Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 21

< 20 October	22 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 redirect and speedy close. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Whittaker

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

Unsourced Since creation in 2004, unelected candidate, and no indication of importance. Talktome^(Intelati) 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page in 2004, when Wikipedia's standards for inclusion weren't as clearly defined. I agree that it shouldn't be kept as a standalone article; I've talked to the person who started this afd, and I'm going to compress the page to a redirect to a candidate list page in a few minutes. No need to keep the afd going, in this case. CJCurrie (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Keep as moot. This is now a redirect. Carrite (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD challenge can safely be closed.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Speedy Keep Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin close). Nevermind, hit the button a bit too quick.

I Will Teach You To Be Rich

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

Advertisement for a non-notable book. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:44, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cadet units in British Columbia

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

Non-notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MILMOS/N Anotherclown (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence: I'm divided on this one, which is why I contested the prod (hoping to hear some more discussion). On one hand, none of the individual units have an article and mostly don't seem to have any independant notability. On the other, there is no policy saying that a list has to be a stand-alone list. At least one person thought there was enough potential to make lists for the other provinces; but I would be OK with upmerging the scope to all of Canada and maybe being a bit more stringent about criteria. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think it meets the sourcing requirements in WP:N for significant, independent coverage. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per WP:MILMOS/N#Units and formations. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The units as a whole are large enough to satisfy WP:MILMOS/N#Units and formations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I understand this assertion as the MILMOS doesn't seem to cover cadet units at all (as far as I can see). Anotherclown (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no reason to draw a distinction between cadet units and other types of military unit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe, maybe not (personnally I think the notability threshold for a cadet unit would be different from an actual military unit as the vast majority would be non-notable and lack reliable sources or significant independant coverage). I guess in many ways this argument probably transends the issues involved in this article and maybe further discussion of the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N might be needed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not like we have an article on every unit. But we do have ones like List of Army Cadet Units across Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess thats part of the problem... personnally I don't think cadet units are all that notable, so having a list that focuses on purely those units in one part of Canada (i.e. British Columbia) seems even less notable to me. Perhaps if it were a list of all Cadet units in Canada it might be more notable. Then again if there is no reliable sources and no independent coverage it is a moot point as that then fails our notablity guidelines anyway (or at least thats my interpretation). IMO both List of cadet units in British Columbia and List of Army Cadet Units across Australia fall into this category. Anotherclown (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough, but being of little interest to you does not automatically make the subject not notable. The idea of a Canada-wide article may be reasonable, but Canada is larger than Australia, and it might become unwieldy. I see no problem in listing them on a per-state basis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean provinces, right? :P I'd like to point out that the notability requirements to be included on a list is not the same as needed to have an article, so referencing WP:MILMOS/N is a bit disingenuous because it is written with articles in mind. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok fair enough - that doesn't remove the requirement for reliable sources and significant independent coverage, which at this stage I don't believe this article has. Anotherclown (talk) 23:09, 28 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) 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Plausible Probable

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

Unreferenced, non-notable neologism per WP:Neologism, original research per WP:No original research, can't find a single mention of it online. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Top Jim (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This atricle has merit in that it a management book has been cited and referenced. Use of research is apparent. Editor has no knowledge of Wikipedia hense article is incomplete. Harry Hood is a notable New Zealand writer. Suggest not to be deleteed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.86.234 (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Delete. A non-notable management theory. Google News shows nothing; Scholar shows only that other people have thought up the alliterative phrase, found it clever, and used it in a variety of unrelated contexts. The notion that probable ideas have more value than possible ideas plumbs new depths in triviality. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE. This theory is recognised througout New Zealand. Have read numerous case studies. Try researching New Zealand content —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.86.234 (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) — 120.89.86.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Possible Plausible Probable theory is a relatively new framework, inspired by Otago University researcher Alan Geare who's PhD focuses on contemporary management and marketing in the contemporary context. This framework is considered to be one of the most controversial and topical issues within contemporary management in New Zealand academia. The deletion of the Possible Plausible Probable Framework would signify a lack of academic understanding in relation to emerging contemporary Management theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.86.234 (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply sources verifying its notability in NZ academia? They don't have to be online sources: a WP:Reliable source in print would also be fine. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 09:43, 15 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) 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Marcus Qwertyus 22:44, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Broadcast 3D

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

Hoax [1] not blatant so don't think WP:G3 applies CTJF83 chat 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax, absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NFF (See WP:TOOSOON).... and no Armbrust, its not quite a hoax... simply a project in development by an unknown director... and waaaaay too soon for this article.[2][3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those sources are reliable. CTJF83 chat 17:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not assert that they were... only that the project is not a hoax. Note that I do agree with deletion because lack of reliable sources makes this article premature. We are not in disagreement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm just saying those 2 sources don't indicate it's not a hoax. CTJF83 chat 03:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well... the trailer shows something is in perhaps in progress... somewhere... and so is then indicative that a "film", in whatever minimal version, and by whatever unknown filmmaker, exists as an idea and a concept and a trailer... and if called a "film" is not exactly a hoax, even if never completed. Heck, even a non-notable 60 second student "film" posted on youtube is still a "film", per definition. But we are in compete agreement that for inclusion herein it needs to be a whole lot more: completed, screened, reviewed, covered in reliable sources, etc. So even in my assuming the best of good faith, it can be seen that this article easily fails all pertinent notability criteria, and is waaaaaaaaaay TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:43, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reds in my bed

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

NN, fails WP:NSONG CTJF83 chat 21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete or Merge to 10cc article, non notable on own. He iro 19:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge for the reasons already explained. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 25 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. — Scientizzle 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weepul

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

Procedural AfD...this was the claimed speedy deletion rationale:

Not a word is true, it was a marketing tool in the Netherlands, but not since the eighties, only since 2004 or 2005. It may have been invented long before, but since the lying begins in the first line by inventing an English word for it, I presume the whole article is marketing-nonsense. Wuppie is not an acronym for anything, is it just a funny name. This article seems to be created to give some fundament to a Dutch marketing-campain. Vier Tildes (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I figure AfD is a better place to hash out these claims. — Scientizzle 21:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article creator certainly didn't make up the English name for this[4] and the Google News archive results linked above go back to the early 1980s, so the accusations of lying in the nomination don't hold water. I'm not yet sure about notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I'm wrong. Seeing this mixture of fact and fiction, and the promotional intend, I did not look close enough. I still think this article needs some revieuw, but there may be no need to delete it. As far as I'm concerned, the deletion-tag can be removed. Sorry to have disturbed you. Regards, Vier Tildes (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, I'll close the AfD. — Scientizzle 18:19, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoutoMessaging

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

Non notable text messaging company. I don't see anything in the Google searches or the article itself that establishes sufficient notability. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; text messaging company (are there any other kinds of messages?) with no claim to minimal importance; article is pure PR and reads like a sales brochure. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not even claimed, much less demonstrated. All references provided are self-referential. Google News search finds only press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 27 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.

maka bhosda

WHAT THE FUCK MAN....

FUCK YOUR MAMA...

FUCK YOUR SISTER...

FUCK YOURSELF...

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

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

Almost certainly redundant and inferior to 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was suggested on the talk page that this article be merged but no one participated. Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 20:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate as per precedent established with all the entries in Category:Timelines of military conflicts. It's useful for the reader to have both a main entry and a chronological timeline, both serve different purposes.--Hongkongresident (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there was a timeline of events within the 200+KB article 2003 invasion of Iraq, I could understand the assertion that this was redundant. And if there were a timeline in that article, which is already busting at the seams, I'd suggest spinning it out. No surprise that nobody thought it should be merged back in. It is inferior to the extent that it needs more sourcing than the 13 citations in there at the moment, although newspapers abound with timelines like this. Mandsford 20:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this article is sketchy and duplicates the Iraq War article. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: normally, I don't like redundancy, but the massive size and organization of 2003 invasion of Iraq is intimidating, and not quite as easy to understand chronologically. This also seems to be part of a series; might as well be consistant. If there are gaps in coverage or referencing, that can be easily fixed. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This should be a content fork out of that article, and the original should be removed from the War article and put into this one. I'm not sure if AfD is the right place to read that kind of consensus, but that's my estimation of what needs to happen. Shadowjams (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Editors should be able to create subarticles of large articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shadowjams and others. This is a quite reasonable fork of the main article, and should be kept. Cleaning it up, and cleaning up its place in the main article, are both editorial functions not requiring deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:11, 28 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dovell Motor Car Company

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

This is most likely a hoax. There is a company of that name in Columbus, a Mercedes dealer, and that's where those model numbers come from. No references are provided, none could be found. I hope the article creator will come by here to explain. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no good references. Strictly speaking, this is not a hoax, as this company and one of their cars appears in the U.S. government fuel efficiency database. Instead, this appears to be a Grey import vehicle company, most likely bringing in Mercedes models not then sold in the U.S. These firms would import cars outside official channels, and then add safety lights, catalytic converters and other gear to make them street legal in the U.S. This business model became illegal in the late 80's. Cullen328 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that explains it--I had looked at the creator's other work and was surprised to find something there that smelled like a hoax. My apologies to the creator; if only that had been explained (not to mention verified...) BTW, I'd love to get my hands on that 230 CE! Drmies (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All that being said, this still isn't notable. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's a grey-market importer, adding notes to the articles of the cars in question would be a possibility, but an aiticle itself? Likely not notable. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:26, 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 speedy delete as a hoax, due to the nonsensical candidates. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appley Municipal Election 2010

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

Fixing nomination for User:Uncle Milty. It was speedied as patent nonsense, but declined. The article, although it purports to be an election article, has nonsensical names for the candidates. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:51, 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. Aside from SPAs, there is a clear consensus that this article fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhub communications

