Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 31: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Adding AfD for You Are Loved (EP). (TW)
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springbank Cemetery Aberdeen}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Are Loved (EP)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Are Loved (EP)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Stitzel}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Stitzel}}

Revision as of 09:38, 31 December 2010

< 30 December 1 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry but the delete !voters make a stronger case in this one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Springbank Cemetery Aberdeen

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

no indication of WP:notability. Sources prove existence - not notability. Google searches do not reveal anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is WP:notable about it? You have added a couple of references to someone buried at the cemetery but the second one does not appear to mention the cemetery and the first only mentions it in passing. The claims made seem to be no different from hundreds of other cemeteries in the UK. noq (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jordanhill is a "typical" railway station. Are you going to nominate that article for deletion too? --Mais oui! (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your basis is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?noq (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-lawyering also leaves me profoundly unimpressed. And wp:otherstuffexists is not even policy, it is just an essay. Let's face it, Wikipedia is packed full of articles about "typical" cemteries, "typical" railway stations, "typical" biochemists, and "typical" lichens. So what? As long as it is decently referenced, I care not a jot. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the decent references? The first reference to google books shows a one line mention - hardly significant coverage, and the second reference does not mention it all. noq (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almanac and gazetteer entries like railway stations, cemeteries, species, cities, and high school appear to have a quasi inherent notability based on outcomes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and, the other article you talk about does not appear to have been discussed for deletion. noq (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, feel free to nominate it. I look forward to that AFD! --Mais oui! (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The burden would be on you, not him, as you are the one who seems to have an issue with it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You Are Loved (EP)

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

Not notable, no references Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Stitzel

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

Doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. (The 14th all time is for his school, not overall) JaGatalk 09:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Degrassi characters. Jayjg (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane McKay

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

Completely unsourced, this Degrassi related article has no sources or citations or third party coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 08:47, 31 December 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) 01:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The number/quality of existing citations isn't relevant. He's a fictional character and of minor importance to the series, therefore there shouldn't be an article. PKT(alk) 16:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism/hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But There's More Petz

But There's More Petz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a hoax. No references, created by a suspected WP:SOCK, all related search results are Wikipedia and mirror sites. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious hoax. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waiuku AFC

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

Semi-professional, little coverage, does not meet WP:CLUB Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:27, 31 December 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) 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Luis Oliva Meza

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

From a google search, I cannot find anything showing him to be a notable public official. I do not know of any other sources that would show anything notable about him. I also have concerns about verifiability, the article does not even have a date or place of birth for him. Metaphorazine (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alyans

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

Hoax about a supposed stadium that doesn't seem to meet speedy criteria. Wikipedia and mirrors are the only Ghits that use "Alyans" and "Mozambique" in the same context. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a copy of Wikipedia, not an actual book. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now delete Spiderone 16:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's also a copy of Wikipedia - you can usually tell by the cover and the title. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think you can include the others in this discussion because of the time factor; this discussion has been going on for nearly a week and is ready to be closed, while the others are newly listed and need a week to run. I suggest Delete the current one, and relist the others as a new AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, GiantSnowman, please read what I wrote here. I even stated directly above why I did this (and it has nothing to do with a time factor). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BUNDLE - "For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion." GiantSnowman 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the inappropriate bundling. Articles at AfD get seven days, so these AfDs need to be kept separate. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - none of these stadiums appear at worldstadium's Stadiums in Mozambique page. Although Alyans and Lektaforga are mentioned in the Barnes & Noble link, it's unclear as to what they are exactly and without buying that book it's impossible to tell whether these article tie in with what's in the book. At present, all of these are unverifiable and all have a lack of independent sources (almost entirely Wiki mirrors). Bettia (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Christianity

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

Violates WP:No original research. Sources do not establish that there is such a thing as "postmodern Christianity" and mostly do not use the expression. Article is divided into sections about various aspects of modern Christianity, but OR is used to say that taken together these things add up to "postmodern Christianity." Wolfview (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not about content. The subject is not notable. And what has Proverbs 6:6 got to do with it? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why is this being proposed for deletion at the same time as postmodern religion - see next afd below. This links to the subcategory postmodern religion also being proposed for deletion - which links to philosophy - postmodernism and religion
  • You can't just exclude religion from the subject of postmodernism

--Kary247 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC).--Kary247 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to have tags on articles for any length of time before deleting them. People can look for sources right now. I did and didn't find significant coverage. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are no sources that support that any of the included forms of Christianity have ever been referred to, individually or collectively, as "Postmodern Christianity". The writer of this essay is projecting Postmodernity onto these forms and philosophies, or at least has failed to provide sources to support the whole edifice. Yworo (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ISBN 9781563383649 is a book with this exact title from an academic publisher. If the topic can support a 174-page book then it can certainly support an encyclopedia article. Plenty more books and peer-reviewed articles about the subject can be found by simply following the search links spoon-fed in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1. as said before it is a content issue, 2. the topic and term exist in the literature and in theological debates really (actually, factually, against all reason etc.), although both are malformed, but that's not the article's fault. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil Bridger. It Is Me Here t / c 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern religion

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

Violates WP:No original research by putting together odds and ends to create a general topic. None of the sources seem to use the expression "postmodern religion," but use the word "postmodern" (and sometimes not even that) in connection with some religious issue. Wolfview (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(Also, why is postmodern Christianity being proposed for deletion at the same time as postmodern religion - this article has been around for ages?)

- Please consider whether your article for deletion suggestions are being very inclusive, because postmodern religion is a wonderful topic and I can't see how the research is original I personally have found over 50 sources and they are from University of California, Harvard, Yale and very notable philosophers. Also, I have worked very hard trying to take a difficult and hard to understand topic and make it easy for the average reader to understand so it is a bit mean to just place the article here for deletion without even trying to improve it or work on it. Here is the article I have written in tact, because it keeps getting edited. this section. (Also, the sources are valid and relevant - so this article can be expanded to consider many different religions and there are many books about many other religions that postmodern religion could expand on, for example, Postmodern Judaism see here)

  • ^ Powell, Jim (1998). Postmodernism For Beginners. ISBN 978-1-934389-09-6
  • ^ "Postmodernism." Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Ed. Ray Abruzzi and Michael J. McGandy. Macmillan-Thomson Gale, 2003. eNotes.com. 2006. 27 Dec, 2010
  • ^ Patton, K.; Ray, B. (2008). A Magic Still Dwells: Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age. University of California Press, Berkeley - "a postmodern study of religion" p199
  • ^ French, Rebecca Redwood (Spring 1999). "From Yoder to Yoda: Models of Traditional, Modern, and Postmodern Religion in U.S. Constitutional Law". Arizona Law Review 41:49: (abstract). "Based on an analysis of the actual language used by the Supreme Court to characterize religion, this Article argues that the Court takes a common-sensical approach to each religion brought before it.".
  • ^ Oxford University Press - Journals - Aaron Stuvland http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/08/12/jcs.csq055.extract
  • ^ On Deconstructing Life-Worlds: Buddhism, Christianity, Culture (Atlanta: Scholars Press of American Academy of Religion, 1997; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; ISBN 0-7885-0295-6, cloth, ISBN 0-7885-0296-4, pbk
  • ^ a b Clarke, Peter (2009). The Oxford Handbook of the sociology of religion. Oxford University Press. Page 306.
  • ^ Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology. Trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf (First published New York: Basic Books, 1963; New York: Anchor Books Ed., 1967), 324.
  • ^ Eve, Raymond. "Wiccans vs. Creationists: An Empirical Study of How Two Systems of Belief Differ". The University of Texas. [1]
  • ^ BBC Religions: Postmodernism http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/postmodernism.shtml
  • ^ Hatcher, B. (1999). Eclecticism and Modern Hindu Discourse. Oxford University Press USA.
  • ^ a b Lewis, James (1996). Magic religion and Modern Witchcraft. New York University Press. Page 46: "While pre-modern themes form the foundation for this movement it is the manner that such themes are reworked to be appropriate in the contemporary context that form the greatest relevance to the significance of Witchcraft as a postmodern form of spirituality".
  • ^ Winston Churchill Quote
  • ^ Creative Quotes
  • ^ Patton, K.; Ray, B. (2008). A Magic Still Dwells: Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age. University of California Press, Berkeley - p132
  • ^ Heelas, Paul (1998) Religion, modernity, and postmodernity - page 4 and 5
  • ^ Raphael, Melissa (April 1998). "Goddess Religion, Postmodern Jewish Feminism, and the Complexity of Alternative Religious Identities", ‌Nova Religion, Vol. 1, No. 2, Pages 198–215 (abstract can be found at: [2]

"This paper argues that Jewish Goddess feminism illustrates the complexity of alternative religious identities and their fluid, ambiguous, and sometimes intimate historical, cultural, and religious connections to mainstream religious identities. While Jewish Goddess feminists find contemporary Judaism theologically and politically problematic, thealogy (feminist discourse on the Goddess and the divinity of femaleness) can offer them precisely the sacralization of female generativity that mainstream Judaism cannot."

