Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 14

< 13 October	15 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep with what seems to be consent of the nominator Tikiwont (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Liberation Front

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

Lets prune the crap. I would not even care if this article didn't appear to be a one-sided strawman, but it is, so I do. Please delete and salt this page, as it appears to be mainly a media publicity page with no real content.Cymbelmineer (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment original AFD nomination was malformed, fixed it. No opinion on the page itself. Yoenit (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Which of the four excellent references did you choose not to read? They may not be well cited, which is a formatting issue, but any group that captures the attention of The San Francisco Chronicle, Salon Media Group, Adweek and LA Weekly does not have a notability issue. -- role^player 11:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, passes WP:GNG. Article needs love and expansion, not deletion. If the nominator has NPOV concerns, let him/her be reminded that we do not delete what we can improve. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The references and overall biographical content for this article are too short, and most of them are about one event, I'm afraid. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Multiple quality sources over a period of years. Many more found in quick searches of Google News and Google Books. Clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't even think that the article is particularly one-sided, although any such issues can certainly be addressed through editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the Chronicle source looks particularly strong to me, and taken together I'm convinced that WP:ORG is met. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome: Keep.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Plausible Probable

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Marcus Qwertyus 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD G11, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ballhyped

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

Was gonna tag it for speedy, but then became unsure. Was launched less than a month ago; find it difficult to convince myself that this can be notable so quickly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountains Family History Society Inc

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [1], a very localised organisation. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Peace-bonding

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

Per the PROD-tag which was removed without explanation [2] ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 06:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: There is another book reference apart from the one already in the article. Plus a Google search shows that the term is used in many official anime convention policies (e.g. [3]), so it is indeed an engrained term in this culture. In my opinion we should apply the benefit of the doubt: the concept appears indeed notable in the real-world meaning that it is a widespread part of a non-trivial culture. Otherwise, let us find a merge target. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term is common in a bunch of sub-cultures that commonly use weapons as props, not only sci-fi/fantasy conventions but also SCA events, ren faires, and LARPS. Not sure there would be much to say about it other than a definition, but not sure what a good merge target would be either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmusser (talk • contribs) 2010-10-14 14:54:35
Well done Cyclopia for finding that second source. I found probably the same set of things saying that "XYZ must be peace bonded", but scant little actually saying what peace-bonding actually was. Without the books, this would be unverifiable: something that is known, but that the world at large hasn't recorded as known. With the books, there is verifiable knowledge to be had. It's not very much, though, and a merger into a more general discussion may indeed be appropriate unless further sources come to light discussing this subject in depth. (I haven't found any.) Uncle G (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It also looks like there's some history to the topic that can be scrounged up. Pournelle wrote a blurb about it in the context of shifting expectations in the convention environment circa 1980, in an editorial passage in the 1982 Nebula Award Stories Sixteen. There are doubtless also considerable references in early 1980s fanzines for anyone with the wherewithal to track down such obscure materials. Finally, there's at least some reference to the practice in several books on ceremonial paganism, showing context outside the convention scene. I'm already hunting down elusive titles for a couple other articles, so I can't really be the one to fully source this, but it's certainly a practice with some currency. Serpent's Choice (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Building Services Architect

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

Unreferenced, possibly unencyclop)edic.. Is little more than a large dictionary definition. Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should have preferably put a PROD on this. It would have been procedurally deleted by now. If there are no new comments, I'll leave it to the closing admin's discretion. Generally if consensus is not reached, articles will be closed as default to 'keep'. But if there have been no comments at all, there is no consensus to measure, so a deletion, or a move to another architecture related article would also probably be in order.--Kudpung (talk)
Delete. As per nom, basically an unreferenced dicdef, reads very much like original research on an unnotable topic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? Do you imagine that people are able to build massive buildings without writing about the design of aircon, lifts (elevators), power, water &c. See BTEC National Construction, Building Services Engineering..., for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Building services engineering is a significant professional discipline which is required for all large buildings. The nomination seems to be disruptive to the development of this new article contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing about the importance of the profession. The nomination is for a page that contains little more than a dicdef that has been languishing ~~at the bottom of the NPP list since 31 August~~at NPP for ten weeks because its creator cant't be bothered to come back and expand it, and no other editors, and nobody here on this AfD knows what to do with it. The article does not assert sufficient importance for its existence. If it had been a PROD, it would have been long gone already. The nomination is perfectly justified because it gives you an opportunity to challenge it, but two relistings here, one keep, and one delete, have demonstrated that nobody cares either way.--Kudpung (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elnec