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete Obvious spam article created by an account that has been blocked for being a spam account. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam and COI can be overcome, but this company appears utterly non-notable per WP:CORP. Zero hits in gnews, and it's hard to find any web searches that are even borderline reliable and verifiable. Certainly fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google News does show 464 articles on RHUB: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=RHUB&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1 and there are 41,000 items found doing a normal Google Search.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmaigatter (talk • contribs) 00:05, October 23, 2010 — Bmaigatter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not spam. This is a notable company and does not fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG. The company has appeared in Silicon Valley Business Journal, Baseline Magazine, TMCnet, ITWorld Canada, PC Magazine and many others in the last year and a half. There are several hits and company announcements on the 2010 gnews search. Tried to update the coverage section, but keeps being deleted. Please provide help. Happysantacruz (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysantacruz (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC) — Happysantacruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Would you mind telling us what role you fill at Rhub? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a very happy user of their GoMeetNow webconferencing. I have a small business, and I use GoMeetNow instead of Webex which I was paying too much money for. It's great, you should check it out -- http://www.gomeetnow.com/ Happysantacruz (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) — Happysantacruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Researched company and it is non-notable per WP guidelines. Appears to be edited by users with single purpose WP:SPA and promotional intent. Calltech (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think if their page emphasized their uniqueness it might be more informative. They might be the only web conferencing appliance maker out there. And RHUB offers a remote support appliance, with I think Bomgar being the only alternative in that market. Their sales guy told me that RHUB has over 1,000 customers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmaigatter (talk • contribs) 00:05, October 23, 2010 — Bmaigatter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please note the edit history of the Bmaigatter account. 29 edits on a single day back in 2006 and suddenly four years later an edit here on this AFD. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that there are already a number of blocked sock puppet accounts related to Rhub. Please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jmao1 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt; this has been deleted twice already. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been created at Rhub Communications, which would be the right location if the article stays, so they should both be salted. tedder (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google News provides only press releases. If Happysantacruz can provide links to the articles claimed it might help; I couldn't find them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of RHUB's Notable Press Coverage in the last year and a half. These links were deleted from the article by another user: Happysantacruz (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC) — Happysantacruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Silicon Valley Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2010/07/12/daily40.html
Baseline Magazine: http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Business-Intelligence/Knowledge-Management-and-Collaboration-Create-Knowledge-Sharing-513230/1/
Online Meeting Tools Review: http://www.webconferencing-test.com/blog/2010/08/31/microsoft-looses-ground-while-gomeetnow-leaps-into-our-top-5/
IT World Canada: http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/turbomeeting-collaboration-adds-enterprise-features/140963
Phone+ Magazine: http://www.phoneplusmag.com/blogs/peertopeer/2010/04/eliminating-net-neutrality-harms-channel.aspx
tmcnet: http://www.tmcnet.com/enews/e-newsletters/internet-telephony/20091229/71677-an-inside-look-whats-next-hd-voip-other.htm
CRN: http://www.crn.com/blogs-op-ed/networking/217600712/5-new-kids-on-the-networking-block.htm
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09172/978709-467.stm
PC Magazine: http://www.pcmag.com/business/article/turbomeeting-appliance-offers
CRN Magazine review: http://www.rhubcom.com/web_conferencing/CRNreview.pdf

NOTES Looked into this a bit more. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, July 31, 2008 - Rhubcom.com created by User:Prabinsen
11:07, July 31, 2008 - Rhubcom.com deleted after being marked for speedy deletion

00:24, November 20, 2008 - RHUB created by User:Rhubcom
00:48, November 20, 2008 - RHUB deleted after being marked for speedy deletion
00:48, November 20, 2008 - User:Rhubcom spamusernameblock'd

00:16, July 16, 2009 - Rhub Communications created by User:Rhub Communications
00:56, July 16, 2009 - Rhub Communications deletedafter being marked for speedy deletion
00:57, July 16, 2009 - User:Rhub Communications blocked with "matches the name of a business the user is trying to promote"

20:17, July 22, 2009 - RHUB Communications created by User:Jadore126
22:53, November 6, 2009 - RHUB Communications deleted after being marked for speedy deletion

21:22, November 9, 2009 - Rhub communications created by User:Jadore126
21:27, November 9, 2009 - Rhub communications deleted after being marked for speedy deletion

00:06, November 12, 2009 - Rhub communications re-created by User:Jadore126
02:53, November 12, 2009 - Rhub communications deleted after being marked for speedy deletion

23:50, November 12, 2009 - RHUB Communications created by User:Jadore126
04:28, November 13, 2009 - RHUB Communications after being marked for speedy deletion

06:24, November 22, 2009 - RHUB re-created by User:Jmao1
02:36, November 26, 2009 - User:Jadore126 blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Jmao1
23:10, November 26, 2009 - User:Jmao1 blocked after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jmao1
23:11, November 26, 2009 - User:Prabinsen blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Jmao1
21:37, November 30, 2009 - RHUB deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RHUB

06:33, August 9, 2010 - Rhub communications re-created by User:Rhub_web
11:54, August 9, 2010 - User:Rhub_web spamusernameblock'd

If you READ the ARTICLES (links) listed above they speak for themselves -- RHUB Communications is a NOTABLE COMPANY.

Here is a link to a recent Wainhouse Research Analyst Report that includes RHUB Communications: http://www.wainhouse.com/images/reports/wr_rmc09_v1_summary.pdf Happysantacruz (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) — Happysantacruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All the article links and the analyst report can be found on the company's website press section: http://www.rhubcom.com/v4/web_conferencing/press.html Happysantacruz (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC) — Happysantacruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Of the provided sources, most appear to be press releases or are from non-Reliable Sources. There are a few that appear legitimate but minor. The Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal reports on a collaboration with another, larger company. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and PC Magazine items are puzzlers in that they appear to have been written by journalists at the publications, but are written in a totally boosterish, press-release-ish tone. Basically this doesn't add up to much in the way of notability per WP:COMPANY. And given the history of repeated spamming documented by Allistair, I still favor delete and possibly salt. (And given the above history, has anyone done a whois search on the current SPA, Happysantacruz?) --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every link above is an article from a credible news source in the technology and business press -- not press releases. The links only include coverage for a year and a half of the company's 5-year history from the company's website). It is a small company, and according to WP:COMPANY, "...arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Happysantacruz (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — Happysantacruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Correction: This consists entirely of press releases. And of the other links, only the ones I mentioned are from what we would consider Reliable Sources; many are from blogs or websites rather than published sources. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: All the links provided above are from articles from credible news sources in the technology and business press. This does not only consist of press releases it also has a section for press coverage and awards. Most company press pages contain press releases, press coverage and awards.Happysantacruz (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — Happysantacruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Tymrak

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

Fails WP:NSOCCER, never competed at an "officially sanctioned senior international competition," as the 2008 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup is not a senior competition. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Never appeared in a fully professional league match either. Timbouctou 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject player is not a professional, has not played for a senior U.S. national team, and is no more or less notable than several of her current Florida Gators teammates. If she were a first-team All-American in her sport, I believe a case could be made under the general WP:N notability standards . . . but not yet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG - sources are nothing more than run-of-the-mill match reports, nothing to confer notability. Recreate if/when she becomes a professional. Giant Snowman 15:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails all the relevant guidelines. Even if she gets picked up by a pro team, the information in this article as it stands now won't be useful to a future article. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:39, 28 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Beanland

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The only Google news hit leads to this which is some sort of directory listing published somewhere. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Merely working with norable people does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. The lack of a discogrophy was the first dead giveaway. The first source being MySpace was the second dead giveaway. Oh, yeah, and the lack of GNews hits was the third dead giveaway. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:34, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holition

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

Notability, especially WP:ORG. Sources are one self-promoting interview and three pieces mostly on the clients, in specialist and industry not general press. Mostly unsourced, and even the sourced bits read like a press release. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC0

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination: ....technology company that specialise in the development of retail Augmented Reality (AR). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. I've removed quite a bit of the content as it was copied from their web site. the remainder still reads like a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is the person responsible for the creation of the Holition Wiki page. My article was in no way intended to promote the business venture of Holition or its employers. Instead, it was intended to highlight the revolution which is occurring in the retail trade with the innovations that Augmented Reality can bring, which is why I cited the examples of the BMW application and the Tissot application. The section entitled ‘The Team’ was mostly taken from the company’s website as I have no knowledge of the hierarchy which exists in the business. This, I agree, has likely breached copyright laws. However, I feel the ‘lists of clients’ section which I provided was paraphrased significantly enough to give an unbiased valuation of those looking to adopt the technology in their sales campaigns. I am disappointed to read that this article may be deleted as spam as Augmented Reality could easily change the way in which we shop online. All I am doing in this article is highlighting those retail businesses that are making the leap to AR technology as a bid to increase their sales. I am more than happy to further paraphrase the article to meet wiki rules if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoCharmer (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The client list material that I removed was at best a close paraphrase which is still not acceptable, and in many cases was word for word copying. The remaining material still reads like a press release which I suspect is due to using press release type information as a source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 26 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Soda

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

Product doesn't appear to be notable; Google Web and News searches produced no reliable sources. The only references offered are Blogspot and Twitter pages. Prod contested. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no useful sources. WP:NFT. WP:NN. — Scientizzle 18:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete lame joke page: "In honor of our French brethren, Freedom Soda tastes best when won from the toils of others (ie, borrowed ingredients)." Ha ha. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would not object to a speedy delete per Starblind. The entire beverage is made up, the "background" provided is apparently an attempt to be funny. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lame jokes or not, this is real and something we enjoy daily. Call it original research or merge into Italian soda (which afaik has not been contested), but the phenom will remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaustindavid (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC) — Jaustindavid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply - Jaustindavid, i asked you to provide references and you still haven't shown how this is notable; therefore we have to assume it isn't. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete lame joke page.--Talktome^(Intelati) 00:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, 7 of the 9 "references" are to other wikipedia page, which I'm 101 % positive dont mention Freedom Soda, the rremaining 2 are to twitter and a blog, so is totally unreliably sourced. Hoax or joke or whatever, doesn't belong here, and on top of all that, its not funny either. Epic fail on all counts, delete with extreme prejudice. He iro 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP. A search for reliable sources yields only the Wikipedia article and mirrors. Joke or not, it is not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession (Shayne Ward album)

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

Not sure why this is still here. Previous AFD closed as redirect to Shayne Ward, but the entry is persistently unredirected, G4 was declined. Album not yet released. Hairhorn (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unsurprisingly, as the release date nears, enough reliable information appears to have surfaced to make an article possible. No policy reason advanced for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of policy listed in the first AFD, seems pointless to harp on about wp:crystal et al over again. When it's notable, let it be created. Kind of pointless to have "redirect to x" results at AFD if people are free to revert the redirect days later. Hairhorn (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first AFD, and there's substantially more information, with sourcing, in the article. The release date is now only a few weeks off, and there apparently is more coverage now.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more information is known since the last AFD. The album has a title, a cover and tracklist, and is by a notable recording artist. Passes WP:HAMMER, passes WP:NALBUM. Anemone Projectors 12:52, 27 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 Ham Polo Club. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dubai Trophy

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

Non-notable sporting event. This event does not seem to be sanctioned by any national or international governing body, and appears to be a local tournament with no demonstrated notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dubai trophy is one of the major 12 goal tournaments at Ham Polo Club. The club is a fully affiliated Hurlingham Polo Association club. The tournament is therefore an HPA tournament played under their guidelines. The dubai trophy is not a local tournament, this year it attracted teams from Thailand, Pakistan and Jordan as well as the UK. The runners up in the final last year included England polo captain Luke Tomlinson. Hissam Ali Hyder, the highest handicapped Pakistani international is a regular player as well. The trophies donor is also a very important figure in the sport worldwide.