  • ^ Patricia M. Mcdonough, Peter Mclaren (1996). "Postmodern Studies of Gay and Lesbian Lives in Academia", Harvard Educational Review, Summer 1996 Issue
  • ^ Riggs, J. (2003). Postmodern Christianity: Doing Theology in the Contemporary World - ix-x
  • ^ Lewis, James (1996). Magic religion and Modern Witchcraft. New York University Press. Page 46, "... While premodern themes form the foundation for this movement it is the manner that such themes are reworked to be appropriate in the contemporary context that form the greatest relevance to the significance of Witchcraft as a postmodern form of spirituality."
  • ^ Smith, Diane. Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies
  • ^ Patridge, Christopher. "Alternative Spiritualities, New Religions, and the Reenchantment of the West", in James Lewis (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements (2004)
  • ^ Anderson, Walter Truett. "Four Ways to Be Absolutely Right", in Anderson (ed.), The Truth About the Truth: De-confusing and Re-constructing the Postmodern World (1995)
  • ^ Fisher, Amber. Journal of Western Mystery Tradition, Vol. 1. [3]
  • ^ Raphael, Melissa (April 1998). "Goddess Religion, Postmodern Jewish Feminism, and the Complexity of Alternative Religious Identities", ‌Nova Religion, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 198–215
  • ^ Werner, Michael. "Ecofeminism, Neopaganism, and the Gaia Movement in the Postmodern Age", Humanism Today, vol. 7 (1992)
  • ^ Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. “Witches of the West: Neopaganism and Goddess Worship as Enlightenment Religions”, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, vol. 5, no. 1 (1989)

--Kary247 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the fact we have other "postmodern" articles is not relevant. I happen to think a few of those should be deleted as well. Secondly, the sources you list here are really not specifically about "postmodern religion".--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick google search seems to show that there are legitimate sources for "postmodern religion." If the sources in the article are insufficient, I see that as a reason to add a {{refimprove}} tag for now, rather than deleting the article outright. YardsGreen (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you add the sources, because I certainly can't see them? Adding tags isn't a solution to anything. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:PGL states that WP:AfD is appropriate if an article has one of the listed issues "and cannot likely be improved." Considering that the page was created only about two weeks ago, and no attempt was made to discuss the problems on the talk page, I believe outright deletion is premature. Consider WP:CHANCE. You are right that adding tags is not a solution, but it would encourage discussion. If it fails to encourage discussion after some time, that may be the appropriate time to delete the article. YardsGreen (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is not even mentioned in Religion. If it becomes a sizeable section within that article, then we can consider splitting off a seperate one. Right now it doesn't need it's own article. I am struggling to find sources that even define it is a concept. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will stop struggling if you simply click on the word "books" in the nomination statement. Those links are provided to enable people commenting in discussions to give at least partially informed opinions, so why not use them? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The issue of merging or renaming can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have claimed to be Jesus

AfDs for this article:
List of people who have claimed to be Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:No original research. There is nothing to say that the many people in history who have "claimed to be Jesus" form a notable group. Many people on the page actually did not claim that, but something else such as to be God himself, to be the second Messiah, to be especially inspired by Jesus, or something else. The article also has an unneutral tone in favor the Christian religion over others. Wolfview (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of the article is not even about what the title claims. The first sentence says: "This is a list of notable people who have made statements claiming to be the reincarnation or incarnation of Jesus Christ, or the Second Coming of Christ from Heaven in some aspect." Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How has this article got an "un-neutral tone"? Please explain with specifics. I hope that the reason is more than "It discusses a subject that is intimately related to Christianity, and so of course focuses upon Christianity more than, say, Zoroastrianism.". And if you're going to argue that claiming to be the Christ is not the same as claiming to be God, or the son of God, then you're straying into the territory of a very fine point of Christian theology indeed, wearing hobnail boots. So the first sentence clarifies details of scope where the title would be incredibly unwieldy if it were to include every single aspect of what has been covered by some two millennia of thought, but for which the title is a reasonable, common name, simplification. How is that a reason for deletion?

    And if Phyllis G. Jestice can have an article discussing people claming to be the Messiah, including Solomon Molcho, David Reuveni, and Nahman of Bratslav, and people claiming to be (or claimed by others to be) the second coming of Christ, including Ann Lee, Joanna Southcott, and John of Kronstadt, in an encyclopaedia (Jestice 2004), why cannot this encyclopaedia? Is Wikipedia to be less of an encyclopaedia than other encyclopaedias? Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Jestice, Phyllis G. (2004). "Messiahs". In Jestice, Phyllis G. (ed.). Holy people of the world: a cross-cultural encyclopedia. Vol. 3. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781576073551.
  • Rename to "Messiah claimants" if that is the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article already exists. List of messiah claimants. Editor2020 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then merge the two lists? I expect that most of the people will be on both. I'm not sure if you can claim to be Jesus without also claiming to be the Messiah. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's the cart before the horse. It's possible to claim to be the Messiah without claiming to be Jesus. So not all Messiah clamiants are claiming to be Jesus. Jestice 2004 does, in fact, explain this. Uncle G (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • But are all people claiming to be Jesus also claiming to be the Messiah? If so then this article could be merged into the other without losing any information, or repeating the same information in two lists. Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think that the two articles should be merged. Doing so would either strip a massive amount of information from the "Jesus" list or turn the well-balanced "Messiah" list into a mostly Christian list. Besides, "Messiah" is a very nebulous concept that is defined differently by many groups who also believe that Jesus was that Messiah. While I do not know whether anyone on the list claimed to be Jesus but claimed not to be Messiah, it is certainly possible that someone has or will make that claim. YardsGreen (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom makes four arguments for deletion; I don't believe any of the four arguments apply. First, if other encyclopedias have covered this topic, as Uncle G says, then it is not necessarily WP:OR. Second, the subject is notable, for the same reason. Third, while I agree that not everyone in the list explicitly claimed to be Jesus Christ, this is a reason to remove these people from the list rather than delete the list in its entirety. Finally, I disagree that the article has an unneutral tone, but if nom believes this, the appropriate course of action would be to add the appropriate NPOV tag and perhaps discuss the article's neutrality on its talk page. YardsGreen (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept I will certainly follow your advice. I have found that it's bad to remove informtion from an article after nominating it for deletion. One thing I didn't mention is the section on the young man who had been given the first and middle names "Jesus" and "Christ" by his parents. The millions of men in Hispanic cultures also named "Jesus" are ignored. Wolfview (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I notice that List of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ redirects to the article under consideration. Perhaps it would be better to redirect the "Jesus" list to "Jesus Christ" instead? (Assuming that the article is kept.) YardsGreen (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "People who have claimed to be Christ"? Most of the people listed do not claim to be Jesus himself. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Christ" is just a title, and IIRC, is actually just the Greek word for "Messiah". As you note, claiming to be Jesus Christ is different from claiming to be Christ; those who claimed to be Christ but not Jesus can be added to the "Messiah" article mentioned above. Assuming the article is kept, we can clean it up later. YardsGreen (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets every requirement for a Wikipedia list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "List of People who have claimed to be the Messiah", or something along those lines.. not all have claimed to be Jesus Christ, and even in the biblical days other people claimed to be the messiah. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A list is a navigation aid, and does not have to be notable in itself. What counts is that a) readers may be interested in the list b) qualification for inclusion is implied by the title and is clearly defined and c) all entries are either sourced or have blue links to articles that are sourced. This article needs clean-up to meet these criteria. Some entries should be fixed or deleted, the section on "Claimants to being Christ/Messiah, but not Jesus" should be merged into List of messiah claimants. I will do this. "Claimants for being siblings of Jesus" and "People named Jesus Christ" can be dropped, since they each have just one blue-link entry. I will do this too. But the list is essentially valid. I suspect the repeated attempts to delete are due to dislike of the idea that anyone would claim to be Jesus. Not a good reason to delete. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, where are those criteria from? I only ask because WP:N has a relatively new (and still under discussion) section on the notability of lists that has different criteria. As for why the article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, the nominators don't seem to be Christian protectionists. All three nominations include reasons that, if anything, indicate the opposite is true. But I see no reason not to WP:AGF with the nominations. YardsGreen (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have assumed good faith - have struck that comment. I remember those criteria from a lengthy discussion on "silly lists" (such as "List of tall people") some time ago, which I can't find now. They seem fairly obvious. This article did not comply with b) but could be fixed to comply. WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE both mention lists of people, but have nothing to say about notability of the list itself, just of the entries in the list. There are a great many lists in Wikipedia which serve as navigation aids, or encourage readers to browse. This seems like one of them. The rule at WP:N seems new, and could affect many other lists with (to me) much less inherent interest and cohesion. For example, the people in a list of graduates from a given college probably do not have a great deal in common, but readers may still be interested in seeing who graduated from that college. The concept of "Messiah claimant" is notable, but most discussion of the concept in books is about the period around the time of Christ, while these list entries are much later. For that reason I would prefer to keep this list stand-alone. A discussion on merging into List of messiah claimants could be done post-AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
See boxes at right. Quite likely the subject of claims to be Christ is notable in itself, distinct from "messiah claimant". I do not see any books that treat it as their sole topic, but several seem to discuss the concept at some length. Maybe the intro to this article could be expanded to demonstrate notability of the list itself. It does not seem necessary to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is useful as a reference point. Sure anybody could claim to be Jesus reincarnated but such a statements has such relevance to the Christian world, even if they are fabricated.. As long as those listed are widely covered in reliable publications its OK I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This clearly a notable topic. That it is not WP:OR is clearly shown by the number of citations from other sources. I oppose merger with the list of messiah claimants: there is an overlap, but they are different. It is possible that the article needs to be purged. For example, Rastifarians make claims for the Emperor Haile Selassi I as a reincarnation of Jesus (or something of the sort), but he himself was a Christian of the Ethiopian church and would presumably have disclaimed any such status. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging this with the list of Messiah claimants is a bad idea: Simon bar Kokhba is one of the most important Messiah claimants in history, but he most definitely didn't claim to be Jesus. There are plenty of less famous Messiah claimants who also didn't claim to be Jesus. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a case for merging this list into List of messiah claimants, since anyone claiming to be Jesus Christ presumably also claims to be a messiah. The list of messiah claimants is broken into categories (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Other), and the Christian category could in turn be broken into claims to be a reincarnation of Jesus Christ (this list) and claims to be a messiah but not Christ. A merger discussion may be reasonable: "What is the best way to organize these lists?". This is an AfD discussion though: "Should this list title and contents be purged from Wikipedia?" I don't see much support for that. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Internet in Colombia. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Internet in Colombia

