimum amount of notability. enough to grant an article on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was your 7th separate Keep !vote at AfD in 11 minutes have you even looked at these articles or did you just go around on a 'keep' spree? Mo ainm~Talk 12:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no explanation how minimum notability is met. WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS, no evidence of notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews [3]. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't play at a high enough level. Giant Snowman 17:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't play at a high enough level of the English football league system, no evidence of coverage to get through GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per reasons above -- no evidence of notability. Obamafan70 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Level 12 of the English football league system isn't high enough. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are other Football clubs around this level with articles, and this team are obviously progressing. They have been established over 100 years, and now play in the SSEC which has a wikipedia page. Finally, the information is credible as it has been taken from their official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daves here (talk • contribs) — Daves here (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: first ever edit by above editor, who also removed two other editors' comments from the page -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in third party reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:10, 21 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krista Hovsepian[edit]

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

Does not meet wp:bio criteria for creative professionals. Has won small awards for parts in small theatre productions. Vanity article. Beach drifter (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree with above. Can't find any coverage other than the two referenced articles, which don't establish anything of notability. Fails on all creative professional notability points. Seanmercy (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliables sources to establish notability. There's also likely a bit of self-promotion going on given that the image used in the article is claimed to be "own work", and is a publicity headshot from her web site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 19 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 Speedily deleted per criterion G10 (deleted by Orangemike). (Non-admin closure) ∙:∙:.:pepper :.:∙:∙ 19:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GENOCIDE: A CASE STUDY OF RWANDA AND YUGOSLAVIA[edit]

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

An academic essay containing original research NtheP (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be 'all his own work' as the saying goes!original research Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unwikified original essay. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 16 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 (non-admin closure) Stickee (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Ironside[edit]

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

Marginal WP:BLP figure. Doesn't appear to be a very prominent journalist, or there would have been third-party coverage before her controversial comments. This BLP cannot exist in a neutral manner. Grsz¹¹ 16:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These 386 books constitute third-party coverage from before the recent kerfuffle, including this entry in a print encyclopedia published by an academic publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What? The Virginia Ironside? It is quite trivial to find sources which testify to her notability. For example, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine calls her "a well-known journalist and agony aunt" before going on to discuss her family history. This is like deleting Oprah. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, if possible. Easily passes WP:GNG. Location (talk) 02:28, 19 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 delete. Ged UK 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cartoon Cartoon Saturday Slumber Party Show[edit]

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

Non-notable, can't find any results related to the article. I assume that this article may be a hoax. JJ98 (Talk) 16:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not mentioned in the articles on the two alleged stars of the show, so it does seem to be a hoax. Hard to understand why someone would bother. Borock (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. It ran from 10 am to 8 pm? Ten hours of listening to Fran Drescher?! Doesn't that count as cruel and unusual punishment? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Do we really need the seven days for this ridiculousness? Looks like some kid grabbed his brother's account and uploaded a bunch of nonsense, including this "masterpiece" of a fake CN logo. Also, I'd think that Cablevision wouldn't allow anything from their competitor within 1000 feet of Radio City Music Hall or any focus group would think Fran is a good kid's show host. Finally, "live interviews" and games with cartoon characters and a performance of a profanity-laced rap song by Notorious BIG? I don't think anyone would object to a tagging of this complete nonsense. Nate • (chatter) 05:16, 16 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 Nomination Withdrawn, closed by nominator following promise by an editor to add references etc. Herostratus (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mps.br[edit]

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

Entity does not appear to meet notability guidelines. There are no refs, and one independent external link, to an entity called "Point Technology", which appears to be an online-only entity (it's in Portuguese so it's hard to be sure). Can't find any refs online. It doesn't help that it's a pretty poor article, and in substandard English too, although these are content issues.

However, CMMI looks kind of technical so maybe I'm missing something. It could be notable in Brazil. But if it is, I don't see any evidence for that. Herostratus (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to be a machine translation of pt:Melhoria de Processos do Software Brasileiro with a few of the sentences moved around. I've used my rudimentary Portuguese to read these sources and they all seem to be either passing mentions or press releases. Even if this is notable we wouldn't be losing much by deleting this, because the original will still be available for anyone who wants to do a better translation. For some time I've thought that we could integrate better with the other language Wikipedias by having soft redirects where an article exists in another language but not on English Wikipedia, both to guide multilingual readers to the information and to help editors who want to translate articles. Such a redirect would usually be better than a machine translation. Maybe I'll get around to drawing up a proposal some time. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good idea to me. In many cases, I would rather have the source and a guide to machine-translating it myself (with perhaps a sentence or two in English describing the entity in general terms) than a straight-up machine translation. At least with the source available you can sometimes tease the meaning from individual words in questionable passages, even if you aren't fluent in the language. With only the machine translation, you are stuck with the one meaning that the machine gave to the word. Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a Brazilian government-developed software process maturity model, similar to CMMI (developed in the USA), but aimed at smaller software organizations. There are many GBooks and GScholar references in English. Did the nominator or commentator search them at all? Does the nominator have any familiarity with CMMI ("However, CMMI looks kind of technical so maybe I'm missing something")? Yes, I think you're missing the whole point. I respectfully request you do a GScholar search and read at least the IEEE article [4]. I hope that will convince you to withdraw your nomination. — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I decline your request. I do new page patrol and many other tasks on the Wikipedia, and there are many new pages, and I don't have to time to learn a foreign language, become conversant in obscure technology areas, or necessarily find and provide references for each new page created, and that is why I have brought to the attention of the larger community via this AfD. And you are exactly the kind of person I was hoping to find, but there's no need to cop an attitude. Since you are conversant in this area, perhaps you could add the appropriate references into the article (rendering the article into readable English would also be a welcome service). If this is done, the article will no doubt have long and fruitful life. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been trying to do this for several articles that have been nominated, especially software articles. The problem for me is that it takes a lot less time for you or someone else to nominate an article than it does for me to add references and fix it. My frustration is that I see so many valuable (notable) topics nominated where I wish the nominator would take a less drastic action. I can't do this much for several articles in 7 days! — HowardBGolden (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, well that's different. Maybe I should have just tagged the article, and I considered doing that. I didn't, because 1) tags can just sit there for years, and 2) it looked like an advertisement for a company (and was so tagged). I'll close the AfD. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 18 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 delete per CSD A7. The article also appears to be a hoax (the bit about giving life changing detailed lectures on war atrocities to very young children was a give away) and I've also indef blocked the article creator as they have a history of creating nonsense articles Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Tran[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a living person. Google searches fail to confirm notability per WP:N. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - completely unreferenced BLP, could have been speedy deleted iunder CSD#A7 (unremarkable person), or proposed for deletion under theWP:BLPPROD (totally unreferenced biographies of living persons).--Kudpung (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first line of the 2nd paragraph says it all: Tran is one of thousands of refugees who escaped from Vietnam to Australia, the United States and other Western nations. Fails notability under WP:GNG, WP:FAILN, and his carrer as a musician fails at WP:BAND. --Kudpung (talk) 02:56, 16 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) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jochanan Ligtenberg[edit]

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

Unable to verify any of this unreferenced BLP online, maybe others have access to offline sources that can prove that he even exists, let alone passes the WP:Notability requirements The-Pope (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a couple of websites in Israel that sell works by "Ligtenberg"[5][6] (the latter one appears to be a "Messianic" organization) but like the nominator, I also had no success finding any verification of any of the content of this article, much less in reliable sources: what little there is appears to be Wikipedia mirrors. As an unreferenced and unverified BLP, I guess this has to be a delete.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, cannot find in any external source. Wikicommons folder is empty. --Sreifa (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete one gnews hit does not cut it. [7]. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is at least one article in the Jerusalem Post about him [8]. This may be the only one online, but there is a good chance there are offline sources about him too. This article appears to have a lot of contributors, which shows that a lot is known about him other than from knowing him personally. Linda Olive (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This article appears to have a lot of contributors, which shows that a lot is known about him other than from knowing him personally." is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted ref also does not mention anything about his art, which is the only thing mentioned in the article. If it wasn't such an unusual name, you'd almost think it was another person. I'd question if it was actualy significant coverage too. I also hope that if the article is kept, some of these "good chance offline sources" are immediately found and added to the article. It is a WP:BLP that we are talking about. The-Pope (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep per linda Aisha9152 (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any reliable source references; article reads like an interview of the guy. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Orderinchaos 05:01, 22 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GO Project[edit]