For these reasons i believe the tournament deserves its own article.

Many Thanks

Benjie —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminHugo (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 6 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, 13 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The question is notability, and at first search I thought this trophy was highly notable. Google News [5] provides a number of hits in major Reliable Sources for "Dubai Trophy". But it turns out that all those hits are for similarly named trophies in golf, tennis, sailing, rugby, and other sports. I couldn't find a thing for the polo trophy. It is already mentioned at the Ham Polo Club article, and that is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 27 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) 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thabang Thabong

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

article about television show has no refs that establish notability, only links to websites associated with the program; search for term on google turns up little information about the subject. wasn't sure if this qualified for db-a7 as it does appear to be an actual show, or possibly db-spam considering the promotional aspect of the links. i am neutral in terms of the deletion, nominating article for other editors consideration. WookieInHeat (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears to be a regular kid's TV show. I can't see any questions of notability. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC) WP:NOT only applies to presumptions of notability, so do not look there. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 7 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, 13 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't get it. The article about a South African children's television should be treated no differently than the thousands of articles that Wikipedia has on TV shows in the U.S., the U.K., Canada, etc. The standard here is and always has been that if a television show was seen nationwide, it's notable. Mandsford 21:01, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bakkushan

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

Non-notable band fails WP:BAND. Only references are primary and MySpace. SnottyWong ^babble 18:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 6 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, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Request My news search picks up a bunch in German, including something from MTV, but I can't pass judgement on it since I don't actually speak any German. Can someone look up to see what that says, generally I'd agree with the nom about english sources, but there is an allowance for foreign language sources, and if the MTV coverage isn't trivial, we might have enough for notability. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide links to the sources you're referring to, someone might be able to translate them, or we can machine-translate them and get an idea of what the articles are about. Without links, however, nothing can be done. SnottyWong ^confess 00:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the MTV link. If there's nothing there, methinks the article is out of luck. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Has adequate coverage by German-language mainstream sources, albeit not first-rate ones ([6], Austria Presse Agentur; [7], Schwäbische Zeitung; [8], Südwest Presse). Sandstein 06:08, 21 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources (in German) and the band has released an album on a major label. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:13, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius Sequeira

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

The article appears to fail the notability requirements of WP:PROF. I have removed my earlier PROD due to sources being added, however I fail to find matches on Google Books, Google Scholar or WorldCat for his publications. Having the title Professor in India is not a guarantee of encyclopaedic notability under our guidelines. Fæ (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A quick Gscholar/Gnews search supports the nominator's impressions. Ray^Talk 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 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 Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election#By-elections. Already merged. Sandstein 08:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sue-Ann Levy

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

Candidate for a provincial by-election. Newspaper columnist but not otherwise notable. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Recommend delete or merge with Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election (in section for by-elections). Suttungr (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, there are so many 'almost's here. If she was a columnist in a national paper rather than a city paper, if she was involved in municipal politics in more ways than just writing a regular column about it, if she'd actually gotten elected... but as is, no. Delete. DS (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree, not really notable. Should use same protocol as with Julian Heller who was the NDP candidate in this by-election. He is listed in New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election, so Levy should go on appropriate PC candidate page. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and merge basic info per above. freshacconci talktalk 18:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election per guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Even having heard her as a weekly panelist on Here and Now during the municipal election, I have to agree that she hasn't been the subject of enough coverage to be considered notable in her own right. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect This really seems straightforward. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:48, 29 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) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DemoCreator

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable product with no references based on reliable, third-party, published sources. I went a dozen pages deep into Google search and found the usual links to download sites, warez/kracks pages, and blogs with nothing but press release content, but nothing reliable that shows any kind of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable shareware. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any sources sufficient to sustain the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can not find anything to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:42, 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) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isulk'im

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

No reliable sources to support notability for this fictional group of people VernoWhitney (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this is a contested prod if that makes a difference to anyone. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. Merge, if appropriate, to main novel series page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Catfish Jim, Sadads (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 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 withdrawn as redirect. — Timneu22 · talk 13:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Neighbour's Wife

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

Appears to be a completely unnotable book. No sources. — Timneu22 · talk 13:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thy Neighbor's Wife and keep. We have a three-year-old article about the same book at Thy Neighbor's Wife, and I believe this article should be redirected there. I believe the book is in fact notable. You can find it discussed at length in scholarly and news sources (e.g. here (in the Washington Star), here in New York Magazine, in a chapter of this book and in this one, and in a number of newspaper reviews. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:28, 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 Delete FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to agree upon delete. The DOCS is not at AFD -- although anyone could have added it or could list it in future -- so speculation on whether DOCS is notable or not has not been tested at AFD and a redirect would have been a valid conclusion, but this was not the choice of participants overall. Also noting that the one voice not proposing deletion is considered by some to be heavily COI on the topic. A checkuser has confirmed that user:Chris DDS and user:Sedation guru who edited these articles are the same person.

Michael Silverman

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

Dentist notable only for founding a particular organization, which already has its own article. Not otherwise notable. Reference provided are all either generic references not related to this subject, or articles written by this subject. No reliable secondary sources to be found. A redirect to the organization's page was reverted by a user who seems to have created his account solely for this purpose. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Given the name of the article's author (Sedation guru) and that user's lack of contributions outside of this article, I suspect this is an autobiography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOCS Education. Location (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible/probable self-promotion, with questionable notability, and written in rather peacocky language. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 18:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References There are both subjective and academic references to Michael Silverman -

Reference #5 is an interview with the Wealthy Dentist University.

Reference #6 is an article published on www.DrBicuspid.com and reprinted on another doctor's professional site. www.drbicuspid.com is a professional site about the field of Dentistry.

Reference #7 is an article by the New York Times. New York Times Article, "My Root Canal? It’s a Blur, March 6, 2008." Republished with permission on the www.sedationcare.com website

Reference #8 Is an academic study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association in which Dr. Michael Silverman played a vital role.

An additional reference is given to the Wall Street Journal at the bottom of the page.

While there are articles written by Dr. Michael Silverman himself, there are also 3rd-party articles referencing Dr. Silverman as a notable professional in his field. Chris DDS (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC) — Chris DDS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment All of the references cited above deal with Dr Silverman in his role as leader of DOCS Education, which is the only thing Dr Silverman is notable for. Since there is already an article on DOCS Education, there does not need to be a separate, self-promotional article on Silverman. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails various notability guidelines, including WP:PROF. Some of the text in the article is copied from this DOCS Education page which I would interpret as a violation of WP:SELFPUB. I do not advise a redirect as I do not think DOCS Education would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Location (talk) 00:16, 26 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 per WP:OR (deleted by Jimfbleak). (Non-admin closure) ∙:∙:.:pepper :.:∙:∙ 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one language

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

Pure OR. WP not a forum. Shovon (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or userfy - user essay, not encyclopaedic and unlikely to be re-written to become encyclopaedic in the near future. Fæ (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR essay, not a suitable article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-encyclopedic OR essay. ~~ GB fan ~~ 11:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writer has mistaken Wikipedia for a forum. Acroterion _(talk) 12:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, unsalvagable. Hairhorn (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowstorm incinerate. Please. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic user essay page. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedia article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... wait, hang on... I meant Delete Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Why the hell wasn't this speedied? Carrite (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what Speedy category? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually don't see a technical category this would fall under, even though this is a clear article that needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth. Weird. Speedy Delete under CSD:RTARDED :) Vodello (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As you can see from the history, I really wanted to speedy it but had to settle for multiple tagging and let it compost a little before AFD. Fæ (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Essay written after 10 minutes of reefer Vodello (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Delete non-encyclopedic. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:23, 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) 13:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Caroppo

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

Again a mess of User:Juve10. The player did not made his professional debut yet and he did not joined Juventus (instead he joined Verona) All content seems a hoax. Matthew_hk t c 10:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He did not made his league debut for Olbia and Palermo in 2009-10 season. In 2010-11 season he was a unused sub in the cup and in the league. Matthew_hk t c 10:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this website confirms two appearances in the Italian Cup for Verona. Giant Snowman 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unused bench isn's an real appearance. BTW, i could not find the match report of 2009-10 Coppa Italia Lega Pro. Matthew_hk t c 19:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say he was unused - Soccerway only lists (as far as I'm aware) games played in...Giant Snowman 14:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click the soccerway match report please. soccerway listed every game the player played and on the bench. And here is the club one (second round)(first round) A disposizione means something like unused bench Matthew_hk t c 17:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following evidence he hasn't played a professional game. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes delete, I meant to delete this myself, it totally passed me by. I had read about this Juventus move in late August and created the page. Turned out to be false, and criteria now leads to deletion Juve10 (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is yet to play in a fully professional league. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:37, 28 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) 13:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBD 2032

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

Previous AfDs for this article:

Way too early Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Travelbird (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The event will only occur after 22 years. A definite case of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 09:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this merits no more than a sentence in another entry, not an entire article. Hairhorn (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite what's been assembled here, this is very nearly the definition of WP:CRYSTAL. Serpent's Choice (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete for all the above reasons. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the sort of article that Wp:BALL was intended to prevent being created. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) as recreation of deleted material via an AFD. Nothing new has been brought forward between now and then. –MuZemike 03:31, 25 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. JIP | Talk 09:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Wrestlemania XXIX

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

Another gem from the guy who wanted to sell us Derrick 12th Grade Style: Senior Year... note copied broken refs and infobox-poster Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Took place a couple of weeks before Wrestlemania 26? G3. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 - obvious vandalism -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 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. JIP | Talk 09:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick 12th Grade Style: Senior Year