History of Internet in Colombia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is original research with no proper sources for the content. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice to (re-)creating a disambiguation page in the form recommended by WP:MOSDAB  Sandstein  13:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecostructure

Ecostructure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a stub for what may eventually become a disambiguation page. The speedy deletion template was added so quickly it must have been done by a bot. I would hope to be able to discuss this with a real human. I was motivated to create this page when a few months ago someone mentioned "ecostructure" on the "infrastructure" page. The word intrigued me, so I Googled it, and this admitedly very rough draft is essentially a result of these Google searches. AlexPlante (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speedy-deleting was by User:Aaaabbbbccccddddeeeeffff. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite I saw this on speedy, and had not decided what to do about it--it fit no speedy criterion, but seemed to be intended to include a number of promotionally worded sections for different things, most of them not likely to be notable. The first section should be expanded with the actual references; possibly it it is just a vogue word with no specific meaning, but I'd need to judge that after seeing a proper article. . There is no need for a disam page unless the other aspects can be written into separate articles. I strongly support the idea of combination articles for closely related things not each worth a separate article, but this is an example where only the vague idea of naming something by what might seem like a fashionable variant term is in common. That does not make an article. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to rewrite the article. Actually, I've just re-formatted it. I hope to flesh it out more by Tuesday, if it's not deleted by then. AlexPlante (talk) 17:23, 31 December 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) 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added new material & links, and did some reorganizing of the article. Apparently 300 people a day view the article, and I hope some of you will improve it or comment on it.AlexPlante (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I applaud AlexPlante and other authors for the recent attempts to improve the article, but at its heart it is still a discussion of multiple definitions of a word, and that word is a neologism. Thus the article runs afoul of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary on two counts. Articles on some of the concepts the word is said to refer to already exist, but don't use the word; new articles on the other concepts may be created, though it is not clear that this would be the proper title for any of them. Since no current articles use the term in their titles, disambiguation is not necessary. Cnilep (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would make sense to move the whole thing over to the Wiktionnary? I'm not sure how to do that, or how to link to Wiktionnay article in a Wikipedia article. (This whole thing started because someone brought up the term "ecostructure" in the infrastructure article, and my original aim was to create a stub "ecostructure" article so I would link to it from the infrastructure article, and hope others would flesh out this article) AlexPlante (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could create an Ecostructure article over at Wiktionary if you think it would help. Linking to a Wiktionary article from Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) is simple enough, you can use either [[wiktionary:Ecostructure]] or [[wikt:Ecostructure]] to get there. I would read up on their policies first though, such as Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion -- RoninBK T C 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Next weekend (if I have time) I'll cut and paste some of the more enclyclopedia-like paragraphs to the relevant articles, and I'll create the wiktionnary page. I hope no-one deletes the article until I have time to do this. AlexPlante (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't get back in time, you can always ask the closing admin for a copy of the article. -- RoninBK T C 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the whole thing to my sandbox AlexPlante (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canegrati's formulae

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

Non-notable concept, apparently self-named by the author. There are 4 works cited. The two works cited that are not written by Canegrati himself pre-date 'Canegrati's formulae', and so cannot establish it's notability. The two papers by Canegrati are MPRA papers, which are working papers uploaded to the Munich Personal RePEc Archive – these are essentially self-published and hence are not reliable sources. A google scholar search for "Canegrati's formulae"[1] or "Canegrati's formula"[2] return no results. A general google search returns Wikipedia articles and mirrors.[3] LK (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Buddhism