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

WP:N Lucyfire (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 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, NW (Talk) 14:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. While this article is quite bad in style, and reads like minutes from a meeting, it does attempt to reference four education journal articles. That's at least a first-impression indication of notability. Search engine results are hopelessly contaminated; there's a "GO Project" that has to do with gene oncology, and most Scholar hits are about that. Adding "Tanglewood" helps.[9] - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as above Aisha9152 (talk) 04:37, 22 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 Speedily deleted per criterion A7 (deleted by JamesBWatson). (Non-admin closure) ∙:∙:.:pepper :.:∙:∙ 18:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Les Cowley[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of Ato679, who attempted to nominate it for deletion but mangled the nomination; I'm creating a new nomination after having deleted the original one. Ato679's rationale for nomination is as follows: Entry made without the knowledge of the subject. Entry was inaccurate. Entry is disparaging in that it does not give a fair and balanced description of the subject. Since I'm nominating for procedural purposes, I'm neutral here. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an odd one. A user, User:Ato679, has his hair on fire about deleting this page. He claims to speak for the subject, and that the subject doesn't want the article to exist. Of course we are inclined to look upon such request very favorably per the spirit of BLP. But there's nothing in the article that is remotely disparaging. It's just an anodyne description of a person who wrote a software program. But whatever, its not referenced and the person doesn't seem that notable, so...
Delete, unreferenced BLP, notability not established. (The page is, technically, not eligible for immediate deletion on BLP grounds, I think, because it was created in 2008, and it doesn't disparage or contain contentious informantion.) Herostratus (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "A user, User:Ato679, has his hair on fire about deleting this page." That comment is not helpful nor called for. Ato679 initiated an orderly deletion nomination according to Wiki procedures. Ato679 is the subject and was made aware of this entry only recently. That the entry was made three years ago does not seem relevant to its possible lack of accuracy or presence of misleading material. The biographical entry was made without the subject's knowledge. The contents are biased and innaccurate. The contents are disparaging in that they do not present a fair and balanced view of the subject. The subject does not wish a Wikipedia entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ato679 (talk • contribs)
- Sorry, by "hair on fire" I just meant "is upset about"; this is an American idiom, no disrespect intended. Now, and I've asked you this before: what, exactly, in the article is unfair, unbalanced, or disparaging? Is the subject not a retired professor? Did he not write the software program HaloSim? Is he not noted for his explanation of optical phenomena? Or what? If you could explain what is "disparaging" you would gain a much more sympathetic audience. While we are sympathetic to the requests of living persons, just saying "This article is about me, and I will have it gone, period" is not enough, if the article is accurate, not unsympathetic, and the subject is notable. We are tasked here with providing information on notable entities. Give us something to work with here, please. Herostratus (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Since writing that I have looked back at the article. I see no claim of importance: just a description of someone who has a PhD and writes software. I am going to speedily-delete it under CSD A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's reasonable under the circumstances, I think. You need to close this AfD, and it might be reasonable to check with the user if he wants the article history oversighted. Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 15 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) 00:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aid Children Without Parents[edit]

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

as per previous nomination. fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [10]. google mainly reveals mirror and directory listings. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 2 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 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, NW (Talk) 14:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 15 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 per CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Naughton (producer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted two days ago at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_October_6#David_Naughton_.28producer.29 This page fails per WP:BAND (points 1 - 12, with special reference to the exceptions listed in Point 1. ), WP:COMPOSER, to credibly demonstrate the importance or notability of the subject for an article in the Wikipedia. Subject is a minor auxiliary musician and producer on two home-produced records. The references provided fail to meet the criteria per WP:RS for reliable sources. No third party articles articles about the subject have been located. The subject has not received significant coverage, and none of the records have featured in high positions of the national charts or received gold records. The subject does not appear to have made a significant solo career.

ref 1:The subjects name simply appears in a long list of other names who are vaguely thanked without any mention for what. The article is not about the subject and the source is a catalogue entry of basic product information.
ref 2: is a fleeting mention. The article is not about the subject and the source is a minor record review web site.
ref :3 the subject is listed as an 'also ran' (not a permanent band member). The article is not about the subject , and appears on an artist's (Duffy) self-designed, dself-published web site
ref 4: the subject is fleetingly mentioned on this Japanese language only site, as the producer of a home-recrdin of a record by Duffy. The article is not about the subject .
ref 5: the subject is listed along with other collaborators on a record that is listed on what appears to be a free music download site. The entry is not about the subject. Kudpung (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom makes a very convincing and thorough argument above. Sources are shaky, seems to be a re-added version of an article that was just deleted. Although I think that the guy has a good career going, without the coverage in reliable sources to back it up - it really doesn't fit WP:N. Addionne (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's hard to find sources given the interference of David Naughton (actor), but credits do not make someone notable, I'm afraid. Fails WP:GNG and the others. Bigger digger (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, this was properly deleted a few days ago. --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I understand your concerns. As you all suggest, it is difficult to find any concrete sources. I have found artists on wikipedia who have named him as their producer but outside sources, other than album credits as an engineer are difficult to find. I'll have one more look tomorrow. Thanks for your help and consideration. (Jonkiryu (talk) 14:55, 20 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flip's Twisted World[edit]

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

This article fails to assert notability of the game, which has yet to be released. A check of Google News returns very little - a single article in the local area of the developer, the developer's blog, as well as several mentions that show only the release date, which does not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. The developer is not notable on their own, nor is their publishing agreement with Majesco enough to push notability onto the game. It's possible that in a few months this game will be a big deal and warrant an article, but for now, it probably shouldn't be here. Addionne (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some good sources have been added to this article and it has been substantially rewritten since my original nomination - and I think it has become clear that it should be kept. -Addionne (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Game has been pushed back for over a year and may never actually be released. 69.165.146.178 (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC) — 69.165.146.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete article has been edited heavily by Frozen North, as a promotional vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.16 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and scrub promo content. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 05:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it's released and gets more coverage (reviews, etc.) then maybe it will meet the notability guidelines. At the moment, however, it does not. I suggest that one of the many involved parties with this whole thing userfy it so that if it becomes notable, they can recreate it. I'd also be willing to restore it to a userpage if it is deleted and then later becomes notable. However, it's not notable just because it is being released by a major developer (WP:INHERITED) and it's not notable because it may become notable (WP:CRYSTAL). — GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The addition of the sources from IGN and Joystiq seem to be reliable enough to warrant changing my vote to a keep. The article undoubtedly could use some improvement, but I no longer think it needs to be axed. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its out and three days and no one in the Video Game magazines and Various Websites devoted to such things have not given a review? That means its non-notable flat out. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some of these delete votes seem to miss the point - editing from a COI'd editor is not a reason to delete. Lack of notability is the basis to delete an article, but I believe I have found sufficient sources: Eurogamer, Gamespy, Joystiq and GamePro. Not earth-shatteringly amazing, but sufficient. Bigger digger (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These hits are publisher's descriptions, so not sufficient for verification or notability. Marasmusine (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an editorial decision to take the publisher's information and write it in a style suiting each web site. That kind of interaction moves it away from being a republished press release and into a useful source. They seem to cover a wide timescale as well. Happy to be persuaded otherwise. Bigger digger (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no original commentry. "The publisher has given us a description and some screenshots. Here's the description and the screenshots." is not significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is original, otherwise they would be duplicates of each other. There has been an editorial decision to include this information and an original effort has been made to include the material. How do you know these descriptions aren't based on hands-on experiences – the game was demonstrated in public and they could have visited the developer. Perhaps we should agree to disagree? :-) Bigger digger (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the internet and we must fight to the bitter end! Gamepro and Gamespy have token directory entries which I assure you are written by the publisher, as is routine. How do I know they're not based on hands-on experience? Because such an article would look more like this IGN hands-on of the E3 2009 demo. Which I believe is significant enough to contribute towards WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unreleased game by a non-notable developer. Very little information and news exists relating to it. Distant highway (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and introduce the developer's info into this. I added some (non-inlined) references from reliable VG sources. Whatever the actual reason for some of the Deletes, the COI and unreleased arguments are plain wrong. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added reception and development section from the sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep references seem fine Aisha9152 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage of E3 demo at IGN. Also a developer diary at Nintendo World Report and in-depth hands-on of the E3 preview at Gaming Union and vgchartz although I haven't vetted these sites for reliability. Marasmusine (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of reliable sources to pass GNG. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:28, 21 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 delete, blatant promotion. Kimchi.sg (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Heaton[edit]

