Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 16

< 15 December	17 December >

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 delete. Courcelles 23:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Santana Morales

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

Notability concerns. References are singular listings of the person and their title, in one case primary, there's essentially no secondary coverage of this engineer, and I don't believe the committees in question rise to demonstrating inherent notability themselves. Of course, additional sources, as always, are welcome. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per lack of ability to source it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tribune Digital

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

Not notable. The article Tribune Company makes a lot of claims about Tribune Digital but none of these are cited. Marcus Qwertyus 22:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find coverage about key appointments in this division of the Tribune company such as this, and I can find press releases. What I cannot find is significant coverage in reliable sources to establish this as a notable division within the company. The current article is largely a link repository in violation WP:DIRECTORY. There is no content worth merging. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agrippa Ndongwe

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

This page failes WP:NOTE and WP:PROMOTION --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 22:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McDonald

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

Insufficiently notable person. There are a lot of claims of importance in this article (respected lawyer, founder of charities, political activist), and I don't doubt that any of it is true, but I doubt that collectively they add up to notability. The strongest claim to notability here is unsuccessfully running for Treasurer of the Labour Party, which did receive some coverage from third party sources: [1],[2],[3]. But failed political candidates aren't automatically notable, and I can't find much coverage in reliable sources apart from that. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Redirect to Wantage (UK Parliament constituency) or Merge to Labour party proxy and undeclared donations (2007). He did get some attention by standing against the Labour Party Treasurer in 2007 following the proxy donation disaster, but that's not really notable beyond this story. The rest of the article looks like little more than a reprint of a parliamentary candidate's autobiography, which isn't what Wikipedia artiles are for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Most of the article describes his education and his practice as a barrister (=NN). We then briefly hear that he failed to get elected WP:POLITICIAN makes it clear that makes him NN. I do not favour redirecting or merging, becasue this NN bio-article can reappear too easily. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Karam

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

No indication that this topic is notable, absolute lack of third-party coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve through normal editing. Notability guideline WP:MUSICBIO says that a musician is assumed to be notable if a member of 2 or more notable ensembles. This person has been a member of three notable groups. The article needs better references but should not be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The two bands of his aren't notable. One of them is up for CSD right now, the other one is questionable at best. If the other one is CSD'd (or AfD'd) that makes this guy easily fail MUSICBIO. — Timneu22 · talk 22:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator said "absolute lack of third party coverage". I see a description of his style in the Village Voice, a mention in the Rolling Stone, many other newspaper mentions of varying quality, foreign language newspaper coverage, and mention in a variety of books and magazines. As long as articles about those three bands stands, this musician should be presumed to be notable per the clear language in the guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no such information. — Timneu22 · talk 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." WP:BEFORE Francis Bond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

- http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-04-23/music/music/ "The Locust's songs don't have hooks in the conventional sense; even Joey Karam's keyboards provide insectoid creepiness rather than melodic definition."
- http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/rage-singer-zack-de-la-rocha-debuts-new-band-20100719 "Throughout the show, Karam made his bank of vintage keyboards sound uncannily like a guitar, a neat inversion of Rage axman Tom Morello's trademark guitar-as-synth trick."
- Looks like independent coverage to me. Keep --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SarekOfVulcan. This is case of failure to do background work before nomination. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it? Still no refs in the article. — Timneu22 · talk 20:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep based on sources found. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian Awards