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

Delete. Article is entirely composed of original research. Lead has evolved from "Postmodern Buddhism can be defined as ..." to "Postmodern Buddhism is associated with a syncretic and eclectic approach ...". Requests for a source which provides a formal definition have been ignored. Requests to verify that sources are about "Postmodern Buddhism" rather than Postmodern interpretations of Buddhism have been ignored. None of the string of sources on the final sentence even contain the word "Postmodern". This is complete synthesis. Yworo (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just exclude religion from the subject of postmodernism.
The convention with postmodernism is postmodern art, postmodern architecture, postmodern psychology postmodern music and so on. This article follows that connection and links to the larger article, postmodern religion. This can be a tough subject to write about and I am trying to do it in a way that is clear and easy to understand for the reader.
Postmodern Wicca was nominated for deletion, so I changed the title to Postmodern Neopaganism(because the Wicca community did not like the Wicca title) which was then merged to postmodern religion. Now postmodern religion, postmodern Christianity, Postmodern Buddhism are all being simultaneously nominated as articles for deletion. The references for postmodern Buddhism seem good enough for the article to stay and there is nothing wrong with a short article.
  • Park, Jin Y (2008) Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayan and the possibility of postmodern ethics - Lexington Books
  • ^ Swatos and Kivisto (1998) Encylopedia of religion and society - Sage Publications - page 68
  • ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/postmodernism.shtml
  • ^ "Chinese Cultural Studies: The Spirits of Chinese Religion". Academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
  • ^ Windows on Asia - Chinese Religions
  • ^ "Religions and Beliefs in China". Travelchinaguide.com. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
  • ^ "SACU Religion in China". Sacu.org. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
  • ^ "Index-China Chinese Philosophies and religions". Index-china.com. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
  • ^ "Buddhism in China". AskAsia. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
  • ^ "Buddhism And Its Spread Along The Silk Road". Globaled.org. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
Kary247 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe use more 'long tail keywords' and be a bit lateral like - 'postmodern buddhism defining'
example 1 example 2 example 3 example 4 example 5
(maybe be a bit more lateral when searching for sources and use more long tail keywords etc.)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kary247 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem with these long tail keyword searches is that they bring up nothing to support "Postmodern Buddhism" as a separately existing entity. For example the first occurrences of the word in the links given come up with postmodern modifying the nouns thought, pundits, culture, scenarios, writers, foibles, theory and themes. None come up with Postmodern Buddhism as far as I can see. While I'm probably convinced that there is a such as thing as postmodern views of Buddhism, I'm not convinced there is such a thing as Postmodern Buddhism. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The titles of the books I have included use the term "postmodern thought in Buddhism" and "Buddhism and postmodern imag." and "Teaching Buddhism in the postmodern university" and "study of buddhism in the postmodern world" etc. If you google 'postmodern buddhism for Google books. I am just following the naming conventions at Postmodernism, so there is Postmodern Christianity, Postmodern religion etc.
  • Comment: Notability: Postmodern interpretations of all religions are included in most University courses - I am sure lots of University students and younger people who are more postmodern in their thinking would appreciate an article like this. Given the connection to the main article postmodern religion, the topic is worthy. Postmodern theory - critical literacy- is included in primary school curriculums. If we can have Postmodern Christianity, and Postmodern law, then we can have Postmodern Buddhism. You can really say that there is no such thing as postmodern Buddhism because we live in a postmodern era.
  • Further sources: Considerable serious work is being done concerning postmodernism and Buddhism. See Newman Robert Glass, Working Emptiness: Toward a Third Reading in Buddhism and Postmodern Thought (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) and David Loy, ed., Healing Deconstruction: Postmodern Thought in Buddhism and Christianity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).
  • Park, Jin Y (2008) Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayan and the possibility of postmodern ethics - Lexington Books
  • American University - Washington DC "Jin Park specialises in Buddhist philosophy/postmodernism...In her comparative study, Park reads Zen and Huayan Buddhism together with postmodern thought"
  • Postmodern Buddhism also refers to Buddhism within the context of postmodern society
  • I don't think we should have some have religions included, Postmodern Christianity, Postmodern Neopaganism, and exclude other religions, like Postmodern Buddhism. The main article, postmodern religion, won't be very good if we can't branch out to all of the different postmodern religious interpretations.
  • Following the naming conventions already established at Postmodernism, the correct title for an article about postmodern interpretations of religion, and Buddhism in the postmodern era, is Postmodern Buddhism
  • Logically can we say that there is no such thing as Postmodern Buddhism when we live in a postmodern age? Can we say that people can't interpret religion, whatever the religion, from a postmodern perspective?

See source Source: A magic still dwells: Comparative religion in a postmodern age - University of California--Kary247 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The above comment Can we say that people can't interpret religion, whatever the religion, from a postmodern perspective? illustrates the problem with this article. No we (Wikipedia) CANNOT say this. All we can do is find reliable sources which carry out this interpretation, and the article does not have sources that specifically discuss a concept termed "Postmodern Buddhism". Given that 'postmodern' is a term applied to specific cultural aspects in the West, particularly in Europe, it seems unlikely that the bulk of practitioners of Buddhism (who, guess what, don't live in Europe) would even put the two terms in the same sentence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't run a search on Asian search engines to find out about postmodern Buddhism, that is a good idea though - the Dalai Lama is an example of a Buddhist who uses postmodern interpretations of Buddhism. The article does need more sources and information, but is only a few weeks old. Some of the ideas are established in the main article so I thought it would be circular referencing to reuse the same sources in the connected article. The naming conventions at Postmodernism mean that the title of the article is Postmodern Buddhism, but the topic of the article is postmodern interpretations of Buddhism and Buddhism in the postmodern era etc. Reliable sources about postmodern interpretations of buddhism and Buddhism in the postmodern era can be found by running a search on Google books using keywords like postmodern religion buddhism and buddhism postmodern religion.--Kary247 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I reiterate - we are only fully in a postmodern era in western Europe. You speak as if the whole world is exhibiting the same cultural artefact. Unless either (a) the Dalai Lama has specifically spoken of "Postmodern Buddhism", or a commentator has described his utterings as "Postmodern Buddhism", it is not acceptable as a source for this article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment: The majority of comments are for delete but sources have been asserted but are unevaluated. It would be very helpful if these sources could be evaluated and commented upon as they are the basis on which the consensus hangs. Spartaz Humbug! 03:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Spartaz, if not for you so much of my time would have been wasted and a good topic ditched. I just don't have time to go through the thousands of Google books but here is a quote that might be useful from one of the Google books.

"Postmodern Buddhism is seen in much of the Shamb-hala community of Tibetan Buddhism led by the Dalai Lama, and in the widespread fascination with the mystique of zen. Postmodern Hinduism is found in the teachings of many popular Indian gurus, in the West's discovery of the wisdom of Vedanta, and in the growing popularity of yoga and other Vedic traditions. Postmodern Taoism is seen in the popularity of tai chi, chi gong, and feng shui, and in the renewed interest in traditional Chinese medicine. Postmodern Judaism can be recognized in the newly revived tradition of the Kabbalah." - Steve McIntosh, Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution (Get the book.) Amazon.

  • Just to save time - Ghandi is a postmodern thinker. Dalai Lama etc. I would think that given that we have postmodern religion now (did not get deleted) and given that Postmodern Christianity did not get deleted, Buddhism should be included too?--Kary247 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:NOT, WP:SNOW. Resolute 04:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010/12/30 Sharks vs. Blackhawks

AfDs for this article:
2010/12/30 Sharks vs. Blackhawks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable regular season game. We don't do articles on individual games. Corvus cornixtalk 05:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. keep arguments based on notabiluty do not counter arguments based on BLP1E or ONEEVENT Spartaz Humbug! 03:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to expand on my rationale for closing this so here goes.

The basis of the nomination was that the subject was a classic BLP1E. Another 8 editors agreed with this. 6 editors including one defector from the delete side argued that this subject easily met the GNG and the article should be retained. There were also two arguments to move the article to the event but this position did not gain any traction. Since the delete side did not have an overwhelming majority the sheer numbers do not give an consensus to delete so we have to look closely at the arguments.

The keep arguments were pretty much based around the notability arising from the press coverage. This is undoubted. The deletion arguments based on BLP1E & ONEEVENT implicity accept the the subject passed the GNG but as BLP1E states if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. This appears to have been the case. By simply relying on GNG the keep side failed to demonstrate sufficient significance to overcome the argument that this was a 1E. According to BLP The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. No overriding evidence of persistence of coverage was demonstrated in the discussion and the example of a significant individual who overcomes BLP1E from the policy is someone like John Hinkley whose noteriety this person clearly does not match.

So what was I left with? The argument that this was a BLP1E and ONEEVENT wasn't countered by demonstrating enduring significance. According to the policy the article therefore stood for deletion. Passing GNG on its own can be no bar to deletion under BLP1E as otherwise nothing would ever be deleted for that reason. For these reasons the consensus here was clearly for deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Hakimzadeh