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

well... sounds awesome, yes. See declined speedy. oh, and if it doesn't strike you, read this and compare in amazement... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious hoax. Not only do we have the source of the copy-pasted framework used to create it, but the "article" itself tries to sell us on the idea that a series that debuted in the future (in 2011) was already renewed for its third season in 2009. I wish all hoax content was as transparent as this. It would make finding and squelching it easier. Serpent's Choice (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete G3. Daft. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 - obvious vandalism -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol Valles Garcia

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Hasn't done anything notable yet. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Caring about the future of your community enough to take a public stand and risk your life, is more notable of a accomplishment then most ever accomplish in the public eye. This will truly be a followed story; and Wikipedia would be untrue to its nature to not carry this! C Bayko, NE Tennessee RN
KEEP. She is a clearly notable public figure, highlighting the extreme situation in the area around Ciudad Juarez. She has not yet accomplished anything in her tenure, no -- but a general lack of accomplishment does not indicate that someone is not notable. Most politicians do not accomplish anything, but are still notable public figures. More press will certainly surround the mystique of the single mother/college student/police chief of one of the most violent areas of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.83 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. I hope she survives. / caroline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.29.203 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shes a 20 year old police chief in Mexico's most deadliest area. Shes a female police chief in Mexico's most deadliest area. Wiki has articles on everything from anti-war protesters to reality tv stars - why isnt JUST the fact that Marisol is a 20 year old female police chief, not only in Mexico, but also in the deadliest part of Mexico - notable enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.13.20 (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A difficult question. All the sources I found deal with her appointment to the function, therefore this article could be an expample of WP:BLP1E. On the other hand, the sources available contain useful information about crime in Mexico. I think the information and relevant circumstances could be developed in a new section of the article Práxedis G. Guerrero Municipality. The section could be called "Crime".--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with previous comment. Compose new section and redirect there from article. 193.211.161.8 (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This person got instantly her honorability and her fame when she stepped in; she became an example and hope for her country. Countless people admire her all around the world for what she did, and for her incredible courage already. And you can be sure as Hell that she will become someone of great significance in Mexico, if she’s not killed or beheaded anytime soon. If you delete her page, then delete the long one of Paris Hilton who, truly, never did any accomplishment of any value as yet, and has no talent in particular but overhyping her self. If ever there is no objective reason not to delete Marisol Valles Garcia’s page, then, please, don’t do it as the expression of a support similar this Wikipedia enjoys as a great work of universal value; no one will ever dare accuse Wikipedia of being partisan for doing so. Robertmouchy (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand Marisol_Valles_Garcia, Praxedis_Gilberto_Guerrero_Hurtado, Praxedis_Gilberto_Guerrero_Hurtado_(disambiguation). The edit controls have disappeared from the edit box. There are many articles about measurement extremes, old, young, tall, short. There are, as well, cases where a cartoon character gets a hundred pages.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 13:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I do, yet, keep to keep; but, I advocate American English, rather than English English, for what is currently there. I, also, contend that Falcon Reservoir Lake, & Dave Hartley are related.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 15:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep Highly notable; a job is not an event. There are plenty of sources on her; I expanded the article a bit, but more can be done. Lampman (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely notable. Dumaka (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable. More material will be written on this person as her career progresses. Would request more biographical information, however. The current article is little more than a copy/paste of a news article. Pendell (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the principal writer, I take offence by the accusation of plagiarism. The article is based on several sources, and rewritten in original language. If you think the article is missing in content, however, and if you're able to dig up more biographical information, feel free to add more. Lampman (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read about her last night, and I came to add her to WiKi, and as for the comment from Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 - ^{> haneʼ}, "...Hasn't done anything notable yet...", the simple fact that she Apply for the job, is Notable; being that the Fact that she could get killed, kidnap, and simply made a example of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.131.216 (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Witan (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable.Adrigon (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Keep I created the stub, and I'd think it should be expaned. She is notable due to the fact of her young age and the circumstanes.TiMike (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.157.160 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand. Unique news event (20 year old female student appointed as police chief in dangerous Mexican town) has received national coverage. She is now a personality. Additionally, the manner of her appointment and her proposed approach to community safety are unusual and innovative. Likely to continue to garner media coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhueth (talk • contribs)
Keep: perhaps a BLP1E issue, but I am inclined to defer to editors more familiar with Mexican politics, and to them she appears to be a big deal.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand. Notable. BLP1E issue not critical User:mikewofsey 20:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.80.120 (talk) [reply]

It seems to me that most of the commenters on this page confuse notability with newsworthiness. Being named police chief in one of Mexicos most troubled areas while merely a 20-year old college student is newsworthy, as is self-evident from the media coverage the event has garnered globally. However, Wikipedia is not a news service. Notability requires that the subject of an article is known for something else than a single event, and so far Chief Valles Garcia is only known for her position.

I feel obliged to quote from WP:BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."

For the time being, Mrs./Ms. Valles Garcia (I was unable to determine whether she is married or not) has been covered in the news only in relation with her acceptance of her new post. In the future, this may change, and the expansion of her own article may be warranted, but for the time being, redirection to Práxedis G. Guerrero Municipality and creation of a subsection there is the correct course of action in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Mleivo (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 20-year-old female police chief of one of Mexico's most violent cartel areas is unlikely to remain "a low-profile individual". WP:BLP1E is about events, but a position is not an event. Furthermore, the intention of WP:BLP is to protect individuals from unwanted exposure, but in cases where the individual has chosen to step into public view themselves, this no longer applies. Lampman (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lampman nails it. Further, this person is already not a low profile individual. Scrutiny of her and this town is very high. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Crime in Mexico/Mexican Police Force. Certainly not "extremely notable" as a biography but worthy of a mentioning in an article discussing Mexican crime.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If she does nothing else in life, the article can be later deleted. For now, she's a heroine to peoples on both sides of the border. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. The article is currently probably more of news thing. Hoewever there seems to have a rather extensive worldwide media coverage of her (see Interwikis and there sources), imho that provides enough notability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The large number of interwikis was apparently due to false linking caused by an editing error. Nevertheless there are 2 real interwikis and there sources still indicate a global coverage of the story.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This woman has already done something highly notable by being prepared to take on the role of Chief of Police. She has a clearly defined strategy that is different to that of her predecessors and is striving to achieve peace through peaceful means. Whether she is able to do so or not, given the extraordinary risk to herself, she has set an example not only to her own people and to all Mexicans but to people, young and old, around the world. I shall be amazed if she is not put forward for the Nobel Peace Prize in due course. For Wikpedia NOT to have an entry, that can be extended in time, seems to me to undermine its credibility as a source of authoritative knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursus-deningeri (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this article : what she's done already, in accepting this post, is notable enough for me. Also, sincerely hopes she survives.13:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)86.46.251.209 (talk)
Keep,this is significant development in Mexico - Skysmith (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, really? Wikipedia has turned into such a crap hole. She's the youngest chief of police Mexico has had to date. That by itself is notable, regardless if she accomplishes anything during her career. Keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.91.130 (talk) 22:17, 26 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Van Zetten

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN. media coverage reflects things he has said as Council Mayor rather about him as a person. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am unable to find any personal biographical details about the subject, however, WP:POLITICIAN #2 refers specifically to mayors as well as officials in major metropolitan cities. Although the definition of a major metropolitan city may be open to debate, Launceston, Tasmania does have a population of over 100,000. I guess I am leaning towards a redirect. Location (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A stub about a mayor, who is inherently notable according to our standards. Expand and improve rather than delete. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:POLITICIAN "Mayors are likely to meet this criterion" however, it does not say always. I don't see how this person in particular does. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. I'm not sure what the nominator means by "things he has said as Council Mayor rather about him as a person". Most of the coverage of Barack Obama involves what he has said and done as President. St Anselm (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of coverage of Obama's career, education, childhood, personal views: can you find even 5 sources discussing any of these matters of Van Zatten? Prove me wrong. Mayors make announcements all the time, that isn't enough to make a WP article. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as personal views go, several sources say he is anti-pulp mill. St Anselm (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and have you found any third party coverage on Van zetten's career, personal life and/or education? LibStar (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not all mayors are assumed notable, but the mayor of a city of 100,000 is. Mayors of large cities are presumed notable because coverage about them can almost always be found. And sure enough, in this case there are plenty of hits at Google News [9] ranging from the Tasmania Examiner to ABC News. The article is a stub but that is not a reason to delete it, see WP:STUB. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since you all keep demanding "personal biographical details," I added his birthdate and his wife's name to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 26 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) 13:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Waggener

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

Non-notable actress, with appearances in bit parts of various films and TV shows. No independent reliable references. Google shows nothing relevant. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One relatively major role in a well-received film isn't enough - at least, it hasn't generated any significant press coverage of her. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not at at all impressed with the several uncredited roles listed on IMDB.[10] And looking beyond them we find one film role and one television role where she did receive a credit. With lack of career depth and no coverage, this article is waaaay TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yultong Bridge

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

The page from the Tagalog Wikipedia tl:Labanan sa Tulay ng Yultong reads: "04:04, 15 Disyembre 2008 Bluemask (Usapan | ambag) nabura ang "Labanan sa Tulay ng Yultong" ‎ (nilalaman ay: original research/hoax)". Article is unsourced, non-verifiable, reads like a diary entry which is non-encyclopedic. Dubious content. ~~Contains a copyvio from http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=22488.0 (note that this is an internet forum, and not a valid source)~~. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but bust down to a stub. Regarding the copyvio concern, at least, the phrasing in the Wikipedia article antedates that forum post, so copyvio isn't a problem. As for the event itself ... at some point in the past, this article was moved from Battle of Yultong to its current title. The original name, however, is somewhat more productive for sources. That said, there's not a lot of them -- primarily specialist works on military history, published in the Philippines and not available online. Regardless, there's some indication that the battle was considered locally significant in the Philippines, and the unit involved was among the foreign units given the US Army Distinguished Unit Citation during the Korean War (for actions immediately following this battle, however). Bottom line, though, the event is verifiable and not a hoax, although the current text very likely needs to be stubbified again until someone can track down potential sources (in particular: Philippine Campaigns by Uldarico Baclagon, published by Graphic House in 1958; and Military History of the Philippines, also by Baclagon, published 1975 by Saint Mary's Publishing). Serpent's Choice (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article, as written, clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards. The primary problem is lack of references. Yet the topic is an important one, and the event has historical significance. A web search on the topic yields lots and lots of hits. This article has a great deal of potential, if someone took the time to fix it. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete everything except the lead. The content suspected of being a copyvio probably is a copyvio, but not from the forum that the nominator identifies. The forum post is dated July 19, 2010, but versions of this article from before that date still include the text in question. The battle appears to be notable, but the article needs to be written with sourced information. SnottyWong ^confess 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't Captain Yap (mentioned and redlinked in the article, but not expanded) also the first Phillipino to receive their Medal of Valour for Korea? This is a well-recorded battle in Korean War histories, very well known amongst Phillipinos. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the concerns can be easily cleaned up and fixed without deletion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article incubator?, Unlikely to be worked on but if someone can cite the force numbers I'd change my vote. Marcus Qwertyus 19:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all copyright violations (revision-deletion can be used after removal, if the article is not a copyright infringement in its entirety), keep whatever is left (if anything). Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you claim is a copyvio? The allegation is being thrown around, but no-one is pointing out just what, and from where. The nom also appears to have withdrawn some of their accusation. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:27, 28 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirge (Transformers)