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

Hollygirl78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

American writer, and author of Pomo Blog. I can't find the coverage that would allow it to meet N. Most of the sources are from Pomo Blog, and there's a few news report about when he went to CompUSA. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This article is part of a walled garden of spam articles that have to do with advertising firm Borrell Associates, something called "Audience Research & Development", and its several personnel; see also Jerry Gumbert. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure vanispamcruftisement created by a WP:SPA with WP:COI issues. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{23:03, 15 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 delete, blatant promotion. Kimchi.sg (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Gumbert[edit]

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

Hollygirl78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"American author, documentary filmmaker, and media industry strategist". I can't find significant coverage. There's an interview and some passing mentions, but nothing that would satisfy notability for me. (On a side note, the article creator's edits look suspicious.) Christopher Connor (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This article is part of a walled garden of spam articles that have to do with advertising firm Borrell Associates, something called "Audience Research & Development", and its several personnel; see also Terry Heaton. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure vanispamcruftisement created by a WP:SPA with WP:COI issues. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{23:04, 15 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 deleted by User:Athaenara. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borrell Associates[edit]

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

Hollygirl78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's sources, but they're offline, so don't know what they say. A lot of the sources come from Audience Research & Development, an organisation in the same field. The article is borderline speedy as spam. The sources I saw online all gave the company passing mention rather than significant coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Speedy delete. When spam is this blatant, notability is not even worth discussing:
- ....company made up of specialists in local media and local online advertising. In the world of local online advertising, few organizations approach their level of influence. Their research into local online advertising covers every market in the United States, and their findings regularly influence traditional and New Media thinkers, innovators, speakers, writers, and bloggers....
- The company’s findings are regularly cited in both traditional media and new media publications for their insight into current and future trends, especially in the arenas of how local advertising dollars are spent and how local online advertising is affecting the revenue outlook for newspapers, television, radio, and yellow pages. Borrell research findings consistently predict where media and advertising are headed as industries.
- ...regularly provides speakers to major media and advertising industry conferences, and their strategists are frequently honored for their work in various media and media-related industries.
- The company's landmark project perhaps demonstrates most sharply the reason for its wide and growing influence – accurate and timely prediction of how the distruptive technologies of New Media will affect local online advertising....
At any rate, this is a publicity business, which can safely be presumed to know about "search engine optimization" and similar manipulations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement … article lacks sufficient attribution for verifiability of the WP:CORP notability criteria … most of the links provided are WP:SPS from the subject's own website. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{16:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Speedy Delete G11, and so nominated. Thparkth (talk) 16:48, 15 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph D. Snyder[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP for over a year, no claim of notability other than being a professor. Does he meet WP:PROF? I don't think so, but maybe others can find enough cited papers for him to qualify. The-Pope (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. The "list of publications" link in the article is broken, but his publications appear to be typical academic work, esoteric topics in specialist journals. He doesn't appear to have written any books, or have had anything written about him, and while Monash is doubtless a fine school it doesn't appear to be really among the very top elite schools. And he's not a full professor. Herostratus (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Additionally, despite being so telegraphic, our article is a copyvio of Snyder's web page. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 17 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BoonEx[edit]

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

I declined the speedy request and PRODed instead. PROD was removed by original author. The author clearly has a conflict of interest. In addition the article makes a claim of notability but has yet to document that via reliable sources. And third, the article reads much like a sales brochure. It probably could have been speedied for that reason alone but because of the claim of notability I did not. I brought it here for community input. JodyB_talk 11:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed to find sources to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources I could find were press releases and hobbyist sites. It's fairly high on Alexa rank, but that doesn't satisfy N. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's simply too little (reliable) sources to establish notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References supplied are internal or to directory listings, and I found nothing more informative. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 17 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphaesthete[edit]

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

all I could find were Russian websites... is this notable? (or even real for that matter?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparent attempt to coin a neologism. 28 Google hits, most of which are just big lists of registered domains, confirms this isn't a term in wide use. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gSearch failed to find anything reliable, like what the nominator said, most of what I could find were Russian sites. Searching for "Alphaesthete Mark Simpson" resulted in nothing but the article. It is possible that the creator is Mark Simpson himself, and if he is, this article would fail WP:NEOLOGISM .and WP:NFT. In short, this article is about a neologism not in widespread use, has no claim to notability and thus cannot have its own article unless notability is established. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 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 delete (G5), article created by a sock puppet of a banned user in violation of ban. I will also note that all of the related AFD on the individual characters have been closed as speedy keep. –MuZemike 14:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Animal Farm characters[edit]

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

This article is a cut and paste copy of the various individual articles already in existence about Animal Farm characters. The main article already has a brief synopsis of each character with a link to an article with an expanded description, which this new article has cut and copied all into one place. Not sure how this doesn't run afoul of WP:CSD#A10, but the reviewing admin said A10 doesn't apply, so we'll try this avenue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect per the info provided below by nominator. ~~No need for a list -- the main article already has one. And this is a word-for-word duplication of other articles-- a classic CSD A10.~~ Jimmy Pitt talk 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should point out that on 30 July 2010, a similar article was redirected to the Animal Farm article. I would recommend the same outcome here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant content fork created as a copyright violation of existing articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a a crapload of individual character pages up for deletion above. I'm okay with deleting those if this is kept; or with keeping those if this is deleted. This is an extremely major allegorical book and some sort of provision for expanded character coverage is fully appropriate. Carrite (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anonymax (talk · contribs) nominated all of the individual articles after creating this list and finding that the list was nominated. I believe the individual articels, which existed before Anonymax unilaterally decided to merge them all into a single article, should be kept to preserve their edit histories. Since the main article contains links to the individual articles, all of the information is easily findable by interested readers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and adjust the content with the "main" transclusion and Keep the individual articles too. We need lists and we need articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this statement and as article creator. Anonymax (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant content fork and copyvio. Anonymax should be cautioned against doing something like this again. --Divebomb (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need a unified discussion
- If the individual articles are to be merged properly into a "list of characters" article like this, preserving contribution history, I have no problem with that.
- If the individual articles are going to be kept as individual articles, I have no problem with that.
- I object to either both the list and the individual articles being kept, or to both being deleted. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Those claiming there is a copyright violation going on may want to reread our GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses. If the list is reusing the same text from the individual articles, and starting from the presumption that those articles are not copyvios of outside text themselves, then per our license, we allow for free reused. The issue of having the same clumps of text in two different articles is more an issue on content forking (not necessarily bad), but definitely not a copyright violation. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The CC-BY-SA license requires attribution, which means that the users who contributed to the original article shouldn't just disappear when the article is moved to a new location. This is the main reason that the whole page move function was introduced in the first place, so that the edit history of an article doesn't disappear. What Anonymax has done in creating this list using the text of existing articles is to essentially put his own name as the sole editor of all that text, thus losing the attribution history of all the other contributors. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's understood, and while normally one does history merges, for cases like this there's other ways for more complex cases: I've seen people drop templates on the talk page to indicate that contributions up to diff X on the borrowed article were used in the present article. Attribution is needed, but it's still a far cry from what the term "copyvio" on WP implies -- eg it is readily fixed. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. The unattributed article is a violation of WP:Copyrights, but it can be fixed by any editor (although few are experienced). I will do the needful if the page history is not deleted. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wont the copyright have already expired. This assumes the book was initially published in the UK. Stupidstudent (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The copyright issue isn't with the original book, it is with the text that has been created here at Wikipedia itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The point I'm trying to make is that "copyright violation" on WP generally means external text being used in an unattributed manner within WP, and that is potentially harmful (legally) to the work, and thus is done with hasty admin action (WP:CCI); here, interproject use of unattributed WP text on another WP article is a copyright license problem (Attribution is required) but it is not the same level of urgency or attention that "copyright violation" would require. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nominator. Way too redundant, Sadads (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like almost every show on TV has a similar list. Why not one of the most significant books writen. Are we really saying pop culture is more inportant to an encyclopedia than significant works of literature like this? Stupidstudent (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, many shows and books have a list of characters. That would be completely appropriate if
  1. there weren't already individual articles on each of the main characters; and
  2. the entire text of the current list under discussion was lifted verbatim from those existing articles.
  However, those points being true, the list should be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore previous state by deleting this list article and keeping the individual articles, without prejudice to creating a list article if there is consensus to do so. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't object to using this venue (AfD) to discuss merging, but this discussion has been somewhat confused by the attribution issues. Resetting will undo those problems. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to provide a counter argument here that cannot be one resolved by the closing admin, but realistically: Keep this list but redirect all individual characters to this list article (with proper CC attribution, natch). Spot checking the characters, none of them meet the notabiliy guidelines - technically they should be deleted, not this list article. The work is significant enough that a discussion of the characters (including brief descriptions of each) as a whole makes sense. Thus, iterating the characters in this list makes the most sense. However, again, that's not an action that remedied by the closing admin, but I put forward as a reasonable suggestion that others may want to comment on and then can be done after the closure of this AFD. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The characters are certainly notable. They all appear in the Cyclopedia of Literary Characters, for example. If they were not notable then they should be deleted rather than collected into a list because that would do nothing to improve their notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. "Lists of characters of X" where X is a notable work are generally acceptable when the characters individually are not notable. (This was recently reviewed in an RFC about lists and notability). But I would argue more that because of the impact of this book ,the characters, at least collectively, can be given more analysis and review. The book link above doesn't show me enough to tell to what degree (primary or secondary) that the work goes into each character, but what I can see by Google's peak tool suggests its just reiterating plot elements - and thus primary, and thus not evidence of individual character notability. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not primary as the original text is obviously the primary source. It is a summary encyclopaedic treatment of these characters and therefore perfectly demonstrates the suitability of the material for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then it's tertiary, as best as I can tell, if it is simply summarizing the characters. That's still not enough for notability of the individual ones. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What Masem seems to be missing is that the "Cyclopedia" is not the source for the information in the character books. The cited source is the book Why Orwell Matters by Christopher Hitchens. Not having seen the book, I don't know what the depth of coverage is, but this argument about the Cyclopedia of Literary Characters is quite off the point, as it is not the cited source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument I'm making for the collapsing to the list is based on the present state of the characters - all which flatly summarize the character's role in the work, save for the one reference drop to "Why Orwell Matters" for one statement on one character. WP has determined that if a character is to have an individual article, it should be able the creation of that character and reception of that character, with only a small part of the article dedicated to the actual plot aspects (see WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT) - eg, notability through multiple secondary, evaluative coverage of the characters and not just being relisted elsewhere. None of the articles, again save for one line of one character, goes beyond the plot. Of course, given the significant of Animal Farm, I'm sure there's got to be more out there, but as I am looking at the state of the articles right now, the best course to retain as much information is merging (and trimming! you don't need to reiterate the plot over and over for each character!) the characters to a single list article. It is quite possible that there is enough info out there from literary analysis sources that each character could have on its own article, but no one has really shown that yet; merging w/ redirects to this list would still allow someone later to come along and rebuild off the old articles should they be able to expand it. --MASEM (t) 12:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - copyright problems and redundant to main article. Hekerui (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article's creator (Anonymax (talk · contribs)) has now been blocked as a sock of Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs), I'd say the article is a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G5 (creation by banned user). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:48, 20 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rawls[edit]