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

This subject seems to be a bit of a classical fit for WP:1E. From a search on google news, there is clearly a good amount of coverage about this singular event. But the only coverage not surrounding this event that I could find is his mention here. It explains there that he is the "chief executive of the Iranian Heritage Foundation", but i'm not sure if that's really enough. Especially considering that it seems that there is no Iranian Heritage Foundation article on its own. A Google Books search brings up a lot of mentions, but they seem to all fall under the category of thanking him for his help in making the book or publications that he was involved in. Not really any notability to be had there. A Scholar search brings up much the same thing, a bunch of thank you's and not much else. I don't believe there is really enough notability to be had on this subject other than this one event that he is involved in. SilverserenC 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nuke it from high orbit - it's classic BLP1E and seems to serve only to disparage its subject. His one crime dominates the entire article, in fact the opening line is a complete joke. Kill it with fire already :( - Alison ❤ 06:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete News sources? Yes. Evidence of fame? No. In terms of people, I tend to accept the latter. Minimac (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a record of (fairly) minor crimes, however unusual. Wolfview (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I created this article this story was all over the news. WP:1E and BLP1E don't forbid us from having articles on those convicted of serious crimes; they merely discourage us from unduly highlighting insignificant people rather than the single event they are known for. The subject was convicted of the crimes, and news coverage was significant as discussed above; much of the coverage does focus on the individual who perpetrated these crimes. Perhaps a move to a different title would be a compromise? The event was pretty notable and in my opinion deserves an article, even if the consensus now is that the subject doesn't, something I am not fully convinced of myself. --John (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Minor flurry of news stories at the time, but no sign of enduring notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, William Jacques is maybe something this article can aspire to. Lack of content isn't grounds for deletion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since security was changed. This man stole a piece of civilization from two libraries. Worthy of note, and a warning to other places.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only four sentences in that reference is about him. And it all relates, regardless, to the singular event. This article should be about this one event, which will never be more than just this event. SilverserenC 03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only four sentences"? The article in question mentions Hakimzadeh by name 18 times! The article is centered on Hakimzadeh and (arguably) provides "significant coverage" of Hakimzadeh from the very first sentence ("To staff at the British Library, Farhad Hakimzadeh seemed...") to the very last line ("But the actual reasons why this wealthy and cultured man defaced..."). Guoguo12--Talk--  22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This passes #3 of WP:PERP, and WP:BLP1E does not suggest deletion, simply that the article should be renamed to 2008 British Library thefts or similar. Is that what you are arguing for? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, please stop putting words into my mouth. if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? LibStar (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you are citing polcies to support your "Delete" argument that only justify a renaming of the article. Do you have a genuine reason for deletion rather than the fact you don't like the article name? Do you think the entire event is non-notable perhaps? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my delete !vote stands. if he never committed this crime is he notable for anything else? LibStar (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but that doesn't justify deletion, only renaming. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it justifies deletion, my !vote stands so please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. LibStar (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was meant to be a debate. WP:BLUDGEON would apply if I repeated the same point in reply to many people, it doesn't apply whenever someone highlights flaws in your argument. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you are right then it would be a snow keep. but since you say you are right you must be right. you still qualify for BLUDGEON by "This is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view." LibStar (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move Since he is notable for a crime only, we should rename and make it a crime article. Soewinhan (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and focus the article on the crime. Clearly there is a will to preserve the information about the crime itself, and whilst I'm not convinced the crime passes notability, the debate here has been about whether there should be an article about the person. As the person is solely notable in connection with this theft, it's a clear WP:BIO1E. If anyone questions whether the crime is notable, that's better discussed in a fresh AfD without the notability of the person muddying the issue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong confess 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong confess 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With luck we'll get a closing admin who will discount the keep votes as largely fraudulent. Let's 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." This person is only in the news for committing this crime. This person is otherwise a low-profile individual. What else can be said about the crime, that it led to improved security at the British Library? Gee, ya think? This is pure one-event and WP:NOTNEWS material, and should serve as a general caution to creation-happy editors to not just scan today's headlines and pick out something they think is interesting. I was about to point out the surprise at Owen Honors still thankfully being a redlink, then saw in post preview that it was not. Off to weigh in on yet another pointless article... Tarc (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does your edit summary say delete, but your vote says Keep? Did you mistype one of them? SilverserenC 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tarc meant delete. Oh well. In any case ... "largely fraudulent"? Really? So all of us who !voted keep (six, not including Tarc) are frauds? Are cheaters trying to harm this encyclopedia? Talk about assuming good faith! I'd be careful before making a sweeping judgement like that if I were you, Tarc. Stay civil. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, yes. Not sure how the nasty "K" word got into my entry, but it has been fixed accordingly. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silvao Santos

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

A search for references found no support for notability. The subject's competition record is unremarkable. Janggeom (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Waters Lumpkin

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

Does not appear to pass wp:academic, at least according to Google Scholar, and the references provided are to her own work/organizations. Can't find anything to suggest wp:bio or wp:gng are satisfied either. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now I see that there was a previous AfD that resulted in the deletion of the page. As people were mentioning tarot card reading in that afd, I'm not sure this article is the same as the previous, but maybe an admin could check to see if G4 speedy applies. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the same person, but not wholly the same content. (There's a slightly different focus on the biographical detail.) This article cites sources where the previous did not, too. So at least one of the rationales from the preceding AFD discussion doesn't fully apply. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. She has written a couple of books, but one of them was published by a ministry of Namibia and the other by "Union Institute", a publisher about which I can find nothing. Neither book appears to have attracted any notice or reviews that I can find. The article lists no Reliable Sources. Her claim to fame is inventing the term Perceptual Diversity, which article was written by the same WP:SPA and should also be considered for deletion as non-notable and unsupported by Reliable Sources. I suggest somebody nominate it; it could have been included in this discussion but can't be added now due to time considerations. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep The dispute seems to be, not whether the artist is notable, but whether an article should be made before the work has been released. Anyone may renominate the article if the album is not released on 31 January 2011. Mandsford 13:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No More Idols

No More Idols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased album. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dolovis (talk) 20:49, 23 December 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, Spartaz Humbug! 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I can't make any consensus out of this discussion on whether the articles meet the notability guideline or not. There are some weak arguments made by some contributors, but after giving them less weight I cannot say either argument has a consensus here. As such no consensus can be the only outcome. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitmixes

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

Not notable per WP:NALBUM --Cprice1000talk2me 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 sources, 3 of which aren't even from this country. --Cprice1000talk2me 01:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If really notable reviews are found then it may be worth considering, but waiting so long, and my personal research also reutrned nothing substantial for teh article. Has anybody found anything concrete about the article anywhere? Printed sources would do too. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I know the specs of this release really well. It was generated by Gaga's labels (Interscope and it's affiliates Cherrytree/Streamline/Kon Live), however those labels didn't actually release it in their own territory (the US). Instead it was only picked up by one Universal Music Group company, and that was Universal Music Canada. Some sources say that it was exclusive to one retailer HMV, and that would make sense since I don't see it in the databases of any other major Canadian retailers. Also it was a one-shot deal, so now that stocks have depleted it's most definitely discontinued. In hindsight, it's nothing more than a typical promotional remix disc for radio/DJs, which incidentally went a step further by getting a one-shot promo release deal through a single retailer, HMV. So exactly how notable is this release in Gaga's discography? The fact that it got this much attention is because it's a physical release, when in fact, dozens of market-unique remix 'EPs' are made available via iTunes regularly, including ones related to Gaga (not surprising as her music is in the dance domain anyway). As for the prospects of expansion, they're undoubtedly very slim. I have tried myself to expand the page, in fact I think I may have added the charting section after I searched for charting info. My concern is more with calling this release her second 'EP', and The Fame Monster her third proceeding this, as this can't possibly be an absolute chronology. There's definitely other digital-format EP releases out there, possibly on different online stores in different national markets. But this is a greater issue concerning the current state of Gaga's discographic wiki pages. Imperatore (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete I concur with most of the comments previously made. Although several reliable sources indicate its existence, the sources do not help establish its notability. Independent articles should only be created where there is sufficient information to create a detailed article. As of present, there is not. The information could be summarized into several sentences (negative the track listing) and hence the article serves little purpose. I agree that the collection did chart but it was only in one territory. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where's the background information of the release? The different reviews and the chart performance? Any singles released or promotion? No. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agreed with Xwomanizerx. No promotion, only remixes of previously heard songs, article is a stub and does not seem to pass WP:NALBUM, simply charting in one country isnt significant coverage. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It entered in the top ten in Canada, it's enough for it to have an article. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • *sigh* You have obviously either failed to thoroughly read WP:NALBUM or you just feel it should be kept because it's a Lady GaGa article. --Cprice1000talk2me 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • From that one sentence how have you decided that Merynancy has not read WP:NALBUM? Or that she wants it to be kept because it's a Lady Gaga article?! Merynancy didn't say anything like that; if she had thought that I'm sure she would have written it. Please respond constructively to the arguments put forward by editors, rather than what you think they might have thought... Mhiji (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because if you read WP:NALBUM, you would see that an album charting is irrelevant to an album's notability. --Cprice1000talk2me 00:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't say that. The only line at WP:NALBUM which I can see that is relevant here as to whether we keep or delete this article is the line "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The musician is notable (I'm sure we all agree with that). The album has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources (see Hitmixes#References). It is an officially released album. Therefore the album "may have sufficient notability" to have an individual article. The guideline says it "may have sufficient notability". With albums there is no fixed criteria as to whether an album should have an article or not, we primarily use the sentence that I have just quoted to see if the album "may have sufficient notability" (which it does) and then we look at the merits of each album on a case-by-case basis to establish whether it is notable or not (If it doesn't meet the criteria that it "may have sufficient notability", then the article should be deleted, otherwise it may be notable). So please stop saying that other arguments about whether it is notable aren't relevant because they are not mentioned at WP:NALBUM. Facts such as that the album has charted on a national chart are significant - if an album has charted at number 1 in 20 countries around the world it will definitely be notable. If it has not charted anywhere, it is less likely to be notable. The fact that it has charted in (at least) one country is definitely an argument as to it's notability. Mhiji (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Cprice1000, I don't change idea about my vote. I'm not a fanatic of Lady Gaga, but I think this article should be kept. I know it's irrilevant, but why do other 8 wikipedias have it? On the wikipedia in english we keep articles like Christina Milian's fourth album, about albums that will probably never be released, i really don't see why we can't keep this. And it doesn't fail WP:NALBUM. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 18:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is in better shape now than when it was first nominated, which the nominator should acknowledge. Also, a guideline from WP:NALBUMS has been misquoted a whole bunch of times in this debate. The sentence in question: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. does NOT say that an article with little more than a tracklist should be deleted because the album is not notable. Also, this article is now more than a tracklist thanks to the work done as a result of this debate. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York and LA Times are the two most widely circulated newspapers in the US, that is distributed across the nation, not a local paper with about 1,000 readers. --Cprice1000talk2me 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that it was only released in Canada, we should only expect there to be reviews from Canadian media. The issue here seems to be that people are viewing this album in the same way they would a worldwide release when in reality it is only specific to one country. The album does not need to be universally notable, just notable in its target market where in this case it was. Grk1011 (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
& You're talking like the United States are the centre of the world. Canada, as all the other nations, is as important as the US are. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a citizen of Canada I can agree with Cprice saying that the Calgary Herald isn't that notable, our most notable newspapers are the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, National Post etc....again I am saying this as a citizen who is not biased towards any other country except Canada--Blackjacks101 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 06:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle of the Midwest Sea