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable coverage on CNN, NBC, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment. Nominator has used this comment (or others in the form "No reliable coverage on <network1>, <network2>") as justification for AFD nominations or for deletion !votes in AFDs begun by others on several articles over the past few days. Without regard to the content of this article or its suitability for Wikipedia, this rationale provides a significant misrepresentation of the expectations of our notability guidelines. Serpent's Choice (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that's a very skewed view of the world, does something have to appear on US network television to have an article? 76.66.198.128 (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one of the Transformers character lists. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. This discussion was started only a month after the first discussion, and the consensus of the first discussion was clearly "keep". The nominator insists on using the same argument ("No reliable coverage on CNN, NBC, etc.") for every AfD discussion he starts, as if coverage on American news TV was essential to notability of fictional characters. JIP | Talk 07:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was nominated for deletion less than a month previous with overwhelming KEEP agreement. The article has multiple third party sources. Nothing wrong with it. Mathewignash (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I don't wanna delete the article yet, there is something terrily worng with it. The subject. An article shouldn't be about multiple characters that simply share a name. Yet, Dirgegun and Insecticon Dirge are also covered here. The article should just be about the blue conehead and his various incarnations, the other guys are unrelated and unimportant. NotARealWord (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I strongly object to the removal of the other incarnations. It is relevant information and should stay. --Divebomb (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dirgegun and the Insecticon aren't the same character. An article should not simply be about "separate, pretty much unrelated, characters who share a name". The conehead guy might be notable. The others can be mentioned in disambiguation links, at most. I pointed out this kinda issue already at this AfD. NotARealWord (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another case of a character with no notability and only showing importance within the franchise. Sarujo (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Inappropriate to renom ~1 month after previous keep-consensus AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE #4 with strong encouragement for merge. There are a few possible character lists where the content can be merged into. And if content is merged, then per WP:COPYWITHIN, the article cannot be deleted. Also the last AfD was just a month ago and did not give enough time for other editorial actions to take place. And finally, a topic does not have to be covered by CNN, NBC, or other mainstream media sources in order to be presumed notable. The requirement is significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources, which is a much broader standard than "mainstream" sources. In fact, nominations citing just lack of coverage by mainstream media instead of all reliable sources are dubious nominations. —Farix (t | c) 15:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But only until we have a suitable character list. The list of Decepticons page is just plain unhelpful. Unlike Ransack, this character is important enough for a mention. NotARealWord (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close due to grossly inaccurate nomination rationale. I request the nominator not use AFD until he has at least some grasp of what establishes notability. Vodello (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close per snow keep of last AFD only one month ago. Revisit is a few months perhaps... but to do so within only a few weeks is a slap in the face of recent keep consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Dubious nomination with incredibly weak rationale. And, quite frankly, renominating only a month after a previous AFD ended with a "keep" result shows an incredible lack of respect for recent consensus. Possibly renominate later on, but have someone who actually understands the notability guidelines do it. --Divebomb (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close due to recent vote to keep. Can we at least wait until the new year before we think about renominating this? --Khajidha (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are now five votes to speedy close this AfD discussion because it's too soon after the first one. I would speedy close it myself but I have an interest in the discussion, so I'd prefer avoiding closing it myself. JIP | Talk 10:15, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peace-bonding

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

Per the PROD-tag which was removed without explanation [11] ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 06:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: There is another book reference apart from the one already in the article. Plus a Google search shows that the term is used in many official anime convention policies (e.g. [12]), so it is indeed an engrained term in this culture. In my opinion we should apply the benefit of the doubt: the concept appears indeed notable in the real-world meaning that it is a widespread part of a non-trivial culture. Otherwise, let us find a merge target. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term is common in a bunch of sub-cultures that commonly use weapons as props, not only sci-fi/fantasy conventions but also SCA events, ren faires, and LARPS. Not sure there would be much to say about it other than a definition, but not sure what a good merge target would be either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmusser (talk • contribs) 2010-10-14 14:54:35
Well done Cyclopia for finding that second source. I found probably the same set of things saying that "XYZ must be peace bonded", but scant little actually saying what peace-bonding actually was. Without the books, this would be unverifiable: something that is known, but that the world at large hasn't recorded as known. With the books, there is verifiable knowledge to be had. It's not very much, though, and a merger into a more general discussion may indeed be appropriate unless further sources come to light discussing this subject in depth. (I haven't found any.) Uncle G (talk) 15:11, 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) 03:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It also looks like there's some history to the topic that can be scrounged up. Pournelle wrote a blurb about it in the context of shifting expectations in the convention environment circa 1980, in an editorial passage in the 1982 Nebula Award Stories Sixteen. There are doubtless also considerable references in early 1980s fanzines for anyone with the wherewithal to track down such obscure materials. Finally, there's at least some reference to the practice in several books on ceremonial paganism, showing context outside the convention scene. I'm already hunting down elusive titles for a couple other articles, so I can't really be the one to fully source this, but it's certainly a practice with some currency. Serpent's Choice (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avaz Shoyusupov

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

as per WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is only notable for one event and Wikipedia is not memorial site. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is really about an event, e.g., July 2004 Tashkent suicide bombing, not the person. If the event is not independently notable, we should merge these cites and material into History of Uzbekistan (1991–present) which mentions the event without citation.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:36, 15 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) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge/rename the content from here can go into an article for the attack, as per other such attacks. Although the failed bombers from NYC, etc have their own page. just becasue it happened in america doesnt maek it more notable.(Lihaas (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC));[reply]

Keep -- The nomination states Shoyusupov was only known for one event. But, as the article says, there was 'a first, March 2004 bombing. Following the March bombing a large number of suspects, including Shoyusupov, were arrested, on suspicion they were involved in the bomb plot. Fifteen of the men are to stand trial. Shoyusupov is one of the men set free. Shoyusupov explodes a second bomb, in July, in the court house where his comrades are to stand trial. Honestly, why should this be considered a single event? Geo Swan (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for the event in march, which is essentially a continuation of the event in July anyways. Most suicide bombers are not notable, and are mentioned as part of the event, rather than getting their own article, in pretty much every case. Is there a "list of suicide bombings in Uzbekistan article? Maybe a "Terrorism in Uzbekistan" article. If not, just delete. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:55, 29 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Amini

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

Tagged for notability for 18 months, but concerns remain. I can't find the significant coverage we require - ImDb verifies a few bit parts, but in my opinion that doesn't put him over the threshold. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps someone might add citations found through the Find sources above. Some are short verifications while others are a bit more significant: Gazette, Los Angeles Times, Arab American News, Citylife, Persianesque Magazine, Pars Times, some books, etc... Looks to be enough available to bring this article into line. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:35, 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) 00:01, 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) 03:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:12, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Connell (DJ)

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ENT, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous IP editor. Top Jim (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 13:19, 7 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, 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) 03:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I looked at this before and decided that I did not know enough to comment. As a DJ on XFM, he is broadcasting on a local radio station, possibly a network of them. This suggests rather limited notability, rather than none. The problem of a lack of independent sources no doubt remains, but the problem is not uncommon and is often dealt with by tagging. Neutral. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local broadcaster. Merely being a local radio broadcaster is almost always considered below the bar of notablity here--it has to be set somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 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 Speedy Keep criterion 2.5 (non-admin closure) Stickee (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Amory

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

Non notable author. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is an absurd nomination. There are so many reliable sources that notability is obvious to anyone who tries the usual GNews, GBooks, GScholar searches. Nominations of this sort should be classified as vandalism, IMO. — HowardBGolden (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - An author of national reknown for decades. A major figure in the animal rights movement. I simply can't understand why any editor thinks Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on someone as notable as Cleveland Amory. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a notable author, article has plenty of sources. I don't understand why this was nominated for deletion. JIP | Talk 09:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an awful lot of coverage available via a Google News archive search. Probably more of it should be added to the article, but what's already there includes several citations. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:21, 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 merge to Condover. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Condover Primary School

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

The article fails WP:ORG with no relevant sources available to demonstrate significant impact by this quite small school. Being a primary school is not covered by the WP:NHS guidelines. See WP:OUTCOMES for the current consensus for educational organizations. PROD previously deleted and merge already suggested, raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shrewsbury#Education as Fæ suggested on the article. VER Tott 07:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but I'm not sure this needed to go to AfD at all. As there was a merge tag on the article and the only objection raised to a prod was a suggestion to merge to the local area, couple with the fact that the article says barely anything other than the school existing, that looks like a good candidate for a bold merge. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Condover. This is a village near Shrewsbury, not part of the town, so that the town is completely the wroing target. Do not retain the resultant redirect (unless needed for links). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Except for unsual conditions ofspecial notability, primary scholls do not qualify for ther own articles. One-liners like this can be merged and redirected without any fuss at all. There is no deletion involved because the page simply becomes a redirect and its history is left intact.--Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above opinions, I suggest a Snow Merge to Condover which already refers to this primary school. Fæ (talk) 07:48, 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 merge to Anthony Watts (blogger). DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surfacestations

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

I believe that this website fails WP:WEB as the article is deriving its notability mostly from the notability of its founder Anthony Watts (blogger), promotion by like-minded fringe-theorists, and a throw-away NOAA FAQ press release. Useful content can be merged to the biographical article (most of it is already there). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. TFD (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Indifferent as to whether the target should be Watts Up With That? or Anthony Watts (blogger). Article seems to minimally satisfy WP:WEB (see below) with references 9 and 12. Given marginal notability, it makes more sense to merge with an existing article.
- Ref 1,5,7,10, 11 are all not independent of the website.
- Ref 2 is trivial coverage, per WP:WEB
- Ref 3 I can't read
- Ref 4 is not a Reliable Source
- Ref 6 is not about surfacestations.org at all
- Ref 8 is more about watts than about the website. The name of the website is only mentioned in a list of several "see also" type links
- Ref 9 I think counts as a single source for WP:WEB criteria 1
- Ref 12 Also counts towards WP:WEB criteria 1
- Ref 13 is an editorial