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

I cannot find independent reliable sourcing for this person. Quantpole (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are a lot of pastors out there, and this article gives no indication that this pastor is any more significant than any of the hundreds of others out there. Like the nominator, I couldn't find any reliables sources either. Also, the article reads a lot like a personal site.--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What connection does a Flickr search for "Thonmi Sambhota" have with Tom Rawls? I think you've pasted in the wrong url there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --pastor of a NN church, or at least I assume so since ther eis no article on it. Also delete (or PROD) Denise Rawls, his wife, which redirects here. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 21 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) 12:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trampoline (computers)[edit]

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

There are many reasons that the concept of trampolining in computers is not right for an article; developers of computers have no consensus on using this word to describe such links and the trampolining of links has replacable concepts such as proxies and disambigs in the computer world anyway, do the article is an anathema to me and doubtless other wikipedians too; should be WP:Salt. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator - you should have added the AfD tag to the top of the article and listed this page on the AfD log - see instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. I have now done this for you. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I advised Cymbelmineer that the nomination is not complete. There is no imperative to complete such a nomination, especially not if you consider the nomination rationale invalid. If not completed, I'd deleted it as housekeeping or userfied the statement.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see Cymbelmineer has made another incomplete AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Liberation Front, which was fixed by another editor. If Cymbelmineer is serious about making AfD nominations, they should learn to do it properly. If they are not serious, then this behaviour of making incomplete nominations is disruptive. I have left a note on their talk page. Anyway, might as well let this AfD run its course now. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed that AfD and had already advised the user as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough sources to establish notability, and can't see any valid reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Gandalf61 says, there had to be a reason to delete. And that a page is anathema to somebody is not a (valid) reason. -- BenTels (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to trampoline (disambiguation): Although I find the nom incomprehensible, the article is a somewhat random collection of links… essentially, this is already a disambiguation page. It could all go in a subheading of the main disambig page. Either way, this content should be edited to conform to mos:dab. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:03, 20 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) 12:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Butler[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject meets general notability guidelines through coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources, including: International Business Times [11], Zimbio [12][13], The Howard Stern Show[14], OK![15], USA Weekend[16], 7x7 Magazine[17] and the Calgary Herald[18]. dissolve ^talk 09:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there are multiple reliable media sources mentioning her, although they primarily seem to be for one movie, I Spit on Your Grave. However she has had roles, albeit minor ones, on a few mainstream television shows.--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets general notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabbaQ (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 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. Mkativerata (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kars Province, Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

It's only a very short definition. Takabeg (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no need for an article if it contains only such a very short definition. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 08:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Canyouhearmenow 14:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fits Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer; the essay Wikipedia:Notability (geography) says, "Defunct legally-recognized places are considered notable."--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pitt and Arxilocos. --Lambiam 07:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. A whole province not an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article? And two editors wading in to support the nomination? I'm really starting to think that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable as a province of a major historical power. No valid reason for deletion has been offered. Edward321 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 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. Mkativerata (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karaman Province, Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

It's only a very short definition. Takabeg (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no need for an article if it contains only such a very short definition. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 08:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fits Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer; the essay Wikipedia:Notability (geography) says, "Defunct legally-recognized places are considered notable."--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos. mkehrt (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pitt and Arxilocos. --Lambiam 07:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as an obviously ridiculous nomination, bordering on the disruptive (if not over the border). I would suggest that anyone that doesn't realise that a province is an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article should refrain from commenting at AfD until they have learnt what an encyclopedia is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable as a province of a major historical power. No valid reason for deletion has been offered. Edward321 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 17 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. Fails WP:ORG. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Osteopaths Registration Board[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [19]. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 10:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; worthy but obscure medical licencing agency. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge contents with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy#Australia_.26_New_Zealand - neither obscure or low on notability - there is b... all else on wikipedia about osteopathy in australia - deleting is ignoring the lack of info about the practice/profession/subject in Australia - as for g anything as a referent point huh? - http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=New_South_Wales_Osteopaths_Registration_Board Satu Suro 03:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that reference just shows 3 annual reports published by that organisation. not third party. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - still needs a merge rather than a delete - specially when there is buckleys about the profession on wikipedia for australia Satu Suro 03:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this organisation is so obscure that hardly anyone will know about it outside the occupation. any useful info about it is probably on its own publications. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the notability guidelines, absurd as they are. Plus, the article will just get created again next season anyways. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 23 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) 05:05, 23 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestors (song)[edit]

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

I doubt this song has the notability for its own article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NSONGS. Anemone Projectors 13:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom..--Canyouhearmenow 14:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, this single song isn't notable enough to have its own article. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 17 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. Consensus is that the offices held by the subject are sufficient to meet WP:POLITICIAN Mkativerata (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Thompson[edit]