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

The domain is spam, and also promoting company products, Advertising. Removed PROD. WuhWuzDat 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I wouldn't go so far as to call it spam, but I'm not seeing much in the way of reliable sources either. I'd lean slightly toward delete but maybe someone in the field can shed some more light. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please consider also that products of the company are sold in the US and UK under different brand names - as "Dataman" and "B&K Precision" - so brand "Elnec" may not be well known there, but for sure is present. Elnec products are used by worldwide Electronics manufacturetrs as Foxcon, Samsung, Acer, etc. Products are also recommended by many chip producers:*Microchip reference, STMicroelectronics reference eg., EM microelectronics reference, XILINX reference, etc. - (may not good references for the article). Pssstpssst (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Trip Records

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

no evidence that this company/record labol is notablie Oo7565 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my entry at Talk:Bad_Trip_Records#September_2010 re: WP:FAILN, WP:N question on interpretation of "trivial mention", and WP:USEFUL - Note COI(s) in my Userpage! - bonze blayk (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC) - REV bonze blayk (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article cites no non-trivial reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the current stub is unsourced, given the ongoing relationship of the label to the catalog of Angry Samoans, one of the seminal bands from the history of punk, there is no reason to believe that sources do not exist or will not emerge if the article is allowed to stand and develop. Label predates the explosion of the internet, which is why a Google search may well be fruitless, but there is probably vintage printed sourcing out there in the long grass. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where is the third party coverage? [4]. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update - added references to Bad Trip releases from Robert Christgau's Record Guide; see scans at http://www.badtriprecords.biz/gif/Christgau_Record_Guide.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonze blayk (talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plasti-Clad

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

Restored after my speedy deletion, with a claim that the review in Gear Diary supports the article.. I consider that review to be clearly a promotional write up. The leading contractor claim turns out to be a contract for $23,000, according to the ref. given. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete reads a bit too much like a brochure. It's possible the company that makes this thing may be notable, they do have some big-name clients, but there too sourcing would likely be a significant problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gear Diary is not citeable. Unless there exists other proper and notable references, this needs to go. --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tape Wrangler

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

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

This stub is an article about one minor brand of tape dispenser. It seems to be promotional and is not really a noteworthy subject. There is an article about the general subject of tape dispensers but I would not want every manufacturer to list their individual products in WK. Wikipedia should not be a product listing service. Pkgx (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the sources in the article demonstrate that the topic meets the general notability guideline. As far as advertising, I'm not seeing that the article has a promotional tone. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources available are mostly press releases, nothing that looks like significant coverage to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are just press release, which don't supply an notability. Wizard191 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment This has been posted and reposted with only one editor (the author) supporting this article. Let's delete it. Pkgx (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query - are the sources from the Traverse City Record-Eagle and The Detroit News press releases? What about the product review from Hardware Retailing Magazine? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have to agree with Arbitrarily0 on this one. The sources he mentions don't look like press releases. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Traverse City article is good, but the Detroit News and Forth Worth Star articles both begin with "You can do anything with duct tape, except for getting it off the roll in a smooth, straight piece. Most of the time, the tape folds over and crinkles as you tear off a strip. A new product solves that problem. The Tape Wrangler is like a giant tape dispenser for duct tape. The tape roll fits on a spool and pulls off across a cutting blade that keeps the cuts neat and...", so it appears to be a reprint from somewhere. I don't have access to the full text, so perhaps they diverge as they continue, but they read like a press blurb floated to newspapers. The Hardware Retailers magazine is "the hardware and home improvement industry’s leading trade publication," and is sent free to members of the North American Hardware Retailers Association, basically a vehicle for advertisers to target hardware retailer with some fluff and feel good pieces, and I don't think these three really go to establish notability in the generals sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit News article has a interesting tone (such as starting with a pronoun) for attention-grabbing, but I don't this should necessarily disqualify it is a reliable source. It's my guess that the Forth Worth Star article, printed one week later, is a duplication of the Detroit News article. While I don't know much about Hardware Retailing magazine, the title is "Duct tape dispenser.(SPRING PRODUCT PREVIEW)", making me think it's not a press release, but a product preview by some entity called "Spring". Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that you have access to the full article in Detroit News, yes? Does it have a byline, such as AP or Reuters? That would be the usual way a reprint between two regional papers would work. As for the 'spring product review' my assumption is that spring refers to the season, but again, I couldn't say without full access to the text of the article. I'm very leerly of using snippets to assess notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a biker I only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should I use WD40. If it does move and it shouldn't I use duct tape. From what I can see of the topic it seems to be a fairly unique product - I don't know of any other duct tape dispensers and I work in theatres sometimes where we use miles of the stuff. That's OR/POV of course, so take it for what it's worth. Reading the listed sources it does seem to me to be a notable product and I would happily support it being kept on that basis. I do think the article would be better rewritten to feature the company rather than one of its range of products. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mebbe across the pond duct tape is better, but here you'd use gaffer's tape and PB Blaster--WD40's a good cleaner but not much else. (' --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really, I don't see notability here. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without evidence that the Detroit News coverage is a press release reprint, assuming it is would be original research. That gives two reliable and independent news sources covering the product, which makes it notable under WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, who's read the entire article in the Detroit News? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite (US band)