AfDs for this article:
Jungle of the Midwest Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

recreation of recently deleted page. fails WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage in independent sources. Allmusic lists ALL MUSIC and can not be used to establish notability. jesusfreakhideout not RS. Dlabtot (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is the applicable guideline here, not dubious talk page assertions. Dlabtot (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was non-admin close: already resolved without any objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahamut0013 (talk • contribs)

Zastava M70B

Zastava M70B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, minor variant of Zastava M70, proposed merger but failed to attract much attention Buttons (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you should have just merged it yourself with the edit tool. AFD, and the deletion tool, form no part whatsoever of the article merger process. They don't even form a part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle that sometimes follows on from such use of the ordinary edit tool. Don't come here when you want an ordinary editorial action taken that you can take yourself. Be bold! AFD, a chronically high-traffic area of the project, has enough traffic to cope with with genuine requests for the use of the actual deletion tool. Only come to Articles for deletion if you want no merger, removal of the content (preventing its use in any other article and precluding merger), and removal of the entire edit history, by the deletion tool. Uncle G (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I wasn't aware I could do that, I presumed only Admins could merg articles. Thanks and regards - Buttons (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the overall scheme of actually doing this sort of content work, we can do very little more than what you can do. Ordinary editorial stuff like this anyone, even someone without an account, can do. And anyone can undo, if the doing is not seen as an improvement. That's supposed to be the idea. The editing workload is shared by everyone, and tasks are not funnelled through the comparatively small group of people who happen to have some extra tools. Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and speedy close as wrong venue. If nobody objected (and they shouldn't, seems like a simple redundantcy to me), then you can use the "move page" link. See WP:MOVE. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Proctor

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

Most sources are primary. Article is heavy on COI and trivia. Another user tried to nominate this but instead relisted a discussion from 2009, which had a result of "no consensus", so this is more a procedural nom than anything else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:23, 31 December 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, CTJF83 chat 05:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being an also-ran candidate in a smallish city doesn't confer notability. Plenty of coverage in local periodicals, but a lack of coverage outside of that. Many of the articles simply mention Proctor in coverage of the mayor. Others are coverage about yet another blog- hardly sufficient for depth of coverage per WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - clearly non-notable for being a failed political candidate, see WP:POLITICIAN. Ditto for his blogging. He may be notable as a pro wrestler, but cites would be needed for this. (I don't know enough about pro wrestling). In any case his blogging and political "careers" are non notable and should be hugely reduced, like to a single sentence. Adpete (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hasn't been relevant since 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.19 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Circle (Pennsauken)

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

Contested prod. This seems like a non-notable traffic circle to me. Yeah, its old, but really, its a traffic circle. Any relevant info can be covered in the route articles ,List of traffic circles in New Jersey, or in the Pennsauken Township, New Jersey article. Admrboltz (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mulshine

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

Non-notable local blogger and/or columnist. TastyCawks (talk) 01:25, 31 December 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, Courcelles 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)2010 December 31[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow close and withdrawn by user. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 22:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lights On

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

Non-charting single is not notable. Prod was removed by IP without comment. Dolovis (talk) 20:38, 23 December 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) 01:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't really explain why you think it should be deleted...? You are agreeing that it is notable then as it has "been ranked on national or significant music charts". Are you saying that you think it is unlikely ever to grow beyond a stub and so it should be merged into the Katy B article?! Mhiji (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Dragon Magazine

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

Non-notable anthology volumes (don't remember if I had any articles in them, but that was about the time I was most active as a TSR writer). Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 24 December 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) 01:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Petrov

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

Petrov seems to receive main notability from a bronze medal in 2001 at the Fina championships as part of the groups synchronized swimming (in a team of 8). That seems to be not enough for individual notability; at WP:notability (sports), swimming is not stated explicitly, so the general guideline should be followed: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[1] non-trivial[2] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject". I think that is far from established and a google search did find nothing indicating this as well... L.tak (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – WP:NSPORTS cannot possibly cover every sport in existence, even ones like swimming that are following quite a bit (don't get me started on the lack of boxing/MMA guidance). That said, people who have competed at the highest level of their sport are usually deemed to be notable. If that holds here, a synchronized swimmer who's medaled in the world championships (which I assume are the highest level of competition outside the Olympics) should probably be considered notable, especially when the top Olympic-related sports I see covered at NSPORTS (track and field and figure skating) do mention their respective world championships. Swimming is a top-flight Olympic sport as well, and I believe it deserves similar treatment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify Agree with your inclusion criteria for individuals. But this is notability derived from competing on the highest level in a large group; and whether then every individual is automatically notable I would contest... L.tak (talk) 00:13, 19 December 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, Courcelles 00:21, 24 December 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) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (in reply to L.tak above), what is the position of other team sport competitors? I've had a look at a random selection of (field) hockey player biographies and it seems that if they competed at at least one summer Olympic games (as part of teams of 11 + substitutes) then they get an article. The same is also true possibly for Commonwealth Games players (although I didn't find enough of these to be sure). Although I didn't find any articles where notability was asserted solely for competition in world championships, my sample size was only about 20 British and Indian players, so it is possible that they are there but I didn't pick them. Whatever the case, it would seem fairest to treat competitors in one team sport (swimming) the same as competitors of another (hockey). Thryduulf (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an athlete competing at the highest level in her sport and winning a medal in the World Championship for her sport. WP:NSPORT applies to members of teams in team sports as well as individuals in individual sports. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leading firms by sector and market share

Leading firms by sector and market share (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "leading firm" is POV and not well-defined - for example, the first subsection says it counts "not only sales, but all the activity of the companies", whatever that means. The list itself is useless, having no figures in it at all, and it's been completely unsourced since it was created 2.5 years ago. Contrast this with the useful list List of companies by revenue. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although the article subject is potentially highly notable (and interesting), the article as it stands is a travesty, not merely because it is completely unsourced and uncited, and because the information within it is in the main factually incorrect, but because the metrics used are so poorly defined and the list is so partial and biased.
There are many ways of measuring the leading firms in a sector - e.g. by turnover/market share, market capitalisation, profits or assets - and in many cases many ways of defining exactly what the sector is e.g. does it include suppliers, is banking a single sector or should it be broken down into retail and investment banking etc. These key issues must be addressed if this topic is to be dealt with in anything approaching an encyclopedic manner. Furthermore we have sections for cosmetics and printers, which are in reality small sub sectors, but key sectors such as IT hardware, Oil and Gas, Software, Media, Tobacco, Telecommunications, Support Services etc have been ignored. The flaws in the article at present are so fundamental that nothing is capable of salvage. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jackson (British musician)