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

Non-notable local official Orange Mike | Talk 04:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the nom that the article doesn't sufficiently show the subject's notability, however, I think there is enough elsewhere to demonstrate notability. According to one of the references in the article, the subject received a "Lifetime Excellence Award" from his alma mater, "was secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation from 1991-2000", "was chairman of Wisconsin's Public Service Commission from 1987-91", and "was named Wisconsin Restaurateur of the Year in 1986"[20]. Location (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - speaking as a Wisconsinite, I can assure you that none of these constitute a viable assertion of notability. Sectys. of the DOT are usually useful non-entities, and the others are just ego-stroking. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not convinced that serving as Chairman of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, the regulatory agency whose responsibilities include oversight of the telecommunications industry in Wisconsin, is simply "ego-stroking". WP:POLITICIAN #1 states: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office..." Working under the assumption that Wisconsin is still a US state, Thompson has held two higher level positions at the statewide level. I don't claim that he has the notability of a Senator, Representative, or Governor, but to assert that the subject is merely a "local official" is a bit disingenuous. Location (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Location and WP:POLITICIAN. All that I need to see is that he held a state-wide office of Secretary - even if Mike asserts that's an ego-stroking position. I have no opinion on that point. And I'm of course from Wisconsin too. Royal broil 02:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Convention is that holders of state-wide offices at the heads of cabinet departments are notable. Ray^Talk 22:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Location makes a good point about statewide office. Assuming these are cabinet departments, as Ray suggests, there can be no question that he is notable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:58, 20 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 and protection level changed to admin only (was previously set at autoconfirmed). The article has been created and deleted 12 times, and 2 earlier AfDs have both resulted in "delete". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Zamblera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He did not made his first team debut, the article creator claimed that Zamblera played for Roma first team and NUFC were false. Here is the match report the creator claimed Zamblera played, which in fact he did not. Matthew_hk t c 03:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: he doesn't meet the notability guidelines for footballers and there's no evidence he meets the general notability guidelines neither. Unfortunately this article isn't eligible for speedy deletion as this is different from the last deleted version. Bettia (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bettia (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nothing has changed since last time, see WP:CSD#G4. Giant Snowman 11:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all relevant notability criteria, again. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 15 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strand Beach Funicular[edit]

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

This isn't actually a funicular railway; according to both references, it's more like an outdoor elevator, and nowhere outside the article is it referred to as a railway. The only coverage of it I could find comes from a couple newspaper articles about its opening and trivial mentions in items about the beach, so it doesn't pass the general notability guideline. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a cog railway. Elevators use cables, and the motor is separate from the cab. This thing in Strand Beach has the motor on the car, and uses cogs, not cables, so it's not an elevator. It's not a funicular either though. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for that? Every source I've seen describes it either as an outdoor elevator or a funicular (though never a funicular railway). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Links are provided to a city website with ample information and a newspaper story.Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. The system openened less than a year ago, so quite naturally sources are limited to press reports and the owners' site. This itself is not a valid reason to delete. Terminology and technical details are not AFD subjects at all. Cogs or cables, it runs on rails, so it is a railway. East of Borschov 07:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the press coverage, while certainly not extensive, is enough to pass WP:GNG. The usual practice does seem to be that we keep articles about this kind of constructed public transit. I would certainly like to see the article expanded a bit: it's actually a rather interesting subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As the others have indicated, it does seem to pass WP:GNG, if not overwhelmingly so. It's also a unique system, even as a funicular that's more like an elevator. How many elevators move diagonally, are totally outdoors and along the side of a hill? --Oakshade (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever are the best technical terms for it, this is an unusual people-mover. The only funicular type systems in California that i can think of is the defunct old one in downtown Los Angeles, whose name escapes me. This is comparable to the cable cars of San Francisco! It is rare also for being new; funicular=old in my view. (Addendum: i meant Angels Flight.) It needs to be developed, yes. Highly inappropriate AFD for an obviously unusual, notable transportation system, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a rail transportation system, and therefore notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 17 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) 05:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 collections for the PlayStation 3[edit]

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

Trivial listcruft at best. Ports happen every video game generation, and these ports aren't anything special. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only thing that makes them recognizable is the push Sony did with them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into proper "series" articles as well as some brief mention in the PlayStation 3 article. Then Delete page. People tend to do the opposite when deleting so there seems to be no semblance of the info. on Wikipedia. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that would break attribution if we merged and then deleted. –MuZemike 23:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rather pointless list. It is not going to expand greatly, the scope is limited to collections. The actual porting is not notable, even if the original games were. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two items, plus three CRYSTALBALL items does not a list make. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:27, 23 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) 12:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Perrys[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Claims #1 hits but I don't know what chart that could possibly be as it certainly isn't Billboard. Also claims awards which are of no notability whatsoever as they turn up no reliable sources. Article is a huge infodump without a single source found; "The Perrys" + various keywords turned up no reliable sources whatsoever, further asserting the non-notability of the award wins. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm also not sure about the awards or #1 hits, but they have 13 albums listed at Allmusic, and coverage wasn't difficult to find: Billboard, Harlan Daily Enterprise, Atlanta Journal/Constitution, Cuba Free Press, Calhoun Times, USA Today.--Michig (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known, well-regarded, and prolific musical group with multiple, easily verifiable (eg [21]) award nominations for quite notable awards. Nominator's complete inability to perform functional Google searches coupled with aggressive deletion posturing is clearly disruptive. Article needs cleanup, though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Perry's are considered by many to be one of the premiere groups in Christian music. They are notable on several levels. The Dove Award win alone are the Grammy Awards for Christian music! --Canyouhearmenow 03:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete They obviously exist, but based on the severe lack of sources; there's not a single source listed in the article. Ga Be 19 03:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter that there's not a single source listed in the article. They have been shown to exist. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they have been shown to exist, sources should come easy. Looking at this article, it's really hard to know they're notability or even if they exist. Ga Be 19 01:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some more articles - DeBoer, Terry (7 February 1997), "Group's members rise above tragedy to share lives with song", The Grand Rapids Press - Heisler, Steve (24 January 2010), "Gospel frestival coming to Palmetto", Sarasota Herald-Tribune duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 19 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 Long Beach Unified School District. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bancroft Middle School (Long Beach, California)[edit]

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

Contested prod Non notable school lacking third party sources. Steam Iron 02:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Steam Iron 02:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Middle schools are not usually notable. WikiManOne (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Long Beach Unified School District per customary practice for middle schools not otherwise shown to merit their own article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with a redirect.--Steam Iron 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not want a redirect because all of the other Bancroft Middle Schools do not have a redirect. So I do not think it is fair 4:09, 15, October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver24shil (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other Middle Schools don't have pages.--Steam Iron 00:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arxiloxos. The fact that the other middle schools don't have redirects is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Anyone who thinks there is something unfair about this can create redirect pages for the other 14 middle schools in the district. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The small amount of info provided on this page could just as easily be provided on a chart in a list of all the schools in the district. Sebwite (talk) 00:33, 22 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harbert Hills Academy[edit]

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

The school mentioned here is not accredited by one of the regional accreditation bodies and is therefore not automatically kept under WP:NHS. Google search shows no reliable secondary sources that are primarily about this entity. This appears to be (a) promotional in nature (b) unsourced (all the sources are primary and proper citation templates not used) and (c) directly copied from www.harberthills.org piece by piece (all the sentences I specifically looked for were on the website, very bad case of plagiarism). It would require a fundamental rewrite from scratch in order be wikipedia quality even if it was considered notable which I do not consider it to be. Attempted to delete through speedy deletion and prod but was removed by an anonymous IP address which proceeded to personal attack me on the article's talk page. WikiManOne (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i removed the promotionalism, the obvious copyvio, and whatever seemed likely to be copyvio. The remaining stub is only very basic information, but more could and should be added--properly. I note that this is a secondary school, and all such are considered notable for Wikipedia purposes. I have noted the comments at the nominators user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This school is an unaccredited school meaning that it is a psuedo high school at best. Whether or not it has recognition by other schools, the fact is grades from unaccredited schools cannot be transfered making them pretty useless. Also, it appears to have less than 40 students. WikiManOne (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Also, I do not believe that regional accreditation has been considered a prerequisite for application of the general presumption of notability for high schools, nor should it be. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been previous deletion discussions that have succeeded based on this.WikiManOne (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify them. I do not agree that this has been the general practice. And I certainly don't think it is appropriate for you to add your interpretation to the longstanding text of WP:NHS and then immediately claim that your changed version is the accepted one to be used oin a new AfD filed by you.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California School of Law. This is the first one I saw when I looked, I have seen multiple other ones that are of high schools rather than colleges however, I just don't have the time to look right now... WikiManOne (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion/Comment - Organization is a part of Outpost Centers International, perhaps it could be merged into that article? Comments? WikiManOne (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the speedy deletion templates were removed by IP address who has never made edits beyond that article where they added the plagiarized content. The IP address is located in the vicinity of the entity discussed drawing question of promotion yet again.WikiManOne (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per DGG, and the current stub version pruned by him does not violate any of our policies. It's worth noting that where we generally accept all high schools as de facto notable, there are no further criteria for their size, age, accreditation, curriculum, or whether they are public or private. The only criterion is that they provide education for ages 15 to 18, or as the Americans call it, 'Grades' 10 to 12. Maybe a future RfC will change policy to narrow it down, but for the time being we have to live with what we have, and that means that we keep Harbert Hills Academy.--Kudpung (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that is that non-accredited high schools do not actually provide grades 9-12, they provide a psuedo education that is generally not accepted at accredited high schools and usually not by colleges putting whether they actually offer those grades in question. WikiManOne (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning towards keep Precedent at the college/ university level says that an institution who provides a legitimate education but is unaccredited for religious reasons should still be regarded as notable and kept, while unaccredited schools providing questionable or non-legitimate services, such as fly-by-night, for-profit career schools who do not offer degree programs, or are outright fraudulent (i.e. diploma mills) should not be kept, unless they satisfy the general notability guideline through non-trivial, secondary sources. From what I've gathered about Harbert Hills, it seems to me that if the school were a college, it would fall into the former category, which is why I lean towards keeping 2 says you, says two 17:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outpost Centers International. Lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. I do not agree that such a school automatically gets the de facto assumption of notability recently given to public high schools and accredited private high schools. It is surprising that news sources have not covered a school with a commercial bakery, a nursing home and a powerful FM radio station, on a 500 acre campus. Edison (talk) 20:15, 17 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) 01:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final World Order[edit]