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

Apparent self-promotion/WP:COI by awards founder. Google news search on "The Asian Awards" shows no hits for this particular award. Some claims of notability appear to be either based on unreliable sources (primary, blogs) or misconstrued (claim of Times Square "broadcast" was driven by PR NewsWire, which essentially makes it self-published) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the following links on the web associated with The Asian Awards. Many are very notable and from credible sources. Please advise.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101028/jsp/sports/story_13110255.jsp http://gulfnews.com/sport/cricket/tendulkar-on-why-the-dream-chase-is-still-important-1.703747 http://www.crichotline.com/sachin-tendulkar-gets-peoples-choice-award-in-asian-awards-in-uk/ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sachin-tendulkar-gets-lebara-peoples-choice-award/703380/ http://www.cricinfo.com/t20champions2010/content/image/483691.html?page=1&cmp=viral_image http://www.prlog.org/10990909-lord-coe-ar-rahman-sachin-tendulkar-vips-at-the-asian-awards-2010.html http://wallpapers123.blogspot.com/2010/10/sachin-tendulkar-at-asian-awards.html http://aboutsachintendulkar.blogspot.com/2010/10/sachin-honoured-at-asian-awards.html http://www.deccanherald.com/content/108029/tendulkar-gets-peoples-choice-award.html http://cricket.yahoo.com/cricket/news/article?id=item/2.0/-/story/cricket.yahoonews.com/tendulkar-gets-peoples-choice-award-asian-awards-uk-20101027/ http://cricket.ndtv.com/gallerydetails.aspx?id=8467&category=SPORTS http://www.cricbytes.com/cricket-news/sachin-tendulkar-gets-peoples-choice-award-in-asian-awards-in-uk/ http://blog.mp3hava.com/sachin-tendulkar-awarded-by-peoples-choice-award-in-asian-awards-in-uk-tendulkar-gets-peoples-choice-award-in-asian-awards-in-uk-rahman-niigaam-and-sachin-tendulkar-at-the-asian-awards-2010-b/2010 http://www.24dunia.com/english-news/cricket-news/showgroup/7871812.html http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/tendulkar-gets-peoples-choice-award-in-asian-awards-in-uk/172220 http://www.flashnews4u.com/2010/10/asian-awards-2010sachin-tendulkar-gotpeoples-choiceaward-in-uksee-the-list/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/offshorefinance/8092229/Celebrities-raise-over-100000-for-Save-the-Children-at-Asian-Awards-launch.html http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/celebrities-raise-over-100-000-for-save-the-children-at-asian-awards-launch-tele-e75b35e603c7.html?x=0 http://cricket.yahoo.com/photos/Tendulkar-awarded-in-UK_12881935611881#4 http://soccernews.bigsoccer.com/article/087scFeaw46P5?q=Sachin+Tendulkar http://filminews.net/sachin-tendulkar-awarded-by-peoples-choice-award-in-asian-awards-in-uk-tendulkar-gets-peoples-choice-award-in-asian-awards-in-uk-rahman-niigaam-and-sachin-tendulkar-at-the-asian-awards-2010-f/2010 http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/corporatenews/Sunil-Mittal-bags-Philanthropist-of-the-Year-Asian-Awards/Article1-618546.aspx http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/top-stories/Tendulkar-gets-Peoples-choice-Award-in-Asian-awards-in-UK/articleshow/6821962.cms http://www.bollyspice.com/view.php/5754-rahman-niigaan-and-sachin-tendulkar-at-the-asian-awards-2010.html http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/Sunil-Mittal-bags-Philanthropist-of-the-Year-Asian-Awards/articleshow/6821939.cms http://www.bollyspice.com/view.php/5879-bollyspice-at-the-asian-awards-2010.html http://www.mobilenewscwp.co.uk/2010/10/lebara-adds-asian-awards-sponsorship/ http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/article852641.ece http://www.asianimage.co.uk/sport/8478430.Tendulkar_wins_People_s_Choice_award/ http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/bollywood/news/a284556/yash-chopra-honoured-at-uk-asian-awards.html http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/business/127-local/25488.html http://www.isport.in/international/sachin-tendulkar-wins-lebara-peoples-choice-and-outstanding-achievement-in-sport-awards-at-the-1925 http://tellycafe.com/general-news/sachin-tendulkar-tendulkar-%E2%80%9Chonored%E2%80%9D-by-people%E2%80%99s-choice-award/ http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Sachin-Tendulkar-gets-Lebara-People--s-Choice-Award/703380/ http://www.india-cricket-live.com/india-cricket-live-tv-video-telecast-webcast/3018 http://www.indiainfoline.com/Markets/News/Sunil-Bharti-Mittal-named-Philanthropist-of-the-Year/4976930035 http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Sunil_Mittal_selected_the_Philanthropist_of_the_Year-nid-73228-cid-1.html http://www.bollyspice.com/view.php/5837-more-on-the-asian-awards.html http://www.bollyspice.com/view.php/5814-amitabh-bachchan-on-his-lifetime-achievement-award-at-uk-the-asian-awards.html http://media247.co.uk/bizasia/newsarchive/2010/10/interview_with_2.php http://www.eventmagazine.co.uk/News/MostEmailed/1035599/Lord-Coe-present-Asian-Awards-2010/ http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-greatest-gathering-of-asian-excellenceever---amitabh-bachchan-actor-105158489.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/top-stories/My-age-doesnt-worry-me-Tendulkar/articleshow/6823660.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshowpics/6826667.cms http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6822926.cms http://www.espnstar.com/home/news/detail/item521690/Tendulkar-bags-UK-award/ http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lloyds-banking-group-honours-international-asian-icons-105158474.html http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/cricket/article-23891876-kevin-pietersens-slump-is-all-in-the-mind-says-sachin-tendulkar.do http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/article852641.ece http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/society/article852580.ece http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/8478514.__100_000_raised_for_charity_at_Asian_Awards/ http://www.imdb.com/news/ni5174921/ http://www.eventmagazine.co.uk/news/rss/1035599/Lord-Coe-present-Asian-Awards-2010/ http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_player.php?page=4&id=172220 http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//101026/482/urn_publicid_ap_org315f0894ffad4e0ea9d3017cad6063e2/ <http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo/101026/482/urn_publicid_ap_org315f0894ffad4e0ea9d3017cad6063e2/> http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Sachin-Tendulkar-gets-Lebara-People--s-Choice-Award/703380 http://www.punjab2000.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2461&Itemid=2 http://media247.co.uk/bizasia/newsarchive/2010/10/interview_with_2.php http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/cricket/article-23891876-kevin-pietersens-slump-is-all-in-the-mind-says-sachin-tendulkar.do http://www.bollyspice.com/view.php/5859-yash-chopra-to-attend-the-asian-awards.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikhdirector (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources linked above. This takes the prize as the best refutation of a deletion rationale that I have ever seen. I don't have any advice for the editor who asked for it, other than to continue basing discussion on reliable sources. My unsolicited advice to the nominator is to withdraw. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eminem#Acting_career. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southpaw (film)