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

Delete due to lack of notability. CSD removed by an editor claiming the band indicates notability based on a "specific association with Mitch Allan". While Allan is notable, WP:BAND only supports notability when a band "contains two or more independently notable musicians". This a new band, released debut EP July 2010 and performed together for the first time in August 2010. I do not see where the band meets any criteria of WP:BAND. Additionally, the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The band contains members of other notable bands. Whether or not this is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC, it makes it a non-starter as far as speedy deletion is concerned. Given that Allan's notability does not appear to be in doubt (despite the lack of sourcing), why would we want to delete this rather than at least merge it to the Mitch Allan article? --Michig (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitch Allan seems to be the smart choice, with no prejudice against splitting it back out when and if they do anything notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 05:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. Clearly, deletion is not merited here, and AFD is not the venue to suggest merging—that can be taken to the article's talk page. — ξ ^xplicit 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal (EP)

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

WP:CRYSTAL violation in the form of a WP:HAMMER violation. No announced tracklist. Not enough information available to produce a useful article. —Kww(talk) 05:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - According to hammer it passes as the Title has been confirmed with a set release now available. Some will argue both tracklisting and Title, but Hammer does not specifically state both or only one. That aside information became only available today, in one day do you honestly not think there is not alot of information already available? Also, please see WP:GNG. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is not a mandate. We are not under any obligation to have an article on everything that two sources can be scraped together for. When looking at WP:MUSIC for the guideline on when to include unreleased material, it reserves it for "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." What makes this fairly run-of-the-mill EP by a run-of-the-mill artist part of that "very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects"? —Kww(talk) 15:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why does wikipedia try to delete everything? its good article, keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.154.195 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well written, plenty of sources, and no speculation, thus certainly not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I also note how silly it is to nominate this for deletion, given the former sentence. It's one thing to want to delete some album planned to be released in 2015 by some local band, it's quite another thing to want to delete well written articles soon-to-be-released-albums/EPs/singles from top selling artists out of some weird sense that articles can't exists until some arbitrary deadline (situated at most in a few days from now) hasn't been reached yet. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sure the article is a little premature, but the deletion nomination is an incorrect use of WP:CRYSTAL which applies to unverified and speculative events that might happen at some unknown time in the future. Just because something is in the near-future does not mean that saying so is pure speculation, when third-party sources have confirmed the upcoming event. All this article really needs is a cover image, otherwise it's for real. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per everything people have said above. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 15:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am fed up of seeing these all over the damn place. As previously stated, the article is well-written, well sourced and is going to be released. Half of the time, these deletion discussion get resolved just under a week before it has to go back up. No reason for it to be deleted. It's just silly. Adam 94 (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I am equivalently fed up with editors that haven't got the patience to wait for something to be real before writing the article. There's no reason to have articles on unreleased singles, albums, or EPs, except, as WP:MUSIC states, a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects. Nothing qualifies this EP to be considered in that select group.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the guideline cited by Kww above has non-specific terms that allow flexibility, including "very", "small", "exceptionally", and "high profile." I'm not totally sure who has the burden of proof here, but it might be the nominator given some of the equally flexible guidelines at WP:ATA. If you think this EP is not "high-profile" enough (for example), it would help this nomination to explain why. But in any case, the original nomination is still off-base altogether because the article does not violate the two guidelines mentioned specifically at that point: WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. And so what if it's too early for an album article? Delete now and it will just be recreated later, and who is forcing you to read it in the meantime? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:MUSIC is responsible for explaining how to apply policies to its topic area. It violates WP:CRYSTAL as explained by WP:MUSIC. The burden of proof is always on the people wanting to include material, and never on those wishing to remove it. You might want to illustrate some way that this EP is exceptionally high-profile. That would go a long way towards meeting WP:MUSIC.—Kww(talk) 18:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's high profile enough to warrant an article only a month before its release IMO. –Chase (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets ask, does it pass WP:MUSIC?

"Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources." Done Title and release confirmed by dozens of sources and Kesha and label.
Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." Done Same thing as above, its confirmed, i wrote it and its notable, in less then 24 hours i have more information then most albums get. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you didn't bother to read the part about this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. Anything can pass part of a guideline. How does this article stack up against that part of the guideline?—Kww(talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it your taking that out of context, it actually says "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." According to this, the only thing were missing is tracklisting, defensibly not a Chrystal violation. And that paragraph is more so referring to an album years/ months away, not a month away. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Advance" is "advance", be it years, months, or weeks. What you are missing is being an "exceptionally high-profile project": there's no reason to have an advance article on this at all, even if it had a tracklisting.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, just silently walk away. There's no reason to return to an article that "shouldn't exist". Anyways, an alternative might be to place it in the Article Incubator, so certain people are appeased. Adam 94 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect, there is no way this should be deleted outright but yes its not quite notable yet. if one of its singles had charted or if we have a tracklisting i'd be screaming keep. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's a fair amount of coverage at the moment, and there should be more closer to the album's release in a month. –Chase (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I don't think WP:NALBUM is an issue here, seeing as we already have the title and release date confirmed. –Chase (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's plenty of sources and the album was confirmed. - Nickyp88 —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I don't think this article should be deleted since the album is announced and also, it is confirmed that it will be releases on November 22, 2010. MacarangaChic (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What everybody else said. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 09:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Article has plenty of reliable sources to pass the GNG. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Kww easily could add a "merge in" Kesha notice instead. Pass NAlbum, Hammer, Crystal, and other polices. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 18:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Systementalism

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

Appears to be original research ttonyb (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research/personal essay, no sources. JIP | Talk 06:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced personal essay page. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination: ...concept that the meaning of life can be simplified to the ensured survival of the human species. The term itself can be defined as "the mental awareness (of the natural evolutionary system that operates everything in existence) necessary to ensure human survival." I must be an anti-systementalist. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal essay on a non-notable neologism without any reliable sources. First Light (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Quoting the article: There is no published material as of yet that elaborates on the concept of systementalism as it is in it's early stages of development... Carrite (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent Bastard

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

Fails WP:RS (only source is a wiki site for TV trivia) and appears to be original research. Google search did not give any corroborating sources. The Interior (Talk) 05:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It seems someone has mistaken Wikipedia for TV Tropes. Blatant OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strikes of strong original research as well. --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article's creator, User:UberMan5000 has left what seems to be a weak delete comment on Talk:Magnificent Bastard. The Interior (Talk) 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Be rid of the thing" sounds more like a G7 to me. It qualifies, so I tagged it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Intervarsity Choral Societies Association

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

fails WP:ORG. no references and no coverage in gnews [5]. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Comte0 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are not yet strong, but it has a reasonable history and it could be improved. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it currently contains one reference. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust, Knowledge & Opportunity

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

No confirmed release date, no tracklist, no cover, no information beyond a trivial stub. WP:CRYSTAL violation. Normally I'd try redirecting, but it isn't clear to me exactly where a redirect would point. —Kww(talk) 03:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in this case there is definitely not enough information available to warrant an album article. It appears that the album is really in production but that fact can be added to the artists' biography pages for the time being. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Umeå#Culture. (non-admin closure) ⅊™ 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umeå hardcore

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

fails WP:GNG. uncited and possibly original research. hardly anything in gnews [6]. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge There are probably some Swedish sources out there, it's just that no one's bothered to reference them. While the article hasn't enough to stand on its own two feet, it may well be worth tying some of this in with the Umea#Culture page. (AbrahamCat (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Needs sourcing. Scandinavia was indeed a hotbed of hardcore punk. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Umeå#Culture per User:AbrahamCat. JIP | Talk 05:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Fortnum

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG Artiquities (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at present. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof. Little to be found of general notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I found a little biographical information about this artist/researcher: spacefor10.org.uk, Macmillan. However, her book Contemporary British Women Artists: In Their Own Words has received reviews in The Times, southlondonwomenartists, britannica.com. You can find plenty of coverage at WorldCat and Google Books, see for example Interpreting visual culture: explorations in the hermeneutics of the visual. I can imagine an informative article about this artist and her activities. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other than an interesting artist [7], her book - mentioned above - Contemporary British Women Artists: In Their Own Words is well respected. In it she outlines the current situation with regard to women artists' status in the UK. Other outcomes: lectures at New Hall, Cambridge University, UK Friends of the National Museum Women in the Arts, Washington DC; debate during an exhibition of the photographic portraits of the artists at the ArtSpace, Camberwell College, UAL, with the writers Paula Smithard and Reina Lewis; 4 x 10 min interviews with artists (Anya Gallaccio, Tacita Dean, Sonia Boyce and Paula Rego), BBC Radio 4, Women's Hour. Reviews: Rachel Campbell-Johnson, The Times, December 20, 2006; State of Art, Issue 8, winter, 2006 (authored article); I-D Magazine February 2007; Cate Elwes, Contemporary Magazine, Issue 90, 2007; Paula Smithard, Journal of Visual Art Practice [8]. She is an important academic [9], having started the Part-Time BA in Fine Art Course at Wimbledon College of Art, London, and currently running the MA in Fine Art at Camberwell College of Art, London. She is also a well respected curator having curated the inaugural exhibition at Gasworks, Dad, [10] with a project coming up at The Museum of Childhood in 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Burnett (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fortnum is a well respected academic, curator, writer and artist. Admittedly, she is not the latest fashionable LA numbskull. Rather, the subject of this entry has instead devoted her life to thoughtful, selfless and interesting interventions, often on behalf of other more famous artists. Even the suggestion that she be deleted, given some of the achievements listed (such as starting and running degree courses at some of the world's most prestigious art colleges) is profoundly depressing. While Pokemon is of course an engaging art/educational phenomena, are we really saying that the editors of the world's greatest encyclopaedia can devote literally dozens of separate lengthy articles to Pokemon, while deleting tiny stubs about respected thinkers? I think we need to raise our game! PaulGauguin (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WP:GNG isn't the right set of criteria here, we should consider WP:ARTIST or WP:ACADEMIC. Unfortunately, she doesn't make the cut in either of those categories. Her 1996 book has 85 citations, but none of her other works have citations in double figures. — Fly by Night (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both WP:ARTIST and WP:ACADEMIC are clear that WP:N is sufficient to establish notability, even if the additional criteria are not met. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Several dozen hits at Google Books [11] seem to validate that she is notable enough as an art world figure. The article needs some serious work, however.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found at WorldCat, Google books, etc. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney City Trash