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

wp:nn neologism. Sole author contested prod. Toddst1 (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Final World Order? They've been failing very badly with the first one. Anyhow, this article is clear-cut original research, no reliable media sources mentioning anything about it, anywhere. Or maybe the cabal's behind it, eh?--Hongkongresident (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article starts: "The Final World Order is a term coined by the General Federalist Society..." So a neologism. It would be better to try for an article on the General Federalist Society itself. Borock (talk) 18:45, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Toliver[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has not been improved to show notability in three years since the last AfD. Maybe she's a good teacher, nothing shows why she is a notable teacher.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read all of the potential sources pointed to by, for example, Dhartung in the first AFD discussion? If not, why are you nominating things for deletion on notability grounds without (as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:AFD#Before nominating an article for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do) first looking to see whether multiple non-trivial published works exist? Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If she's won all the awards stated in the article, she obviously meets WP:BIO simply because of them. Jan 1922 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I added cites for the Peabody Awards. Wish sometimes that nominators would bother to address the issue rather than bringing it here.—RJH (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I knew I had seen that name before; she was on TV. Abductive (reasoning) 00:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Peabody award clears the notability hurdle. AfD can be a good way to push an article to a definitive verdict, as I think is the case here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 18 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 Nomination withdrawn as WP:CREATIVE met through winning major award. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Roessner[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. most of the coverage in gnews is passing mentions not indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This, from the Google News archive hits mentioned by the nominator, is an 890-word review of the subject's work in the Chicago Tribune, there's a bit of coverage on two pages of this book and there are some awards referenced here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Winner of the John W. Campbell Award for New Author in 1989 (voted on and presented during the Hugo Award process) and the Crawford Award from the International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts.Shsilver (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The John W. Campbell award is a major award, and Phil Bridger's find looks plenty fine, too. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 17 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) 00:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzle CMS[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article about a non-notable software product - basically just another content management system. Most of the references are from the company website and the others don't provide any evidence of notability (the only reference from a major independent publication, PC World, does not even mention the product). andy (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some independent reviews from CMS Wire and CMS Report. Also can be mentioned the online presentation on UAFPUG (Ukranian Adobe Flash Platform User Group) meeting - the meeting was about Flash CMS solutions. --Janvarev (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The best source in the references doesn't mention the subject at all. I can't find any reliable sources providing significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:33, 2 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 8 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) 00:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No good sources. I give little weight to those two reviews from CMS sites. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:17, 15 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) 01:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faboost[edit]

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

Contested prod.; subject lacks notability as per WP:GNG and is not encyclopedic as per WP:DICDEF. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything usable to save this one. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 11:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, quoting the article: "FABOOST was a word created... on 14th October 2010".--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, non-notable neologism. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback on what is wrong with the article i have been improving it daily we have now reference to video of the words origin and also chloe's twitter has origins of the word the article has only just started so i am trying to update it daily up to a good standard for you guy the reason i created this page is by request and the word is picking up a lot and if carry on like it is could be a word that will be used a lot in social situations. So please don't delete it i will try and sort out the problem people are having with the wiki i have had a lot of positive feedback and i am hoping it informs people of the words origins if wondering and that it also helps people pick the word up. I was shock it was requested for deletion and will improve on what people are having problems with but feedback is feedback and i will try and fix it to your needs. Thanks Arianinja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianinja (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's no evidence of independent sources using or discussing the word. In the case of a neologism like this, the requirement is to show widespread usage. Showing videos, tweets, and other primary sources won't meet that hurdle. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the valid Wikipedia-is-not-a-dictionary concerns, note that this word was created a day ago, which virtually guarantees that there won't be any reliable sources for it. The article has a snowball's chance in hell at getting kept. However, what you can do, and probably should do, is copy and paste the article into a user subpage, like User:Arianinja/Faboost. There, you can tinker with the article all you want, and if it somehow does manage to get as much mainstream press as a phrase like stay the course or truthiness, then you might have a case for its inclusion. But until that happens, this article shouldn't be in the Wikipedia namespace.--Hongkongresident (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I have corrected the layout of the page to match the recommendations at WP:AfD. No text has been altered. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard this in the interview and later googled it to find this article. I do think it is relevant and has already started going viral through twitter and other social networking websites. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and faboost isn't even a real word. The purpose of the article is not to define a word, but to show how such a trendy word came to be, its origins, what it means, and how it has spread. Mases26 (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys Arianinja here i am happy that i am getting alot of feedback and i am trying to keep the wikipedia page and up to date as i can any new information on the word how it is spreading on the creators of the words chloe and kobi. I understand your points on how it can be seen under that wiki is not a dictionary but so can pretty much any article on wikipedia because they all have the meaning of the word. The reason for that is with out the meaning of the word you can not expand on what your article is and that is exactly what it is. I am trying to inform people of the word and also keep people update with the meaning, news, Creators, websites, videos and how it's spreading exact what wikipedia for tell and informing people about things. People are all giving me good feedback including the Lovefilm who originally shot the interview so i am planning to keep it as up to date as i can with new and how its spreading and uses of the word.You could say it is neologism but thats not what i am just trying to achieve i am trying to inform people of the origins and the world of faboost. also to your other point i have now referenced the video of the creation of the word, the let me in facebook page were they link to the wikipedia page and comment on the creation of the word. Also chloe grace moretz's twitter page where the word is used throughly. Also i have created the subpage thing if what i don't want to happern happerns

Thank Arianinja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianinja (talk • contribs) 11:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to defend this article, but failed. Subject is non-notable. The only way to save this article from deletion is to find at least one reliable secondary source. Try to avoid primary sources, it's a waste of your precious time and effort. If you can't provide secondary sources, this nomination will almost certainly be successful and article will be deleted. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 19:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per above. Willpower (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now put up a link to the word being traded mark for something in medicine it is up on the wikipedia page now and has a link to prove it thanks Arianinja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianinja (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were some sort of a product related to the trademark, then that might be something to hang a separate/new article on. However, there's no mention of a product at Trademarkia, so it comes down to the word not being actually used for anything. Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous trivia, nor a dictionary of trademarked terms, so that does not give any more reason for the article to be kept. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of people are being to hard on this article i mean it explain what it is. It informs people it backs up every point it can with references and links. It generally isn't that bad i mean i worked hard on it and if you look on the history i update daily with new information link etc. So if it get deleted i know i worked hard on it and i tried to stop the deletion. I agree with some of your points but i will keep trying to improve on your points until it gets deleted but i will have to hope it's not deleted. Thanks for the feedback Arianinja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianinja (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Chloë's tweets or posts on other social networking websites are generally not acceptable as sources per WP:TWITTER. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 14:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia page has not been deleted yet so i will try and find even for sources thanks arianinja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianinja (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys again i don't know how to edit it to link it to other articles as a orphan article as am going to like it to chloe's and Kodi's wikipedia but not sure how to do it??? Thanks again Arianinja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianinja (talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Faboost may have come to Chloe's mind spontaneously but she was not the first one. There's is in fact a reference at Trademarkia showing that this is a trademarked term registered by Bayer in 2006 [22]. De728631 (talk) 22:37, 21 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 Old German Baptist Brethren. Any relevant content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 06:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old German Baptist Brethren (New Conference)[edit]