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

Speculative film project; severely fails WP:CRYSTAL. Apparently, it hasn't even been written yet; according to this source, somebody "is set to begin writing immediately and will reportedly turn in a draft in February. No word on a possible release date or when production may begin." Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~/Merge~~ of any sourced information to Eminem#Acting career where this is already mentioned. Per WP:TOSOON this topic does not yet have enough coverage to merit being an exception to WP:NFF and so is not ready to be an independent article. And as WP:CBALL does specifically allow discussion of future projects if sourced, we can simply redirect to where this where it is already mentioned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no; delete as way TOOSOON, and there's nothing to merge. There's supposed to be a film some day, yes, but there isn't one yet. First draft not even due until Feb. 2011, then everybody has to like it, or wait for rewrites, then casting, etc., all before any actual filming takes place. Nothing to see here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect/merge will delete the article from mainspace... and as as it is ALREADY mentioned in Eminem#Acting career, a redirect will simply send readers to the one place within these pages where it has a contextual mention. And yes, once the film is scheduled and cast and begins filming and gets coverage... then we might consider an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^What do you mean consider? Pfft. Then there WILL be an article, but I guess for now it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.184.144 (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 11:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Center (Wenatchee)

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

From what I can discern, this is a dime-a-dozen strip mall. I would also like to point out that other articles that are on the disambiguation page Gateway Center are all notable for different reasons, and none of them are actually strip malls, but rather building(s) with significance. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm just not finding anything even close to significant in terms of coverage or passing even the most liberal interpretation of WP:N.--Oakshade (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per oakshade. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability at all. Dough 48 72 17:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:GNG Admrboltz (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per [4] this is only a strip mall.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did some cleanup and found a few sources, but only about the new 14-screen theater moving in to where the Big K-mart used to be, not the complex itself. Fails to cross the notability threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wenatchee, Washington. Also, this has nothing to do with transportation, so there's no reason it should get an AfD transportation tag. ----DanTD (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This tag also applies to places, which this is. Dough 48 72 04:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Rubinstein (social historian)