--- Sailsbystars (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search for "surfacestations.org" returns 10,200 results - this indicates a significant interest in the surfacestations project, independent of the notability of its founder. A main rule for WP:WEB is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". A significant number of the 10,200 google results are carefully presented appraisals or critiques of the project and cannot be dismissed as trivial references. The critiques are clearly independent of the site itself. Cadae (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how or why the discussion below got 'closed' but i've added some responses. Cadae (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion. Click to see.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Actually WP:GHITS is not an indication of notability. You cannot just assert that there are reliable, independent, third-party sources in that list on Google. Most of the links are certainly not usable as sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, a simple google hit count is not an indication of notability - it is the content of those hits that are important - and that is what counts in favour of surfacestations.org's notability. A significant number of the articles are well-thought out critiques and appraisals and the surfacestations.org project is clearly notable. Cadae (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you provide the link to the independent third-party reliable sources you have in mind that aren't discussed above? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure - here's some:
      - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Third_Amendment_to_Petition_for_Reconsideration_SE_Legal_Foundation.pdf
        Not reliable. Just a filing petition
        This is an official petition to the EPA signed by 18 US Representatives and 18 companies. In terms of the spirit of 'notability', it can't be dismissed and there are no rules forbidding the use of official petitions as unreliable sources in the context of notability.
        It's not a reliable tertiary source document. It can only be used to reference the opinions of the amateurs who wrote it. It's not an EPA evaluation.
        The petition marks surfacestations.org project as a notable project because notability doesn't derive only from the science of a project, but also from its political impact. From a political perspective, these are definitely not amateurs.
      - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data
        Blog.
        Not listed as a blog - it appears to be part of the Guardian's environment section.
        No hard copy exists and single-author editorial control is the norm in Guardian online: it therefore satisfies the criteria of WP:SPS.
        I disagree - see the comment in WP:NEWSBLOG: "In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions". The fact that the Guardian left the blog entry standing after that ruling indicates that The Guardian are satisfied that the blog meets the required standards for print editions.
      - http://dpa.aapg.org/correlator/what06jun10.cfm
        Blog.
        Not a blog - this is the publication "The Correlator" by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
        No hardcopy exists and it appears to be solely the opinion of the author with no editorial control. See WP:SPS.
        Hardcopy is not a requirement. The Correlator articles are explicitly added to the quarterly publication by the editors - individual authors do not decide what is published.
      - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/04/the_blogosphere_has_always_bee.html
        Blog.
        Agreed - this is a blog, but it meets the reliability criteria specified in the WP:IRS guidelines.
        Not good enough for WP:WEB.
        The journalist who wrote the article is the perfect example for WP:IRS - see his credentials http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2008/01/meet_the_gang.html#freedman.
      - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/key-degrees-of-difference/story-e6frg6xf-1111117145189
        Unreliable opinion piece.
        This is a report, not an opinion piece - opinion pieces are listed under 'commentary'.
        It's listed as an opinion piece.
        Where is it listed as an opinion piece ? It is clearly marked as a story - see the url.
      - http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/04/whos-crus-daddy
        Blog.
        Agreed - this is a blog, but it seems to meet the reliability criteria specified in the WP:IRS guidelines. The correspondent appears to be a professional, but it's hard to tell for sure.
        Professional what? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Professional journalist as per the WP:IRS guidelines.
      - Cadae (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unimpressed. Most of your sources are blogs. Not useful for establishing WP:WEB notability. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at these references SA, but some of your analysis is in error, and your dismissal of all blogs is not warranted, given the WP:IRS guideline "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.". The blogs I've cited above largely fall into this category.

There are multiple notable references to the surfacestations project and this establishes WP:WEB notability Cadae (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've criticized your criticisms. You simply haven't established outside notability in the way we usually demand for WP:WEB. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Anthony Watts (blogger) the only mention I found in a gnews hit was [13] which is a trivial passing mention which depends entirely on the creator of the blog and not the blog itself. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough ghits to establish notability independent of Watts, eg here and here (neither of which even mentions Watts), plus two references, one published, one accepted but not yet published, in J Geophys Res ([14] and [15]). Jimmy Pitt talk 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not particularly impressive. The first opinion piece contains such an off-hand reference that I cannot see how it would help us write anything at all. The second is one that advances the position of the website almost as a promotional bit: which is not normally considered solid basis for internet notability for obvious reasons related to WP:PSTS (want to get your website on Wikipedia? Just get an op-ed about it published!) The two publications you reference do not really establish internet notability either, not at least, when I compare them to what's asked for at WP:WEB. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Anthony Watts (blogger) per ScienceApologist. I am no longer convinced this warrants a separate article at this time. Wikispan (talk) 16:59, 20 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) 01:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Anthony Watts (blogger) LibStar (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Watts' bio. There's really very little here that establishes notability independent of Watts. And while it is mentioned in a few reliable sources, the coverage is not substantive. Guettarda (talk) 14:50, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church (Raleigh, North Carolina)

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

Appears to be a thoroughly non-notable church. All the independent references appear to be directory-style websites, and I don't see anything that would be considered to be reliable. Surely the church's website (which is also cited) is reliable for internal matters, but it can't be used to support notability. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC) *Delete; a quick search revealed nothing else that would establish notability. Kansan (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of references that establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a reasonably large and active congregation. The WP page is not much, that is all. JASpencer (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that JASpencer has expanded the article somewhat; this isn't a baseless vote. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not saying it was bad faith nomination. The NPR article took a bit of digging. JASpencer (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An article on NPR would go a long way to satisfying basic notability criteria, and odds that the church has attracted at least another couple reliable references is good. Ravenswing 13:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NPR article definitely does help. I would say that the other references really don't do much (i.e. the funeral, the programs that may or may not be common among churches), but the inclusion of the NPR article was very helpful Kansan (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral now after the article expansion. Kansan (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful -- My immediate reaction was that the church had subsidiary ministries with their own articles, but closer inspection suggests that these are merely local franchises of the ministries of others. Accordingly merge with Raleigh, North Carolina or the district of Raleigh where it is located. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NPR and local TV references are not in-depth coverage of the church as required for WP:GNG; the NPR article is not even exclusively about this church. Whether the congregation is "reasonably large and active" is irrelevant; the question is whether the church is notable by Wikipedia's definition, and I don't see it. Do not merge to Raleigh, North Carolina since that article does not include information about churches. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 20 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) 01:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the NPR piece doesn't really add to notability of the church. The idea of a church giving encouragement and lifting spirits, for people during tough times, certainly isn't unique to Raleigh, North Carolina. That's where the reporter happened to be when the report was made, but it could have been anywhere. I appreciate that it was added, but it appears that it was about 12 minutes short of the cliche of 15 minutes of fame. Mandsford 01:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At most Merge to Raleigh, North Carolina or the relevant neighborhood there (as I said above). This cannot be allowed to survive as a substantive article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here implies notability. I've no objections to a merge to Raleigh, North Carolina - f it doesn't have a section on churches, there's no reason that can't be included. St Anselm (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources prove that the church exists, and operates as a church, (including the NPR article) but does not establish that the church is notable. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:58, 29 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 to delete . It appears there may be a consensus to merge -- I suggest that discussion be carried out on the respective talkpages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Henderson Award

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

Non-notable local award at one university. No assertion of importance. GrapedApe (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ A bit of Google searching implies that there are possibly unrelated secondary sources covering this (which would make it meet WP:GNG), although the article doesn't seem to be covering the sources, and I can't access the apparent sources myself. We really need some sort of ultimatum for this: add sources that show significance, or conclude that the article isn't significant. --ais523 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, those sources are for an unrelated Australian award.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strike my comment, then, as it's based on incorrect information. --ais523 17:29, 4 October 2010 (U T C)
Delete per WP:V; my attempts at finding sources failed, and it seems unlikely that more will turn up in the future. You can't write an article without some sort of proof that the article is correct. --ais523 17:29, 4 October 2010 (U T C)
Keep On the notability issue, if notability of the entry is judged by the exclusivity and notability of the recipients this seems to be a very distinguished, as well as notable, award. Among the listed recipients three have already been awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Several of the others that are among the ones that are frequently mentioned as possible future prize recipients. Among the listed deceased recipients, several are extremely notable economists like John Muth ("the Father of the Rational Expectations Revolution in Economics"), Albert Ando (the first who developed tractable overlapping-generation models), and Jan Mossin (derived the Capital Asset Pricing Model, CAPM). On the documentation issue, it is no reason to believe that the current information on the page is not true. I nonetheless fully agree with users GrapedApe and ais523 that it preferably should be better documented. If we agree on notability conditional on that the information could be verified we can go ahead and find public verification for the current page. - Buldri (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has existed since 2005, without any real expansion. In fact, you edited it back in April 2005. I'd invite you to be bold and expand it now.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. Fair and good suggestion. I can do that. This week I am, however, really busy with work, but I will get to it next week. -- Buldri (talk) 23:48, 5 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) 23:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tepper School of Business. I see no coverage in independent reliable sources that would establish this a as a notable award. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just this morning, Dale Mortensen wins the Nobel Prize. The list of Henderson award winners is an impressive list of economists identified at (about) the date of their Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.89.110 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherited. Just because recipients of this award are notable, doesn't mean that the award is notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - GrapedApe is right that "notability isn't inherited". However, none of the cases listed apply here. The characteristics that qualify a prize for "notability" should be its selection mechanism and recognition of such. When such a large proportion of the winners of the Alexander Henderson Award has made contributions to economics that have changed the practice of the field forever and the prize is recognized as such, it is undoubtably "notable". Definitely a separate keep. 128.111.225.207 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Whpq and GrapedApe. The award isn't automatically notable just because some of the recipients become notable some 10 to 40 years later. The fact that so many awardees become notable, however, is a very interesting piece of information that would do very well in a section of the Tepper School of Business article. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 18:48, 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. That User:128.111.225.207 makes a case for whether this award ought to be considered notable by the wider world is irrelevant; that's not our call to make. That's the call of the academic and economics world to make. So far, there's no evidence that it has. That's our call to make. Ravenswing 14:33, 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, -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the school page. While the admittedly impressive partial list of recipients might imply that the award has some significant lasting impact, the lack of quality third-party sources suggests otherwise. It is perhaps simply more likely that Tepper is a really good business school and the sorts of people who are likely to become Nobel Prize winning economists tend to attend there. As a procedural aside ... three relists? Serpent's Choice (talk) 05:06, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Harold W. Speights