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

Not notable enough for own article -- merge with Old German Baptist Brethren. Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single reference is not sufficient to establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few external links, and it discussion of the New Conference is in danger of dominating the history section of the OGBB page, (which is out of proportion to it's importance historically.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reference is from 1995, so obviously not talking about this New Conference. It could be notable, as small denominations often are, but it will be hard to find third party sources. No need to merge - the Old German Baptist Brethren article has more than enough on this subject, though it is entirely unreferenced. St Anselm (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RETAIN Added references from two New Conference publications this last year, they're polemic but facts can be gleaned from them. I agree with Anselm, this article helps to remove extraneous New Conference material from the Old German Baptist Brethren Article, which it is unbalancing at present--BUT I argue for retention.204.42.21.188 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.42.21.188 (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Old German Baptist Brethren, or rather redirect, since a similar text is there (in "Recent Developments") already. OGGB appears to result from a schism in 1881 and only has 56 churches, all in USA. The New Conference must be an even smaller denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 10 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Old German Baptist Brethren. Fails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above and in that full disambiguating names of sourced denoms of any size should be retained as redirects at minimum. JJB 01:18, 22 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) 00:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saakara[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is just a dictionary definition. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and Rescue) Admittedly the reference is a receipe, but that's unavoidable for an article about prepared food. It is appropriate for WP to have such an article, linked as it is to the larger article on Oriya cuisine. It may be difficult to find Google-able references so editors will have to actually read books (remember those?) and even visit the library (remember that?). Such articles help balance the western-centricity of WP. And last, it's only a few days old - can't we give it a chance to grow a little before we decide to consign it to oblivion? Geoff ^{Who, me?} 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how having a recipe for a non-notable curry dish helps "balance the western-centricity of WP". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the proper spelling of it? Why doesn't Google Book search find anything with it and the word "curry" or "cook" added to it? If its a real thing, it should be in countless cookbooks, which would make it notable. Dream Focus 08:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 14:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be provided which are more than a recipe book. We need to be able to write about the significance of this dish with regard to its native culture, etc. If such sources are found, then please disregard this !vote. SnottyWong ^speak 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe if there is a way it can be expanded upon, maybe incorporating the history of Saakara, or perhaps a picture, or anything referring to its cultural roots, it can be tied into the original Oriya cuisine article. After researching it more, if there is no information on it to be found, then it should be deleted. But it deserves a chance like any other small article. Jadex99 (talk) 04:08, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anyhing that confirms this dish even exists, much less is notable. There are, of course, countless curry variations, some of which are unique to a certain restaurant, etc. Saakara is occasionally a spelling for the area better known as Saqqara, but I'm not seeing anything that confirms this meaning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why M. Ritzman relisted this. Some of the rationales above are not useful for a closing administrator to make a decision. "Keep if sources exist"/"Delete if sources don't exist" are basically re-statements of deletion policy that do nothing to determine the answer to the actual question that needs answering of whether sources exist. Nor does "Other editors are going to have to do work, but I haven't.". (Glane23, as an article rescuer with a long track record I tell you this: What you are doing is not actual article rescue, at all.)
I therefore add my research to that of Starblind. I've looked, and cannot find any evidence of anything by this name. Even the source cited doesn't actually document any such thing. I can find exactly 13 words that appear to indicate that there's a rice dish called Sakara. But they are bad English and don't convey enough information for me to even be able to create a stub, let alone indicate that there's scope for expansion of such a stub into a full article. The article cites no (supporting) sources, and I can find no (usable) sources. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the dish seems to be Pani Kakharu Sakara, as indicated in the source given, and asking Google about that term yields a number of hits from various recipe sites. The article seems to have been created with an alternative transliteration or perhaps misspelling in the title. I don't know Oriya or Oriya script so don't know what other alternative spellings might exist when it's transliterated. All that aside, recipe websites aren't really reliable sources, and recipes are not appropriate WP content in any case. I've tried to look at other Oriya food articles to see what kind of sources they have and perhaps find something about Pani Kakharu Sakara, but it's a bit depressing reading since most sources seem to be the same kind of recipe sites... there has to be better sources somewhere but I don't seem to be able to find them at the moment. All of which adds up to a weak delete without prejudice against recreation if and when sources are found. I strongly agree with what was said above about Western bias, but that doesn't mean articles can go in without any good sources. --bonadea contributions talk 11:40, 16 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My First Affair[edit]

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

Dubious notability. The first two sources don't even mention the album, and the third is a blank allmusic listing. Redirect declined by author. No reliable source coverage found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 23:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a little odd that the New York Times review doesn't mention her show by name, but the songs described in that review do match the songs listed in the article (and supported by the allmusic link.) 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't transfer notability to the album though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:36, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tough one, but in addition to the New York Times source, there does appear to be some coverage for this album. I believe some of the confusion has arisen because it is the songs from the show she is singing in. Album appears in CMT, CDBaby, Allmusic, and the show has several references/reviews in Theater mania and Cabaret Scenes. I believe that an article about the show and the album would be worth keeping. Maybe the author would be interested in that? - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would be more than happy to reformat this as an article pertaining to show + album if that is what is recommended. I agree the available source is a little confusing; one of the reasons I wanted to create this article was to collate and clarify the source that is available. I choose to focus on the album/soundtrack as it is an item which is still viable and available whereas the show was completed in 2007 (thou it was revamped and ran again as "Love Letters" in 2008.) Were this to be a one-off recording from a performer who had nothing else as far as discography, I can see how this would not be 'notable' per Wikipedia guidelines. However, I feel it is a relevant entry as it is part of the discography of a gold-selling and Grammy-awarded artist with multiple charting albums to her credit.

Boldart (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to be in good shape, thanks to the clean-up efforts following the launch of this AfD. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 16:47, 16 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Community Foundation[edit]

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

Noble, but not notable. Also an important conflict of interest with User:Tvgdlh, the initials of three HCF staff members (including their PR manager). Raymie (t • c) 23:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 23:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 23:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of news coverage available [23], although the three links provided at the article are worthless (one is dead and the other two are to the current edition of the paper, not to the article cited). With rewriting and citations the foundation's notability would be apparent. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of gnews hits as MelanieN shows. many of which are reasonably in depth. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 15 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 . Marasmusine (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Geniuses[edit]

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

Video game playing organization fails WP:CLUB, WP:ORG, and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^gab 23:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think this needs to be deleted without giving it a chance to expand, simply because you have no knowledge of electronic sports or their organizations with millions of dollars in sponsors, then you probably shouldn't be getting yourself involved in the first place. That is all I will say on this matter. DarthBotto_talk•cont 00:15, 09 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are some sources [24] looks to be a good source, [25] is in passing in a RS, [26] is pretty detailed and the source appears reliable (not certain) and [27] includes a number of foreign language sources which might be useful. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes lofty claims which the meagre sources would seem to disprove. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erb? I was unaware that was a reason for deletion. In any case, what lofty claims? "the organization is known as being the premiere North American electronic sports organization, boasting highly successful players across each competitive genre." As near as I can tell replacing "the" with "a" would solve any such problems. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In order to solve that problem, I think you'd need to change "a" to "the" as you suggested, but also you'd need to remove the word "premiere" (as this is just puffery), as well as everything after the comma, namely: "boasting highly successful players across each competitive genre". That would reduce it to "...the organization is known as being a North American electronic sports organization." Having corrected the POV problems, then you'd just need to provide a reliable source which corroborates that statement. SnottyWong ^speak 23:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, Snottywong nailed it. Since "the premiere North American electronic sports organization" is certainly NOT this one, and that's about the only claim to notability in the article. There's really nothing left for the article to stand on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Other than meeting WP:N you mean? Hobit (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 04:12, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Keep - multiple hits at Joystiq. Not much individually, but collectively may be enough. --Teancum (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all just short advertisements and press releases. None of them are significant coverage (as required by WP:GNG). SnottyWong ^confer 17:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobit's sources. No objection to de-peacockifying it in the process of adding sources, of course. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 17 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instant (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced. Band is notable, but album doesn't seem to be. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Album reviewed by Allmusic. Mattg82 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that a single review at "allmusic.com" makes the article notable enough to include in Wikipedia? I don't see how this satisifies WP:NOTABLE. Generally, topics are only considered notable if they have received coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Ex are notable for their work with some of the most well known avant garde and alternative rock artists (e.g., Tom Cora, Tortoise and members of Sonic Youth) as well as some of Ethiopia's most famous musicians (including Getatchew Mekuria). This album is in this lineage of collaborations: Han Bennink's presence alone it a noteworthy contribution to European free jazz, and with the rest of The Ex's discography making its way onto Wikipedia, why omit one album from their chronology? Morganfitzp (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about The Ex being notable. It's about this album being notable. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:12, 11 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable band, album has coverage in the Trouser Press Record Guide and Allmusic. Print reviews will certainly exist given the band's stature.--Michig (talk) 06:28, 15 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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bad Girls Club participants[edit]