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

Some vague claims to notability through being a former member of both QueenAdreena and Juno Reactor meant that the earlier prod was (correctly) declined. However, I cannot find any reliable sources that the subject of the article meets the notability criteria set out at either WP:MUSIC or the general notability guideline, so I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. Thanks. sparkl!sm hey! 08:17, 17 December 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, Courcelles 00:26, 24 December 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) 01:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Simpson

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

Vague claims to notability in the article do not meet WP:MUSIC as notability is not inherited. I'd welcome your thoughts on this, thanks. sparkl!sm hey! 14:12, 17 December 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, Courcelles 00:29, 24 December 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) 01:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bo-Kyung (Singer)

Kim Bo-Kyung (Singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced WP:BLP. Non-notable game show contestant. Appears to be a contestant on a Korean adaptation of an American Idol style show. Didn't even make it into the top 10 finalists on the show. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong yak 17:38, 17 December 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, Courcelles 00:31, 24 December 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) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Courcelles 00:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nataly Andria

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

I don't believe that this singer is notable, but think the article deserves wider input. She was a finalist on an American Idol-like television show in Madagascar, and I can find a few articles about her[6][7][8], but nothing that I think rises to the level of WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. (Sources are generally in French, BTW.) She has only ~65,000 visits to her myspace, to give a rough measure of her popularity. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would say Myspace hits is poor measure of popularity. How many people in Madagascar even can access her profile? I don't understand French well enough to properly evaluate notability of this artist, but it is worth mentioning that she is a subject of at least two articles by a major(?) newspaper L'Express de Madagascar (links provided by the nominator above). Julius Sahara (talk) 14:54, 18 December 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, Courcelles 00:32, 24 December 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) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concentração Motard de Faro

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

Non-notable bike rally, as far as I can tell; perhaps the fatally broken English is blinding me to its wonders. Orange Mike | Talk 00:36, 24 December 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) 01:06, 31 December 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, Courcelles 00:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China Confidential

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

Original AFD closed as no consensus. Previous concerns from that AFD was that it wasn't notable and thought to be a vanity page.

I can find no reliable sources to verify the article. It just seems like another blog on Blogspot, and fails WP:WEB guidelines. Mattg82 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 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) 01:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Kaelin

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

No evidence of meeting WP:PORNBIO NW (Talk) 02:33, 24 December 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) 01:02, 31 December 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, Courcelles 00:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred (A Christmas Carol)

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

Is the character of Scrooge's nephew really deserving of his own article? At the very least, I could see a merge or redirect into the main Christmas Carol article. But Fred, AFAIK, has no singular impact on literary or popular culture. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:51, 24 December 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) 01:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was incubate. Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Miss Representation Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Representation

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

Per WP:TOSOON, fails WP:MOVIE jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:14, 24 December 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) 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate for now. The film may eventually end up falling short of NF and GNG guidelines but it might reach those thresholds by the end of this month at Sundance. If it does, it would be beneficial to be able to move the article from incubation into mainspace without losing any previously added material. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to BMTC routes. Spartaz Humbug! 03:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direction based BMTC routes

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

I had nominated the article List of AC buses Bangalore for deletion. In the discussion this user stated that Wikipedia is not a public transport info page. So on the same criteria, I have nominated this article for deletion. It contains route info of BMTC. Abhishek191288 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 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) 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Asian people

AfDs for this article:
List of British Asian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This unsourced list is in violation of WP:BLP. I would remove all unsourced entries, but that would simply leave an empty list. I think that deletion is the best option until someone has the time to rewrite a properly sourced list. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

List of British people with German ancestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Cordless Larry (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Together, these are all of the completely unsourced lists from Category:Lists of British people by origin. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But by that logic, *all* list pages can be replaced by categories ... do you make that claim for all such articles? (including featured lists?) --Ragib (talk) 01:37, 25 December 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) 00:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why not, if such a group exists that identifies itself as Chinese Europeans? There is already a List of Chinese Americans. --Ragib (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not because most of the time, people included in such a list do not identify themselves as "Chinese European" Bulldog123 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with S Marshall's comment above. Ethnicity (in most cases, at least) should not be viewed as the kind of negative information that BLP was created to deal with. Its original concern was to ensure proper sourcing, and to remove unsourced negative statements, but it seems to be turning into some kind of bureaucratic monster that has leaked into many other areas of content determination as well. It's too often used as a bludgeon in deletion discussions that have nothing to do with sourcing an article statement or negative information. There are a lot of people who simply don't like these kinds of lists regardless of how well sourced they are.

    The list is certainly verifiable. It does not (and should not) include anyone who does not already have an article. First step, anyone whose article does not support their inclusion in this list should be removed from this list. Second step, the sources used in those articles to support their status as British Asians should be migrated into this list. I don't agree with the urgent need to delete this when it is fixable, regardless of what has been said on the BLP noticeboard (just another forum). AFDs are useful for testing the local consensuses that develop in such niches against a wider community, so we can see how a broader community really wants to apply policies and guidelines and how to test their consequences. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. No validation for why any of this information is encyclopedically notable. For 90%+ of the list's entries, this is pure WP:TRIVIA. If anyone wants to make a relevant list of peoples... there's no reason it can't be included in something like British Germans on a small-scale, case-by-case basis, explaining why such a classification is notable to the person. Bulldog123 22:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per comments by Postdlf.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the people are notable, a list of them buy any reasonable characteristic that has any relevance to their notability is appropriate DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. being interviewed doesn't make you notable and some decent sourcing is required to make this notable. Since these haven't been put forward the outcome is clear Spartaz Humbug! 03:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Pinotti

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. An author and a journalist, to be sure, but not one of note. Most sources are to vanity sites. jps (talk) 15:58, 24 December 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) 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Good

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

Fails WP:BIO. He was not a principal violinist in an orchestra (see WP:MUSIC) and notice of his UFO-beliefs do not extend beyond the ufology community. jps (talk) 16:06, 24 December 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) 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, unverified. Claims in the article that might make him notable are unverified and are tagged "citation needed". No independent references at all are provided. He wrote some books but I could find no reviews of them or of him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Watson

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO and possibly WP:VANITY. No notice outside of the WP:FRINGE community, therefore we cannot write a Wikipedia article about him. jps (talk) 16:12, 24 December 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) 00:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disagreement over whether the articles meets the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Sereda

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. No assertions of notability. Previous debate called for a delete, was this page recreated in error? jps (talk) 16:16, 24 December 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) 00:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
could you please tell us sources found during your google search? also as confirmed above the previous AfD was about a different person. LibStar (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Hall

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I cannot find sources independent of the UFO-community which would can vouch for something which would confer notability on him. jps (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Certainly The Washington Post is independent of the UFO community. jps, did you read their lengthy and respectful story about Hall, which establishes his notability? It's linked right there in the reference section. I have no interest myself in "Ufo-ology" but this man seems notable to me. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw it, but it's basically a puff-piece news-of-the-weird obituary as far as I can tell. It doesn't really lend itself to notability in the classic sense, I'd say. jps (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Joshua, you see a puff piece, written as "news-of-the-weird". I see a 19 paragraph article, written with barely a trace of irony or mockery, accompanied by a photograph, that describes a man's life work quite respectfully. Let me repeat that I don't share this man's beliefs in any way, shape or form, but the Washington Post is a reputable newspaper, and this article goes a long way toward establishing his notability, in my view. Cullen328 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's from the local section and is serving as an obituary. I imagine the journalist was sent out on a junket to interview this guy and had the story sitting around when he kicked the bucket. Then he published it. I've seen plenty of these kinds of parochial "features" in other local papers. The reason that the article doesn't establish his notability is because it clearly indicates that his personality and ideas do not see the light of day outside the UFO community. They tied in irrelevant commentary from Seth Shostack to fill it out — no, if this is what you think passes for a good source for establishing notability these days, I'm pretty sure we're on different pages. jps (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Joshua, let me remind you that WP:RS says that "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable". You are free to imagine this journalist's junket but you offer no evidence in support of your personal theory. Where do our policies say that articles in "local sections" of mainstream news sources are assumed to be unreliable? Or obituaries for that matter? The funny thing about our disagreement here is that I agree with about 99% of what is on your user page. I am personally totally opposed to pseudoscience, but I am also 100% in favor of the neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Yes, we seem to be on different pages in this particular debate. I am on the page of established Wikipedia policy regarding notability and the neutral point of view. Perhaps we should wait for other editors to chime in. Cullen328 (talk)
            • It is not required that someone's "personality and ideas" must "see the light of day" (whatever that means) in order for that person to be considered notable. Some cranks are notable. It isn't our job to censor notable cranks out of Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, it absolutely is required that sources be WP:FRINGE#Independent sources if we are going to have an article about a person. We cannot write articles based on crank-sources alone or even based on secondary sources that rely solely on crank sources (which is essentially what the WaPo article is, IMHO). jps (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, if the article on Hall is going to be deleted on the grounds that he is of no interest "outside the UFO community", then I don't see how one can justify having Wikipedia articles on other "Ufologists" such as Jerome Clark and Kevin Randle. If - as I suspect - the goal here is to eliminate "crank" topics like UFOs from Wikipedia, then why have any UFO-related articles? Hall was a well-known figure in Ufology, the Washington Post is a "mainstream" source, and Hall did write two books on women in the Civil War (one published by the University Press of Kansas). At his death I know that several UFO-related websites quoted from this Wikipedia article in their comments about him, so clearly at least some people are using it. The article does need more sources, but I'm dubious about deleting him simply because a poster thinks he's not "notable" outside of Ufology (how many other Wikipedia articles are bios of people who aren't notable outside their chosen field?). It seems like a double standard to me - if you're notable in a "legitimate" field your article is OK, if you're notable in a field many people consider "pseudoscience" then your article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.187.153 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to add that Wikipedia does have a category labeled Ufologists, and Hall's article provides a link to that category. If Wikipedia considers Ufologists to be notable enough to have their own category, then how can Hall be deleted for not being notable? Just a thought.
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) 00:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Sulong