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

NN person, No coverage, even less with "Bishop" added in CTJF83 chat 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm finding only very sparse local mentions of the name in news coverage, so I can't find the substantial coverage required to prove that this person meets WP:BIO inclusion requirements. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My research, noted on the article talk page, shows the same as Gonzonoir's, but also shows almost nothing as to the Original Church of God denomination (its history). Just for the record, Speights' denomination is apparently different from The (Original) Church of God. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the presiding bishop of a denomination of 50,000 is probably just about notable. this is why I have wikified it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After researching the article about the denomination, I have some grave doubt about that wholly–unsourced number. In the early 70s it only had 7,000 members, according to a reliable source given in the church's article. The current leader says that there's 63 churches in the association and that would average out to almost 800 members per church. Most of the congregations of this kind of church tend to be quite small. If that's going to be the assertion that's going to rescue the Bishop's article, then it needs to be sourced. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TransporterMan; though the title "bishop" made me presume this person would be notable I'm just not finding the reliable sources to establish it as a fact. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the title Bishop can be purchased for a small donation from a number of small churhes, one should not assume that a person is notable because he is a bishop. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While my research has found some indirect evidence that Speights was, indeed, connected with the Original Church of God or Sanctified Church denomination, that's all I've been able to find. It would seem to me that the bigger problem here is not the purchased–title one, but the lack of evidence that he had the title at all, regardless of how he got it, and even if it is true that he was given the title by the Original Church of God or Sanctified Church denomination, whether "presiding bishop" necessarily means the CEO or CEO–equivalent of the denomination, which according to its history has used various titles for that position. Ultimately, the big problem is that there are just no sources, even non–reliable ones for this article. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While bishops of larger denominations are notable, by the size of their see, newsworthiness, or influence, I don't see this here. Delete. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 25 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) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wheel of Darkness

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

Delete. Contested PROD but does not meet WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, does meet WP:BK, both Criteria 1 and Criteria 5. It's a real book, written by two notable authors, Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child, and published by Hachette, the largest publishing house in France. There's tons of media coverage by reliable sources out on the web. The article is currently in poor shape and it does need to be cleaned up, but that's not the same as meriting deletion.--Hongkongresident (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets standards for notability. The way to deal with plot-only fiction articles on notable fiction is to improve them , not delete them DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadads (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few sources to confirm notability.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage. And ditto DGG. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Embalm. I mean Preserve. No, Keep. The plot summary makes this thing sound almost as cringeworthy as something by Dan Brown, but then his stuff is "notable" (gods and demons help us), and the sourced assertion that this work debuted at number two on The New York Times Best Seller list on September 16, 2007 and remained on the list for five weeks suggest that it sold fairly well; and who are we to argue with The Market as arbiter of worth? (Arf arf!) ¶ Indeed, even the wording of the nomination is odd: if Contested PROD but does not meet WP:BK means what I think it means, I'd invert the start for PROD contested but does not meet WP:BK. If this were a one off slip, no biggie; but I'd have thought that if an AfD nomination were designed for mass production it would at least be phrased carefully. -- Hoary (talk) 03:35, 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.

Closing as snow keep. My gut feeling tends me to side toward deletion far more often than is average for an admin hereabouts, and my awareness of this is what makes me generally avoid the closing of AfDs. But even as a sporadic "deletionist", I'm puzzled by this nomination. Whether or not a merge would have been warranted, a request to merge would at least have been understandable; by contrast, a request to delete an article, however bad, on a popular ("bestselling") book by an unusually well known novelist is baffling indeed. Hoary (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Torts

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

Delete. Contested PROD but does not meet WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, does meet WP:BK, Criteria 1 and Criteria 5. It's a real book, written by John Grisham, one of the highest selling authors in the United States, and published by Dell Publishing, one of the largest publishing houses. There's tons of media coverage by reliable sources out there on the web. The article is currently in poor shape and it does need to be cleaned up, but that's not the same as meriting deletion.--Hongkongresident (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Debuted #1 on the New York Times bestsellers list in 2003 and stayed in the top fifteen for 23 weeks thereafter. bd2412 T 02:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Snow keep , actully. It should have been obvious that it meets wp standards for notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep There are sources available ([16] [17]), it should be fairly obvious this isn't a deletion candidate. Someone another 07:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Comment I'll comment on this because it's the most recent nomination by this editor. This editor seems to have nominated a considerable number of books for deletion, each time saying only that it doesn't meet notability standards. Most of the books are major releases with clear notability. I don't think these nominations meet the level of thoughtfulness in initiating an AfD that the community should expect. Perhaps an admin would see fit to close all of these AfDs? I already suggested to Mr. Liefting that if he has a disagreement with the general standard of book notability, there is an appropriate venue to discuss changing that, instead of contesting individual books. Leoniceno (talk) 09:42, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bite Me (novel)

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

Delete. Contested PROD but does not meet WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, does meet WP:BK, both Criteria 1 and Criteria 5. It's a real book, written by a notable author, Christopher Moore, and published by by an imprint of HarperCollins, one of the largest publishing houses in the US. There's tons of media coverage by reliable sources out on the web. The article is currently in poor shape and it does need to be cleaned up, but that's not the same as meriting deletion.--Hongkongresident (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep per Hongkongresident, Sadads (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because the article doesn't prove coverage doesn't mean that it's not there. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 17:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No. 5 best selling novel in United States on NY Times bestseller list april 2010, plus other references.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Shsilver (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Morrow wouldn't publish a third book if the series wasn't working well. Notable publisher + high sales rank = notable book. Possibly could do with a bit more coverage, but until someone proves it a hoax, it's notable.

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciations

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

I declined CSD for this as it does not fall under the WP:CSD#A7 criterion. I then PRODded it and the PROD tag was removed. The subject matter does not make any assertion of notability, but more to the point, it does not appear to actually be notable. The article claims it is on YTV, but no mention appears on YTV's web site under alphabetical listing of shows, and Google searches don't seem to mention it either. I am not asserting it doesn't exist, but I can't find any evidence that it does either. Frank | talk 15:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per it being unsourced WP:ADVERT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 16 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) 00:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YTV generally doesn't show religious content at all, especially in prime time, so this sounds like a hoax of some kind or the poster confusing networks. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:25, 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.

Yuri Rutman

The result was no consensus. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria University Rowing Club

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

fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit [18]. seems like no media outlet outside the university is interested in this club. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a history which includes an Olympic double gold medal winner. Motmit (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. (To Motmit: notability can no be inherited.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:32, 15 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, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falling sand game

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

Was deleted previously, this article is just a list of games that fail WP:NOTABLE. At the very least, it should be renamed as the name hints of just one game. Anonymax (talk) 01:07, 14 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) 23:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no indication that an article by this title has ever been deleted before. This particular article has been been in existence for over a year with over 100 individual edits from various users, indicating that there is a consensus among those who have looked at the article that it be kept. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an indication of it being deleted in the old VfD process, as stated in the talk page. Anonymax (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The talk page indicates that someone deleted a large amount of content from the article in the past, not that the article ever underwent any deletion review process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous deletion review process can be read here. Mattg82 (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - articles for individual games have been deleted in the past, and I know there are dozens of unnotable variants out there. The question is, are there enough sources to support an article on the genre, even if it's just a "list of"? Joystiq, Gamezone, Game Set Watch and CNet may be able to help. Marasmusine (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game genre. No VG RS cover this in enough depth to warrant an article. The games themselves have not established this as a prominent genre. 2D Particle physics simulator is barely a genre on its own. As from the perspective of this being about a game itself — there is marginal coverage on various adaptations. Some sources have taken a look at this, but no significant coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Nominator of this AFD has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 14:04, 20 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and move to Falling Sand ("game" isn't neccessary, as per precedent, the entry for RTS games is at Real-time strategy and not "Real-time strategy games"). As Maramusine has noted, there are sources for the games, plenty of articles featuring the genre. As for the question of whether there is enough content out there to adequately fill up the entry, I think there is, it just requires a bit of digging and cleanup. --Hongkongresident (talk) 01:02, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountains Family History Society Inc

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [19], a very localised organisation. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything remotely like significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:36, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullseye Records of Canada

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

Unremarkable defunct minor record company. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not sure about this one. They did have a roster of reasonably notable acts, and I did find a little bit of coverage--for example this in a 2004 Billboard about "Canada's Oldies Revival"[20], and stuff about their relationship with Klaatu. Worth a bit more investigation, at least. Also, as a procedural matter, please note that the AfD tag currently seems to be missing from the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD tag now in place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of this AfD has been posted at Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not quite sure what to make of this either.In the infobox is says 'defunct', but they still appear to have an active website. Continental Records seems to be reissuing all the previously published Bullseye titles. I can't come up with sources better than social networks, the inevitable YouTube, blogs, and junk e-zines. The MySpace source is of course completely diallowable. I would say that due to the lack of clarity and sources, even if there is no consensus here, it should default to 'delete' rather than keep just because its historical.--Kudpung (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have/had many famous groups that have released albums with them. Notability is not bound by time. The company was the first in Canada to re-issues old albums. They have thousands of albums out there they have produced or re-released from major Canadian groups aswell as a magazine "Great White Noise" . pls see Bio of fonder,,,,,,,,,,,,,Moxy (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 14:41, 17 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, if the article creator can't be bothered to find any sources, it reflects poorly on the value of the article. Lastly, I don't consider an autobiography of a person involved in the studio to be a reliable source in establishing notability, per My mother says I'm special. principle on bias. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:03, 29 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) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bamel

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

The subject is unclear, and notability is questionable for the same reason, and the lack of references. Talktome^(Intelati) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What even is this article about? Also, I agree with Intelati's other comments. Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 22:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of references that establish notability. The single reference is to a Wiki like webpage. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is about a Jat gotra. If you are unfamiliar with concepts mentioned in an article you can always try looking them up in an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:43, 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) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Publishing