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

Australian country band, apparently written by one of the band members. Despite the giant number of G-hits I can't find any evidence of them hitting any charts. The once sourced news article alone doesn't seem to be sufficient to make this band pass notability. -WarthogDemon 02:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability per WP:MUSIC. As an aside, the Aussie country singles charts are WP:BADCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Comte0 (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Care will need to be taken in the article to discuss the various possible meanings, but they are not distinct enough to prevent a single article. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passive drinking

Passive drinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (<include<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popupsdev.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/recent2.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>only>View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable. Unfocused article with two sources referring to injuries caused by intoxicated people, two sources referring (one in clear jest) to the possibility of getting drunk through the air and one source (#3) that simply does not mention the topic at all, but is a set-up for the rant in the next source (#4). Buttload of "sources" on talk page are of no help. SummerPhD (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GNG. The term has real-world substantial coverage: see some of the Google books results for example. The article has problems but that is not a reason to delete, and at least two references are germane. I would be happy with a suitable merge target but found none. --Cyclopia^talk 13:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Which meaning are you seeing as a notable topic? The search you list gives 7 visible results on the first page covering at least 4 distinct meanings and one or two cases where "passive drinking" is merely two words that happen to have occurred in sequence. Is "passive drinking" a term to refer to the societal costs associated with alcohol use/abuse? Is it a reference to those individuals harmed by others' drinking? Is it the concept of potentially getting drunk from alcohol vapors? Is it a literary device referring to the feeling from being in a bar where others are drinking? I don't see a coherent topic here. - 70.91.21.146 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That the expression has multiple used meanings, if anything, adds up to notability, does not reduce it. It simply means that the subject is more complicated than being a single topic. Anyway most sources refer to the meaning of societal costs associated with alcohol use/abuse. Here is a paper on passive drinking and another discussing exactly the very concept of "passive drinking" as a useful metaphor. This book and this other book cite the term in the same context. At least we can establish that this meaning of the expression "passive drinking" is highly notable (multiple academic sources). --Cyclopia ^talk 13:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:GNG is exactly why I created this article, I looked it up couldn't find it and added it as this term has literally been used in governmental organizations (UK: the Department of Health of which Chief Medical Officer is Sir Liam Donaldson and the EU body EuroCare) and 4 leading news organizations, which are considered reliable sources. The CNN and The Independent references may be slightly sarcastic, The Daily Telegraph and New Scientist are not, in all the world these are considered leading news organizations, and they are using this phrase, albeit in a slightly different ways. You clearly need to learn how to use Google, and leave the wiki editing to people who will actually research their statements and use a search engine. Webhat (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If we're talking about the societal effects of alcohol abuse, the article should either be called Societal effects of alcohol abuse with a redirect from the neologism "Passive drinking" or an expansion of the existing section, Alcohol_abuse#Societal_and_economic_costs. What we have is neither a discussion of the societal costs nor a discussion of the "history" of the neologism. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." WP:Neologism. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for referencing WP:Neologism, it states: "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." This is not such a case as the Neologism exists already, and has a documented existence for over 20 years, if it gives you a hard-on to get this article deleted by all means get it deleted. However you could actually take the time to improve the article which is lacking in your opinion or merge it with another article. I hope you exercise the same due diligence when it come to articles you've created such as Pennsport (string band), Adelphia (fancies) and Greater Kensington (string band), which are all three not noteworthy and are WP:Orphan. After some investigation it also looks to me like User:Mdsummermsw and User:Mdbrownmsw, which are accounts of yours, look like Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, as a self proclaimed Senior Editor you should certainly have known this and reported it yourself, so I have submitted a report on this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SummerPhD. Webhat (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webhat: If you take issue with articles I've created, this is not the place to discuss them. Take them to the individual articles. Your accusation of sock puppetry (already disposed of at SPI) also does not belong here. As for my being a "self proclaimed Senior Editor", you will find that yes, I am one of the thousands of editors displaying one of the Wikipedia:Service awards, as I am quite proud of the more than one dozen edits I have made. Having read that page so carefully, I would have assumed you would have figured out that nothing "gives me a hard-on". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - SummerPhD, either you didn't read my comment above, or I must stop assuming good faith. I linked a paper exactly about the "term or concept", as required by WP:NEOLOGISM. From the abstract of that paper: This article reflects on UK Chief Medical Officer's (CMO) 2009 announcement that alcohol abuse should be understood as a problem of 'passive drinking'. This was an attempt to instrumentally problematise drinking drawing on the successful campaign against 'passive smoking'. . It is clear that there is discussion about the term per se, and that it's not a mere occasional synonim. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia: Your comment, above, stating that the term referring to several different topics makes the term, as a topic, notable is rather confusing. In effect, then, it is not a term in those sources. "Horse" as a term is not notable, despite its numerous meanings. The meanings are notable. We have Equus, Horse (musician), Horse (geology), Horse (helicopter), etc. We do not have Horse (term). That the UK Chief Medical Officer used a term does not, IMO, make the fairly rare term "passive drinking" the "accepted short-hand term" for the societal costs of alcohol. In fact, the existence of numerous meanings for a phrase discredits the notion. Rather, the recent uses of the neologism seem to indicate that the 20 year old usage hasn't caught on. From what I see, the overwhelming majority of sources on the societal effects of alcohol abuse are ignorant of the purportedly "accepted short-hand term". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you still refuse to acknowledge that there are sources on the terminology per se, as proved by the reference above, and you dodge the fact that, even if a majority of sources don't use an expression, the fact that the expression is cited in books and discussed in papers makes it notable under our criteria. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)--Cyclopia ^talk 11:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yuri Rutman