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

Not finding any coverage out there for this historian. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. This nominator, as usual, has not looked very hard. On Google Scholar I find publications in the area of social history for "David Rubinstein" of 59, 48, 33, 31, 30, 26, 22, 22, 20, 20, 18...... Comments from scholars in the area would be helpful, Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Papers that the subject wrote are not coverage of the subject. Gigs (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the papers that he wrote, but the citations to those papers, i.e. other people recognising his contribution to his field. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Recognition is not coverage either. We can't write an article based on recognition. Gigs (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To my mind this is a clear keep - a well published social historian - formerly a full time academic. I think he used to be head of dept in Hull. His books (google books helps) seem enough evidence of notability and I think authors and academics may be notable via their work. (20:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC))(Msrasnw (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep This guy has written some 20 books including some very important ones - see e.g. these on education [5] He is still producing (in his 80s!) - e.g. on Quakers and the 1st World War in this month's Quaker History Journal Aa42john (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emaniel Djibril Dankawa

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

Run of the mill player for a national team that has never even qualified for the world cup. Gigs (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think someone who has played in four FIFA World Cup qualifiers is probably notable. He's apparently quite young (played for Niger's U-20 squad last year), but has already played internationally. I'm struggling to find much online press, but that's to be expected for someone who gained notability in West Africa. Jogurney (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article, those 4 games were the only games he ever played professionally. That's not very much if that's all there is, but as you point out, the lack of sourcing is an issue, so there may be more. Gigs (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played at international level, clearly notable footballer. Giant Snowman 22:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a Nigerien international, he is quite clearly notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Playing for the national team of a country of 15 million is about as far from "run of the mill" as you can get.Phil Bridger (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG as full international Zanoni (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above, though sourcing is (and will likely continue to be) an issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bible study (Christian)

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

This was nominated before, and the consensus was to keep based on the notability of the concept. But the concept exists in the cell group article - I split off the material about group Bible study there, and the material about personal Bible study to the Quiet Time article. Hence, this can be deleted, or become a disambiguation page. St Anselm (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added cell group and quiet time to the related articles section on the dab page Bible study. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - based on notable distinction between "bible study" and "cell group" (but unfortunately not based on quality of article). I guess it depends on the contexts one is familiar with, but IMHO Bible study is actually a more familiar term to many than cell group, and it covers a large, but different, umbrella of meaning. It seems from the article that cell groups imply a level of organization that Bible studies do not necessarily employ; i.e. there is a coordinated effort on the part of the church to organize their members into these groups. The cell group's article's opening statement: "The cell group is a form of church organization that is used in some Christian churches." Bible studies are not (necessarily) used to organize a church, they can be quite informal (may not even have a leader), may be intended as a form of outreach ("evangelistic bible studies"), may not be church sponsored (e.g. para-church ministries) and the participants may not all be Christians. Based on the cell group article (but I cannot vouch for it), it says cell group participants are all Christians and are a method of church organization, so they seem like distinct concepts and I do support a keep based on that, but weak, because after the split-off and merger activity it would need to be developed and supported with sources, and right now there isn't much to the article. -- Joren (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I use the phrase "Bible study" myself, but I don't think the distinction is a notable one - indeed, people often rename it and then say "Cool name group isn't a traditional Bible study group." But anyway, the major source I've added into the cell group article (Hunsicker) refers to "small groups" in the article title, and then starts by saying The “cell” concept in church structure is becoming prominent. So we have a fair bit of interchangeability. I added the comment about para-church ministries, and also included a picture of a (presumably) non-denominational Bible study on board a ship. StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the main problem I have is just that - the cell concept is about church structure. The bible study may or may not be, but the cell group definitely is (at least that's what the article said). I'm not sure it can be solved by trying to expand the definition of cell group to include all bible studies. Which raises another issue, where do our definitions come from? Right now, the cell group article's sources don't even seem to be using the term - they all say "small group" or something like that. Our definitions needs to be supported by and reflect sources that explicitly say what the term "cell group" means (this is also a deficiency in the Bible study article as well).