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

Fails WP:ORG as company has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral a publishing company with a 30-year history and big-name licenses like Dora would seem to be notable, but I was surprised to find very little in the way of sources, just a few scraps from trade blogs like this. Maybe the issue is obfuscated due to their various imprints, but I dunno. My gut instinct is the notability is there, but I can't find enough sources to justify a Keep vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep finally found a good reference "September 4, 2009 ... Independent children's publisher Holland Publishing has said its move into licensing will grow its business from sales of 3.3m [pounds sterling] to 5m [pounds sterling] within three years. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Holland will also launch a novelty list at Frankfurt to drive co-edition..." from The Bookseller [21]. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ELC LTD

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

Non-notable language school; previously prod'ed under English language center and English language Center TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should've been speedied: an article on XYZ Inc. by User:XYZ is inherently promotional because its purpose is to use Wikipedia to enhance the notoriety of the subject. And there's no ambiguity about it. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ELC LTD is a well known company in Ukraine. It was awarded with a national "high label" prize. it's a member of National Quality Association and has a 15 years good reputation history. How can you write that it's "Non-notable language school"? What is "notable" then in your opinion? EF_Education_First? What's the difference then? My opinion is - the company has the right to put information on wikipedia among many other companies in this field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.8.9 (talk) 19:55, 15 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The page is promotional in nature, and is effectively unsourced since its two references are to dead links without other detail. The external links are all to sites associated with the company or its member schools. Tone and sourcing could in theory be fixed, but I'm not sure if the schools are notable in themselves. Cnilep (talk) 07:31, 25 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kapi (Egyptian God)

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

The sources are century-old astronomy enthusiasts drawing on the work of an essayist who posited the existence of this god based on strange conjecture into constellation origins. Their reliability is questioned by a scholar here and by a well-informed amateur here and here. Nothing in the modern Egyptological literature I’ve read corroborates the existence of this god, unless the name is a distortion of Babi. I’ve informed the article’s author of the problem but received no response. A. Parrot (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the link provided it seems clear that the source is highly questionable and that no other references refer to "Kapi" (to our knowledge). I would agree with the motion for deletion, unless someone can find a reputable source that confirms the existence of a deity called Kapi. --AnnekeBart (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the motion for deletion - I have tried to identify the deity within authentic Egyptology and failed to find a god Kapi.Apepch7 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search of "Kapi" and "Ape god" on Google Books confirms the notability of the subject: [22]. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of those books are decades out of date, and all seem to be either written by James F. Hewitt, the unreliable originator of the idea, or passing mentions derived from his work. The results are further proof that Egyptologists have not written about Kapi. If the Egyptians had such a god, you would think that Egyptologists, the people who actually study Egyptian writings, would have noticed. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Slight) merge and redirect~~, possibly to Set (mythology) (which, sadly, needs some love as an unrelated issue). This essentially constitutes a WP:FRINGE theory of preclassical Egyptian mythology, and should be given only its due weight as such. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it deserves any weight even as a fringe notion. Hewitt's ideas were adopted by a few other people, but there's no indication that they were widely popular in the 19th century, let alone today. Allen's book is still widely read, but the bit about Kapi is only a small portion of the whole. Aside from that, I don't know what page would be best to merge this to. Yes, Hewitt drew a connection between Kapi and Set, but he also drew a connection between Kapi and Cepheus, Kapi and Caiaphas, and who knows what else. If we had an article on Hewitt, we could put this there, but we don't. A. Parrot (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. I took a look at some of the material we'd need to work with. I think an article on Hewitt could be sustained, and if so, this might indeed get a quick mention there. But I've reconsidered sidling any existing article with it, and there's not nearly enough of value in the article at current to support keeping around in the off chance that someone will write an article on Hewitt to give it a home. Delete. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:03, 20 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It just so happens that our newest admin is an Egyptologist. I'm messaging Elen of the Roads about this. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references to works by egyptologists are added, rather than to works by people like Richard Hinckley Allen, or other reliable sources covering the treatment of this god. (Even a recently invented Egyptian god can be notable if he's got enough coverage). Sandstein 08:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's clear that the 1963 date for the source in the article is irrelevant. Dover reprint old books so they continue to be available as historic texts (I have several) - they usually make a point of not editing or commenting on them. It's clear that Allen was working from a source predating a good understanding of primate classification, Kemitic Egyptian, and philology in general. "Kapi" (gefe in Ancient Egyptian) is not 'ape' but 'monkey', specifically monkeys of the genus Cercopithecus. Everything falls by the wayside after that - no text in my possession from Spence's 1915 Myths of Ancient Egypt through to Meeks & Meeks 1993 Daily Life of the Egyptian Gods to Wilkinson's 2003 Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (which helpfully groups deities by critter) features a monkey-god. So after that piece of complete WP:OR :):) I would say to delete this article, as it has no merge target in the Kemitic area, no current article about the originators of the theory, and it's probably very rude, as well as incorrect, to suggest that the name Caiaphas - Kayapa in Hebrew - is derived from the Egyptian word for monkey.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primarily per Elen. This is why I keep a list of people that claim knowledge in an area. Better background knowledge, better access to sources, better credibility, and most of the time, better judgement. If anyone could have saved the article with sources, it would be someone like Elen, but instead she gave the most convincing AfD delete vote I've seen in recent memory. (In policyspeak, fails verifiability and notability guidelines.) Sven Manguard _Talk 17:05, 29 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) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Cinema

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

Not notable; magazine has only published one printed issue, and has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided to help establish this publication's notability. Furthermore, the article appears to be promotional rather than taking a neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:47, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit 'Em Up

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hit 'Em Up

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

Contested PROD. Apart from the 2-sentence mention in Vibe (magazine) (the other 2 refs currently in the article are not at reliable sources), I could find no reliable independent sources about this. It didn't chart from what I can see, and I can see no evidence that this song meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rather than list them all, just peruse through these GB results, certainly a lot written about it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possible show a few of those that are at independent sources which are reliable and give significant coverage? Most of them are either non-reliable sites with the video, or lyrics sites. So, I'm not expecting you to list them all, just a few reliable ones! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I assume "GB" means Google books? You gave the Google Web search link (and a better one would be this one rather than the one you gave; GBooks is here, but all the mentions I could see were minor -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link I gave was to Google books... as far as coverage, ha take a look, I chose this one (3rd result), and there's an entire page on this song (plus some which is unviewable), here's an entire Billboard article on the song.

As a side note, there is substantial coverage of 2Pac in general, entire books written about him and his music. I would not be surprised if nearly all his songs could meet Wikipedia's req. for articles, same as the Beatles. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside my thoughts on comparing 2Pac to the Beatles (who have at least 13 songs with no articles on Wikipedia), the first book there ("Rebel for the hell of it") is about 2Pac, but the index of the book shows some coverage on 3 pages: I see no evidence of significant coverage: page 180: "Gilmore takes "Hit `Em Up" literally as Tupac's threat on the lives of anyone who's down with the East Coast"; page 182 ... "The only Tupac lyrics Gilmore quotes-and at length-is "Hit `Em Up"'s vituperation [quotes from the song]"; page 183 "The blunt, unimaginative threats of "Hit `Em Up" stand out to conventional music editors like a street mugging - a perfect opportunity to editorialize". With regard to the Billboard article, it is in fact only one column (10 paragraphs) - but most of that is about Tupac being unwise to release it, and the fact that it shouldn't be played on radio. Although superficially about the song, realistically it would (at most) be able to reference one or two of the sentences in that article - yet the vast majority of the information in the article is not mentioned in the Billboard article or in the book. So, I am still not convinced that the song meets the criteria for inclusion, other than as a single sentence (or two at most) in the main Tupac article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This song could, while remaining tightly informative, be reduced to a few sentences and merged. On the other hand, I believe that it can be expanded into a very large, well sourced, individual article. There seems to be a multitude of sources available some brief, but some limited to just this song. I don't know when/if I can work on it, but I can try sometime soon. - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update so I have some time tonight to look over, and (Steve, I'm not trying to stress the point in a roundabout way) there is a lot of work that this will take, and there are a lot of sources. I estimate that it will probably take me a week or so, maybe more; I will be working on it here, where I've copied the article, although instead of trying to find sources for it, I will likely be rewriting it based on what I read. If anyone wants to help, feel free to edit my sandbox. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:12, 27 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The substantial coverage in this Google Books result and this Billboards article confirms that Hit 'Em Up passes Wikipedia:Notability. Add that to the sources at User:Theornamentalist/Sandbox5#References and notability is solidly established. Theornamentalist (talk · contribs), your work at User:Theornamentalist/Sandbox5 is a spectacular improvement over the current article. You've done a phenomenal job! Cunard (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes for improvement: "It has been called the center of the most venomous rap battle in the genre's history and the beginning of a war." Are any of these direct quotations from the citations you provided. If they are, they should be put in quotes.
During the month of May 1996 in Los Angeles,<ref name=sax>Saxon, p. 107.</ref> at a warehouse off of Slauson Avenue near Fox Hills Mall,<ref name=alex>Alexander; Cuda, p. 132.</ref> The production company, Look Hear Productions,<ref name=alex/>

This paragraph appears to be incomplete.

"The assistant, who was answering his pager, was returning personal calls and had even mistakenly lost it." – what did he lose? Did he lose his pager?

I've given your userspace draft a copyedit. When you copy it back to the mainspace, feel free to give me a ping if you want me to take another look at it. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 29 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) 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here We Are (one-act play)

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

Not finding any sources for this play which establish its notability per WP:GNG, although the title of the play is also a very common expression, so I may have missed something. The single source in the article doesn't appear to be reliable. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 23:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If it is commonly used as a play in high-school and college plays, why couldn't I find any reliable sources? I know the common name wouldn't help, but even with adding search terms to make searching easier, I still couldn't find sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, never mind, change to weak keep thanks to the finding of sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the tougher challenges to finagling the search engines due to the common name, however, the play was published as part of 24 Favorite One-Act Plays ISBN: 978-0-385-06617-4. It's also identified in The ultimate scene & monologue sourcebook: an actor's guide to over 1,000 monologues and scenes from more than 300 contemporary plays which would indicate it is significant work, and it's endured as a staple for actors. -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: This google news search has false positives, but looking through the results, its evident that the play has been performed quite a bit, and would appear to have additional coverage hidden behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 18 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, you beat me to the mention in 24 Favorite One-Act Plays. JJB 03:17, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratoath Sevens

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

Advertisement for a local amateur football tournament fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^verbalize 23:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More like a newspaper article than a Wikipedia article. Housewatcher (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doczilla _STOMP! 09:52, 28 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.