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

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

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

Victoria University Rowing Club

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

fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit [12]. seems like no media outlet outside the university is interested in this club. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falling sand game

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

Was deleted previously, this article is just a list of games that fail WP:NOTABLE. At the very least, it should be renamed as the name hints of just one game. Anonymax (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no indication that an article by this title has ever been deleted before. This particular article has been been in existence for over a year with over 100 individual edits from various users, indicating that there is a consensus among those who have looked at the article that it be kept. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and move to Falling Sand ("game" isn't neccessary, as per precedent, the entry for RTS games is at Real-time strategy and not "Real-time strategy games"). As Maramusine has noted, there are sources for the games, plenty of articles featuring the genre. As for the question of whether there is enough content out there to adequately fill up the entry, I think there is, it just requires a bit of digging and cleanup. --Hongkongresident (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wit (software)

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

The subject lacks notability: there are no nontrivial independent mentions of this software Malatinszky (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Advertising for more back office "project management" software. One of many, this makes no case that this product has historical, technical, or cultural significance. Note also that many Google hits for the phrase are actually about something called "Web Idea Tree", which would appear to be unrelated. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avaz Shoyusupov

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Piecha

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

This bio of a journalist has been PRODded twice for notability concerns and contested. It came to my attention because a user has been replacing the content [13] (user claims this is still the same person), however I can't find biographical coverage that would establish notability for any version of the article. January (Cassandra 73) ^talk 16:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for sources and come up empty handed. The sources already cited have either rotted away or contain minimal information. I agree with the nominator. There's no way to write a verifiable biography here. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing term

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there are no sources cited. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Neutral for the time being. The concept of a "marketing term" probably is capable of expansion, and in fact seems to be in such routine use that I'm a bit stymied to find sources that discuss "marketing term" in a general way. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Against. The term is encyclopedic and should be expanded. Should be marked as a stub to encourage expansion. --Treekids (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been marked as a stub since 2008, and has not been expanded beyond a definition. If you would care to undertake the sourced expansion of the article now go right ahead. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've hit the same problem as Ihcoyc. The problem is that the ordinary meaning of "marketing term" is an item of jargon terminology used in the field of marketing. But that isn't what this article claims to be about. As far as I can tell (at any rate), this article claims to be about the nonce words and phrases that people offhandedly, and disparagingly, refer to as "marketing terms". Although there are sources that mention ordinary marketing terminology/jargon, mostly simply glossaries of the same, I have yet to find a source that documents what this article purports to be about. I suspect that this name is itself a "marketing term" for what is more usually called marketing speak or a buzzword. But I cannot be sure. The article's creator has given very little context to go on in the article, zero sources, and zero further explanation above in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a marketing degree, and honestly don't understand what the definition of "marketing term" means here. When I read the first sentence, I though it meant a brand name, which is also supported by the claims that it could be copyrighted (at least the logo) and trademarked. In this case, the correct term is brand name. Another alternative is, as Uncle G states, that it is a buzzword. However, buzzwords are not normally trademarked or copyrighted. Could it be slogan that is meant? Then again, brand names, buzzwords and slogans are all too short to be copyrighted (they can only be registered as trademarks). "Marketing term" could also mean something akin to greenwashing (a word used to describe marketing strategies), but that is again not copyrightable or trademarkable. Unless someone can explain what the term means, please delete it as WP:OR or even WP:HOAX. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at it, I thought it meant "slogan" or "buzzword." Not sufficiently used to justify a redirect. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a dictionary or glossary. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources, also per WP:DICTIONARY. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Structured product. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interest rate-linked note