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

Per WP:ANYBIO. Several search hits for the corporation he heads [13], but none that focus on him.

Also, previous version of article was purely libellous. SPat talk 17:14, 24 December 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) 00:45, 31 December 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, Courcelles 00:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks good. I don't have access to that, unfortunately. Can you use it to expand the article somewhat? SPat talk 02:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1114 AH

1114 AH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub that is redundant of 1702/1703. The entire scheme at Category:Years AH seems completely useless to me, so I'm nominating this article to get feedback on that as well--if other users agree that these articles are not useful, then I will nominate them wholesale for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite all calendrical systems currently in use should have year articles that direct people to pages under the CE (Gregorian) system where information can be found. It would also help people looking up dates under the AH (or other) system(s) if they don't know the conversion formula. So this article should explain the equivalent period under the CE calendar. 65.93.12.65 (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should have the start date and end date in Gregorian, with the Gregorian years' start and end dates also in AH, and the Gregorian new year in AH as well, to inform people of which article they are looking for. 65.93.12.65 (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How can this information be claimed to be "completely useless"? As someone who uses the Gregorian calendar I find the content of such articles very useful encyclopedic information, which tells be what year is being referred to when I encounter a different calendar. I agree with the IP editor above that the articles would be even better if they had precise start and end date conversions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 26 December 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) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we are going to have articles for each year in the Gregorian calendar I can not think of a reason not to have the same in the Islamic calendar. The information might be useful to someone. Borock (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I give you a year in AH, can you tell me the article under Gregorian it is for (without looking up a conversion formula, just do it in your head from personal knowledge)? If not, then clearly there is a need for a navigation page. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A navigation page, maybe 2-3000 no, I think not. Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete (or re-purpose), this is a worthy idea, but duplicating births/deaths/events for years in different calenders is currently a non starter. I was about to reluctantly AfD this scheme when I happened across this AfD. The article at AH should cover exact conversions. Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • If a reader comes across a mention of the year 1114 AH, and, not knowing what it means, decides to look it up in an encyclopedia, then what do you think should be the result? Surely it's better to tell that reader what Gregorian years this corresponds to rather than to present a page with an invitation to create an article, which is what will happen if this is deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete (or maybe redirect to a conversion page), and all other AH year and century pages should be as well. There is no reason to duplicate the information concerning calendars. Reywas92Talk 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no encyclopedic reason to have a separate page for every possible unit of measure conversion on a numeric scale. If there is a reason that this particular time period is of importance, then YES by all means (say, something of significance about the time period 1114 AH). But I don't see that in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Pointless since the Gregorian year articles already have the equivalents listed. But we should consider creating a redirect for the different years pointing to the equivalent Gregorian year for convenience. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 04:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pope

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

Unable to find coverage of this professor/author in any reliable sources independent of the subject. He has written one novel, two collections of short stories and has had several short stories published. I can find no reviews or commentary of any of his writing nor about him. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, nor WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 21:01, 24 December 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) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publishers Weekly is the industry standard, and all of their reviews are about this length, even for bestsellers. Also, this review is for Pope's novel, Jack's Universe, rather than the story collection. An author who's been reviewed in Publishers Weekly, who has two books out from a legitimate press, who has published in many of the leading journals, who has done a high-profile interview with Raymond Carver, etc. etc., is certainly notable. Qworty (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hell's Kitchen (U.S.). this can be created when there are some secondary sources out there. Until then this falls under CRYSTAL Spartaz Humbug! 04:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 9)

Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks any secondary sources for "season 9" this early in the process everything is WP:CRYSTAL and will be for some time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There will not be any substantial secondary sources until we start the official broadcast of the season. If you look at the previous seasons you see that 90% of the references are post facto references. Based on the facts that
  1. The series page is already pointing at the page
  2. A verifyable fact that they were casting in November of this year that is not making any PR claims
  3. In order to have a discussion regarding the way certain components of the season's article will be set up via the talk page, a main article page must be created
  4. Based on previous seasons ratings it is highly unlikeley that Fox will elect not to broadcast this after putting out a call for contestants.
I wanted to get the ball rolling on discussions for the content, but because I created the talk page without a Article it got speedied overnight without a refund. Now we have a 2nd editor jumping the gun to kick the page out when it's 99% positive that we'll have the page in wikipeida. Let's go over the WP:BEFORE list.
  1. Did not attempt to improve the page before PRODing or putting up for AFD
  2. I missed adding a stub template to the article so apparently it meets a significantly higher standard than other newly created articles
  3. Topic is notable enough in that it's the 9th production series of a significant Reality TV series.
  4. No maintanance tags were applied before nominating the article
  5. Prior to being nominated for AFD, there were links from Season 8 and the main series page. I think that qualifies for having enough context to see it's usage.
  6. No assertions of lack of sources.
  7. Did not attempt to engage author of article before reaching for the deletion button.
WP:CRYSTAL is invalid. Read the policy section again before laying the name out. Specifically, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. Hasteur (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The event is sure to happen considering they have a contract for three more seasons those are sure to happen too. Why not have an article for those as well? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)
Based on the fact that I haven't seen a casting call, I think those are probably too soon and still speculative. It could happen that Ramsay looses his cool and burns down the entire facility (causing the contract to be cancelled). For season based shows my feeling is to not construct the next season's page untill the final episode of the current season is complete and no threats of cancellation are made. It's crystal based, but less hazy than creating pages soley based on the contracts that have been announced. Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 27 December 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) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. I thought the points raised by the nominator were thouroughly rebutted. Can you provide guidance as to what portion of the nominator's statement you still find valid? Hasteur (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please read WP:PERNOM as the original rationalle has been discussed against. Hasteur (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do not accept an independent reporting of the call for contestants as a qualified secondary source? Hasteur (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the casting website a WP:RS? If so then I'm OK with the article being kept. You can ask on WP:RS/N if needed. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A casting call is still a WP:PRIMARY source and is exact duplicate of what was posted on Fox.com. We can not build an article solely on primary sources. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Lost (Four Freshmen album)

Love Lost (Four Freshmen album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod; subject is non-notable as per WP:NALBUMS. Article is unreferenced and does not explain significance. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Usually I would be in favor of keeping an article like this, for the reasons in the Keep votes above. However, in this case I don't think anyone can vote with full information because the article does not say if this was a studio album in which the band had full input, or one of those shifty compilations or re-releases without band input, as was fairly common in those times. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayak Thiik

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

Non-notable singer/songwriter. The article is superficially sourced, but the sources are from the usual user-submitted (such as last.fm) or personal websites, her only album never charted, the singles she allegedly performed never charted, and the citations to charting singles are all pieces on which she apparently sang backup vocals or claims "co-writer" credit. Google News has ZERO hits for her. Fails the GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSIC.  Ravenswing  00:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_31&oldid=405144828"