-- Joren (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this cut, this paste, and this paste, the project's copyright licences require keep irrespective of other concerns. If you are going to nominate content and its accompanying edit history for deletion, don't use that content. Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be possible to fix that problem with a history merge. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it wouldn't. One cannot history merge one edit history into two others. Uncle G (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My initial plan in editing was to redirect, but that got reverted. StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your next stop thereafter should have been the article's own talk page not AFD. Uncle G (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not for a redirect, surely. If we're discussing whether to replace the content with a redirect, then we're discussing deletion. And that belongs here. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, for a redirect. You have an erroneous idea of what deletion is. Redirects are not deletion. A redirect is not enacted with the deletion tool. It is enacted with the edit tool. You should know this, you enacted one with the edit tool yourself. Don't come to Articles for deletion unless an administrator, using the deletion tool to erase all content and all edit history — meaning that you cannot copy that content in other articles without violating the terms of the copyright licences —, is what you actually want. You should not have brought this here merely to discuss a difference with another editor that involved no more than the two of you using the edit tool to enact and undo a redirect. Deletion is not involved, deletion is not what you enacted (You don't even have the deletion tool, either of you.), and deletion is not what you want or what you may, in accordance with the terms of the copyright licence after what you've copied and pasted, have. Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Far more churches have "Bible study" than have something like the "cell groups." "Cell group" and "Quiet time" as used in those articles are not a term used in most mainstream Christian denominations. The nomination seems to ignore all of Christianity but one movement in its belief that there is no notability to "Bible study" other than the way they approach it. "Bible study" is a notable topic by itself, without even considering some specially formulated version of it used in some evangelical megachurch. There was Bible study and Bible study groups long before Hunsicker. Bible study was done in parochial schools, and as a regular Sunday activity at the church in many denominations. Google book search shows over 27000 results for "Bible study" published between 1900 and 1899. Many of these describe systematic multi-year approaches to conducting Bible study in churches or outside churches, or in schools, and are not at all part of someone's recent trendy system for increasing small-group interpersonal contact in megachurches. I use the 19th century results just to show the topic's broader and earlier coverage. A search for "Bible study" less results with "cell" or "Hunsicker" and with no timespan limit produces 191,000\ book results. Edison (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the whole point of the Hunsicker article is that small groups go back to Pietism and Methodism. The cell group article is much broader than megachurch cell groups - if you can think of a better article name for either this or the Quiet Time article, then go for it. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is fine to have articles on "Cell groups" and on "Quiet time," but "Bible study" is not limited to these forms of Bible study. Those are subtopics, but keep Bible study as the general topic. It has its own history: widespread study of the Bible was not always encouraged by the Church, since it might lead to novel insights and "heresy." So it has a history, and scads of references. What is the necessity of deleting it and pretending that there is not and never was any form of Bible study but the "Cell group" or "Quiet time?" Edison (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But if Bible study is the general topic, what about Bible study (Christian)? StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I intended to link to Bible study (Christian), a silly distinction, as if millions of Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians and pagans sit around studying the "Bible," when that is understood to be both the Old and New Testaments, with perhaps the apocrypha. I apologize if Jews also use the term "Bible" to describe the Tanakh or their scriptures, but I have not heard or read that as a common usage on their part. I have understood Christians to be the main participants in what is called "Bible study". Edison (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that Bible study is a disambiguation page, this page needs to be kept. There's nothing NN about an activity that millions of people worldwide engage in weekly or more frequently. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sajuuk

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

Non-notable video game entity Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A holdover from the days where Wikipedia was heavy on fiction and light on real-life. This appears to have been written by people who were playing the computer game Homeworld and its sequels, and has no real-world significance, nor anything outside the original research of making observations and speculations on a game. In addition, this is covered in Homeworld 2#Sajuuk. Mandsford 19:25, 16 December 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) 01:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Homeworld. Minor fictional entity, no hope of passing WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Summers

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only connection is to the notable lead singer, Matt Cardle, but the band are not signed to any record label. Anemone Projectors 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anemone's points. Sources are poor and most seem to hinge on Matt Cardle. Brammers (talk/c) 12:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this perhaps now meets WP:MUSICBIO now the album has charted in the top 30 of The Official Charts Company download chart (here) and number 15 in the indie chart here, just below the Prodigy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are official. Statements are correct. Band has 2 notable members. Band has charted in Official UK charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevensummersband (talk • contribs) 10:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC) — Sevensummersband (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per The Rambling Man and charting which should meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One two three... 10:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Second War (novel)