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

No sources cited, none found in search. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Merge - I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources (only potential sources I found were from SmithBarney & CitiBank). Based on my limited knowledge, it seems like this might be better suited being added and merged with the Structured Product wiki page. It's also worth noting that there are wiki pages for related terms: credit-linked note & equity-linked note.--Artlovesyou (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Structured product. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Shong

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

Nominated based on notability per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue --ZhongHan (Email) 06:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable atleast on the lowest level of notability requirement here on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, no explanation of which notability criterion is being met. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I did add a reference but it's just talking about her measurements and dogs. It is in-depth, but I don't consider that encyclopaedic. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her listed accomplishments don't add up to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no extensive coverage. fails WP:BIO. [14] LibStar (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO, not very much significant coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce And The Boys

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

Nominated per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue, only assertion of notability is unreferenced. --ZhongHan (Email) 06:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a source for the competition win (warning: annoying music on that webpage); so there is at least a reference for the assertion of notability. As for whether to delete or keep, I'm sitting on the fence for now. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 gnews hits does not cut it. [15]. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Amini

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps someone might add citations found through the Find sources above. Some are short verifications while others are a bit more significant: Gazette, Los Angeles Times, Arab American News, Citylife, Persianesque Magazine, Pars Times, some books, etc... Looks to be enough available to bring this article into line. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Connell (DJ)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NovoLogic.com

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

Spam article created by firm's publicist ("media specialist" -- see [16]). No evidence the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Notable clients does not make a company notable. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ....an online local marketing, communications, consulting, training, Elearning and interactive agency that provides services to its clients in the areas of digital advertising, content creation, media buying, strategic counsel, analytics, technology and user experience, and if you are feeling somewhat glassy eyed you are not alone. References supplied are to blogs or announcements of product. No relevant Google News archive hits. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Effectively no coverage, creator's an SPA. Can't establish notability. (Just poking around, it looks like he just built the page in his userspace. Creator also mentioned "...the article I was building for Aretta Communications...". Spam spam spam.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While the "keep" !voters make a good case that he meets WP:CREATIVE, I can't ignore the lack or reliable sources. Furthermore, aside from referring to him in the past tense, there's no mention of whether or not he's still alive so this article may be a BLP. A reliable source showing his date of death would be useful. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Smith