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

This is just a directory of people that have appeared on The Bad Girls Club, which are covered in each of the show's season pages. Mike Allen 06:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Smerge per Ajona as a content fork of information in the season articles. Yoenit (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge so I can re-create the main article The Bad Girls Club page after I am done with two other GA and FA nominations. AJona1992 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Yoenit, per your deleted comment, why couldn't Jona userfy this page? Isn't that what userfication is for? Mike Allen 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean Mike? even though you was referring to him AJona1992 (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - Means to copy the page's contents over to one of your sandboxes to work on until it's ready for mainspace. Though, I don't think it will ever be ready for mainspace, since the show's season pages cover all of the girls. I'm wondering what he means by "licensing issues". Mike Allen 04:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yea true I did that though remember? and I was just wondering why not merge it so I can work on the main page because Season 5's page is currently a GAN. AJona1992 (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Userfication of the page followed by a merge into another article would amount to a merge and delete vote. Wikipedias CC-BY-SA license does not allow that without merging the article history, so it is normally not done without a very good reason. I did not realize this when I suggested it, but I remembered shortly after. I am changing my vote to selective merge the article to The Bad Girls Club, depending on how much information Ajona whishes to incorporate in the main article. Yoenit (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 9 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While it's true the same essential information is in the season articles, an overview article might be acceptable for comparisons' sake. No objection to deleting if the list hasn't been improved within reasonable time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 15 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) 00:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova Entertainment[edit]

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

Unremarkable, now defunct company which organised amateur battle-of-the-bands. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG. Lacking any reliable, third-party sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 9 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete You'd think there would be some solid sourcing based on the claims in the article, but I'm not seeing it. This is as close as I can find to a reliable source. It sure doesn't help that the same Supernova Entertainment belongs to at least two other companies, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:52, 15 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) 00:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wewaii[edit]

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

Non-notable browser game with no references from reliable, third party sources: Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. None of the current sources are reliable according to the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. I used the WPVG custom Google search and got zero results. The awards in the "Recognition" section are from sites that aren't a reliable measure of the game's notability as they allow fan voting and have skewed reviews. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing does not provide significant coverage, reliability is dubious. Can't find anything usable to save this one. --Teancum (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apart from the list given on the press releases page on the TravianGames site, which may or may not be reliable, Wewaii is also mentioned in this academic paper published by IEEE. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The press page is pretty bad; the sites are little more than linkfarm review sites for browser games. The IEEE source is a single-mention name drop in a paper presented in a conference, not the significant coverage that WP:GNG requires. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the de:Deutscher Computerspielpreis award? The German Wikipedia seems to suggest that the company is supported by lots of other large companies and the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and Media (using Google Translate). Doesn't that make it a notable award? --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't consider it because it's not well known outside Germany. It's essentially a German award for Germans: just about anybody can enter, including people outside the industry, as long as they're German. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a Deutscher Computerspielpreis reference to the article because it covers the subject significantly. I think, with that and the Covus reference (browsergames.de), the article passes GNG. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Covus is the same company that runs browser1.de, which was specifically marked as unreliable by WikiProject Video games for the same type of thing that browsergames.de is now doing, such as giving every game a 5/5 rating, no author by-lines, no discussion of editorial policy, uncritical trivial reviews of games (bordering on press releases), and fan-submitted content and voting. The Deutscher Computerspielpreis award appears legit, or at least they're sponsored by some larger companies, but I still stand by my characterization of the award as being a minor one, especially since it's German-only and essentially anyone can enter. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that while browsergames.de is run by the same company, it does not have the same issues. It does not give every game a 5* rating,[28][29] (although a lot of them do seem have 5*) and the readers' votes stay separate from the editors' ratings. The editor list can be found here. The user submitted content is the "Eure Wertung" game rating and the comments as suggested on the "about" page; many online articles also have comments sections. There is a terms and conditions page, but I don't know if it has anything about editorial policy. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:07, 12 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 15 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 List of The Land Before Time characters. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cera (The Land Before Time)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Littlefoot

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

The essence of the first (Littlefoot) afd applies here as well since no attempt to establish the needed information has been made. EDIT: The articles were already merged, but were brought back sometime ago. This afd is to see if we can still come to a similar agreement proposed in the last afd by the closing admin.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Keep or merge into List of The Land Before Time characters. As central characters of a successful and long-running film series (13 of them, plus a TV show!), these are definitely notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. Whether in their own articles or in the list is more of a stylistic choice and not especially important. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention the articles were already merged, but were brought back sometime ago. Apologies. « ₣M₣ » 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment For those who are concerned that a deletion would result in an extinction of all information about Cera and the gang, they all live on in the Land Before Time wiki. No opinion about keep or delete-- for now, my delete argument would be pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT and see it as a holdover from Wikipedia's old days, but given the neverending popularity of this franchise for more than 20 years, I suspect that the characters have some real world notability. Mandsford 15:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of characters article since the content has already been merged. Consider page protection if redirection is undone without adding independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Land Before Time characters. Given the popularity of these characters coverage in list form is warranted and these are plausible redirects. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:28, 10 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jclemens and Eluchil404. Mostly unsourced or trivial information bordering on original research. The LoC keeps it short and clean. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone else. No offense, but why this was re-listed is beyond me. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:21, 23 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) 01:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quidco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

See prior AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quidco (2nd nomination), where consensus was to delete. User has attempted some work on a proposed draft article. Procedural nomination, no opinion expressed by nominator on this current incarnation of the article on this company (though to have disclosure I did express one in the prior AFD close, linked above). Bringing here to AFD again for assessment of this version of the article from a draft by Stuartcoggins (talk · contribs). Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I went through the cites that are in the article and other then "It exists" and "this is how it works" I don't feel that it passes WP:N. Simply put the article is very much WP:ARTSPAM. There is also some WP:OR in some areas where I highly doubt that there is any reliable sources available for citation. - Pmedema (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that it does meet WP:N and went into this in some considerable detail when it was first nominated for deletion over two years ago. Supposed (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Delete !vote taken back as I should have taken the further step to look for other references. I based my view on the cites that were in the article at that time. - Pmedema (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it is notable because of the effect it had on companies and on an industry which is notable, per guidelines on WP:CORP. It says"worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice ... Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.. And in this case, quidco was notable before the articles on it were published because it was an incentivised site worthy of note. It is worthy of note not just due to its popularity, it has always been worthy of note because it ""attracts notice" due to its alternative business model etc". The curious thing about this now though is that quidco is now one of the largest cashback websites on the internet.... but the point still stands that its notability is more down to the alternative business model (i.e.- 100% cashback) that it used to change the affiliate marketing industry, not the size of the company. Supposed (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website meets WP:CORP, it has "multiple non-trivial independent sources". Regards, Asterion^talk 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References from the Daily Mail, the Observer, and the Guardian clearly establish its notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sources from the Daily Mail. Well covered too. Minima c (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is how 'trivial' is defined. There have been concerns in the past over the coverage of quidco in these independent sources. People have complained that although the sources aren't trivial (Guardian etc.), quidco perhaps only gets a trivial mention within some of those articles which might lead to the proliferation of articles on cashback sites on wikipedia. As Top CashBack shows this is already happening. The alternative is to perhaps include quidco as part of another article on reward websites. Corporate dominance in notability seems almost unavoidable though as Bing Cashback proves. Supposed (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to be honest, even though I am the creator of the quidco article, I would back its deletion on the basis of violation of WP:ARTSPAM. I've grown tired over the years trying to police this, it seems almost a magnet for it even though there are revisions of this article that are perfectly fine on wikipedia. Supposed (talk) 04:46, 21 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.