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

No sources except IMDB, no real notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject clearly satisfies #3 of WP:CREATIVE. While IMDB is not a reliable source for biographical content, it is an accurate source for verifying what projects an animator like Hank Smith has been involved with. These credits are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America and the Motion Picture Association of America and are therefore highly accurate and reliable. The imdb list of credits for Hank Smith as an animator is both long and impressive.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources. Where are they? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above. Imdb is a reliable enough a source to establish #3 of WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't support a whole article with one source. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a "one source tag"; which would have been a better solution than dragging this through an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per 4meter4 Imbd does show what projects the person has been in and in this case shows he passes the third criteria of the WP:CREATIVE. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no reliable sources providing significant coverage about this individual. With respect to his work as documented by IMDB, I don't dispute that he did those things. However a long list of work indicates that he was an employed, and likely competent animator, but does not speak to notability. There is no indication of any awards. There is no indication that he had a significant role int he creation of any of the works. The credits for animators is quote long in any series. For examplle, he is one of 32 (if I count correctly) animators employed in the production of "The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show", and 1 of seven animators in the animation department for "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown". -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you did not include in your count was the sheer volume of this man's work... representing a 26-year career with the bulk of it at a time when animated films were hand-drawn cell by cell by teams. Heck, even early Disney works were drawn by teams of animators. So what? WP:CREATIVE recognizes that being part of a creative team is acceptable to Wikipedia, and WP:ENT recognizes that being prolific can also be notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although this person worked on several notable animation projects, his jobs on those projects does not appear to have ranked high enough to make him notable for them. Additional sources would be necessary to establish his notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs to be remembered that his verifiable and quite prolific career spanned from pre-internet 1960 all the way through 1986... a time when computerized animation was in its infancy. His 26-year career represents many many thousands of hours hand-drawing animation cells... much gruntwork to entertain many millions of children over a many years period... and little fame for his work beyond the works themselves being eminently sourcable as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per this Google Books search: [17]. I am satisfied that his notability is confirmed. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Which of those search results is a source that treats this person in some detail. All I see are animation credits. That isn't in dispute. -- Whpq (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While meeting the WP:GNG would be excellent, we still need to consider that his lengthy career in animation can be well and easily verified in numerous reliable sources, thus confirming that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment... and due to the wide coverage of his works, it can also be determined that this person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are making assumptions based on him being listed as an animator. That verifies he worked on the project but does not provide any information to substantiate the assertions you've made. He may very well be a great animator but I have yet to see one source actually cover him. Just credit lists. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think Schmidt is making any assumptions. He's merely pointed out that Smith adequately meets the guidelines at #3 WP:MUSIC by virtue of his involvement in a lengthy number of notable animated films and television series. An animator who has animated for multiple important shows is notable. That's the policy.4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - He is one of many animators in an animation team working on the material. There is no indication that he was the lead animator or director or playing any other sort of significant role in shaping the works so being solely prolific isn't a very good reason. If we only go by prolific, people with a long string of bit parts in movies would qualify. Writers who churn out a guge volume of work that nobody cares to critically review would qualify. Eseentially any creative professional with a large body of work would qualify. What is missing here is some indicaitont hat this individual is more than just an animator who has gotten a string of jobs. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to express a personal mandate that this individual has to meet the GNG in order to be notable, and that is simply not the case... not in guideline nor in policy. If you wish to use WP:WAX arguments, Wikipedia recognizes that one need not be MVP to be seen as part of a notable baseball team, and one need not be the lead singer to be seen as notable to a major band. And so to address your own WP:WAX example, this article is not about an uknown writer who cranks out reams of non-notable, unreviewed pap... so we might best stay on topic, shall we. Per guideline, we have an individual who has made prolific, repeat PROLIFIC contributions to a field of entertainment. Per guideline, we have an individual who, as yes... part of a team... was involved in co-creating, multiples of multiples of significant or well-known works and collective bodies of work, works that have themselves been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. And as dismissive as it is to say he has just "gotten a string of jobs" as if it were a haphazzard handful, that "string" turns out to be multiples of multiples of notable animated films and multiples of multiples of notable animated television series over a 26-year-long career that ended way back in pre-internet 1986. A mere string of jobs? Hardly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's done enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NextStep ReUse

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

Asserts notability, but I do not see evidence that it passes WP:CORP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt - Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:CORP notability criteria, which is why I stuck a {{Db-inc}} on it … given that it has been deleted twice already (G12 and A3), perhaps it should be salted? The author should have used (and in the future, should use) a sandbox/sub-page to add some WP:RS (should any exist) and then move it into article space. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{02:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Weak keep: Salting, at least, would seem inappropriate since there actually are significant sources for this charity. Google News archives search turns up dozens of stories, mainly in the local Eugene Register Guard[18], but there is national coverage as well: the CBS national news program The Early Show broadcast a profile on the organization and its founder, Lorraine Kerwood, on March 7, 2008 {see "Woman With Autism Heads Computer Recycler: Turns Talents For Fixing Them Into Green Service For Needy" and "Autistic Woman Keeps Giving" (the latter a video)}; she's also mentioned in other local and non-local media news stories, some relating to her winning a "Volvo for Life" public service award in 2008: New York Times[19], Minneapolis Star-Tribune[20], YES! Magazine[21], People magazine[22]. I note that an attempted article about Lorraine Kerwood was evidently speedy-deleted earlier today. I'd be inclined to think that the sources indicate enough notability to support an article about the charity and its founder, under one or the other title.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under its name nextstep recycling it gets coverage. [23]. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grockle

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

Short dictionary definition of slang terms from south west England; prod removed by author of article GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 23:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Lambiam 06:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Merge~~ to Grock from whom the word is thought to be derived. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Oxford Dictionaries the word has a completely different origin,^[1] so this merge us perhaps not really a good idea. --Lambiam 03:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. As the word's origin is disputed/uncertain and has been the subject of papers such as this, the matter is therefore notable and so the article should be kept. I shall amend my summary accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still just essentially a dictionary definition. Almost all words in the English language have an entry in etymological dictionaries, and many have a disputed or uncertain origin about which something has been written, such as "spiffy". If that by itself is sufficient reason for keeping, then our "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy becomes meaningless. --Lambiam 06:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ "What is the origin of the word 'grockle'?". Oxford Dictionaries.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lambiam. It reads just like a dictionary definition, no more no less, and even starts with Definition. It's a grockle just passing through Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, etc. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grockle as a perfectly good job is already been done by Wiktionary. (AbrahamCat (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Per WP:DICTIONARY. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. ∙:∙:.:pepper :.:∙:∙ 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "What is the origin of the word 'grockle'?". Oxford Dictionaries.

[1]