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

Unfinished book by author of unclear notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, Gil, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish a novel. It appears that you've got a great future ahead of you, and we encourage you to keep writing. However, I hope also that you can envision the problems that would come about if everyone used Wikipedia to display their own works of fiction. Essentially, Wikipedia is a place for people to write about what has been learned from what has already been published. Mandsford 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete' 20:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per Mandsford. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac DVDRipper Pro

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

The article appears to fail to meet WP:NSOFT. Searching Google News, I can only find press releases and the normal selection of product reviews that would apply to almost every software product and nothing to establish long term impact on the historic record such as international awards. Fæ (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some points on the discussion page of Mac DVDRipper Pro --maknak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maknak (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article creator is a probable SPA: Macdvd (talk · contribs). (Apparently now using the account Maknak (talk · contribs)) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 18:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have evidence then please use the normal WP:SPI process rather than making speculative claims in an AfD. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NSOFT notes that:
Software that is just another entry in a crowded field will need more persuasively significant sources, of a kind that indicate that it stands out from the crowd.

The review provided by the author (whose curiously COI user-name should give us all pause) indicates that this product not only is not outstanding in its field, but compares rather poorly to its competition. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typical Wikipedia spam. An article most likely created by the product author (see above), who, immediately after creating his single-purpose account, advertises it in other Wikipedia articles, too (see his contributions). I can't see significant coverage in reputable sources, either in Google results, books (zero results) or elsewhere, which is a requirement in the general notability guideline (the article mentions two reviews at Macworld.com, but that's not something I would call "significant coverage"). And the more specific product notability guideline says that products generally should not have their own articles unless they are really notable (or not created by companies). And even though the software notability essay is not an official Wikipedia guideline, it says it "may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion". It also says that "the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant" and/or from multiple printed sources, or "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field". Which is not the case here.—J. M. (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do help maintain Mac DVDRipper Pro. While I did not know about all the rules for account names, I changed name to follow the rules the best I can. I do intend to add entries for other softwares I do help maintain. This is the first time I try editing Wikipedia and I'm eager to follow rules and learn them.
Mac DVDRipper Pro is the main competitor to RipIt (MacTheRipper being another one, but not only it has legal issues, the easily available version is quite outdated, and the last version is quite difficult to obtain - if obtainable at all - see user comments. HandBrake is not the same (it converts, does not make identical backups).
Download counters on both Mac DVDRipper Pro's macupdate page and RipIt's macupdate page are of similar levels and show the competition.
Software that is just another entry in a crowded field [...] as written, Mac DVDRipper Pro is currently the only serious contestant to RipIt, which does not feature Movie only rips.
Just like RipIt, it should be part of WikiProject Computing, Software and Macintosh
Mac DVDRipper Pro was part of MUPromo's spring bundle and as such is registered by tens of thousands of people - that's a lot more active users than many softwares on Wikipedia which are not listed for deletion.
As for "compar[ing] rather poorly", this is a bit strongly worded: Mac DVDRipper Pro is still quite less expensive and is found by many of its users to be excellent at what it does for a decent price, see user comments
If I had know that editing other pages to link back to Mac DVDRipper Pro would be constructed as something negative, I would have refrained from doing so until the page could be reviewed.

Maknak (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mac DVDRipper Pro has the ability to burn a copy, which further distinguish it from other DVD Rippers: no other known dvd ripper on the mac has that ability

Maknak (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Aubie

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

Unverified BLP. Article's content does not really substantiate notability and the lack thereof is indicated by Google searches. Pink Bull 18:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable by any standard. As best I can tell, this is not actually a second deletion discussion -- there was no previous discussion that led to a decision to keep (or even "no consensus"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any significant coverage of the subject, the award he won doesn't seem to be a particularly notable one, as it's given several teachers in his district in one year [6]. Ray^Talk 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Teachers at the secondary level are not notable per se and there's nothing beyond this that would qualify as notable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article would seem to confirm he won the award along with a bunch of other teachers. However, there is no coverage about him in reliable sources to establish him as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International contemporary art scenes

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

A list of 6 articles, 4 of which are redlinks. Unsourced and largely untouched since 2006. I'm not sure if this is trying to be a list or an article, but it doesn't seem to be necessary. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidently, this was intended as a disambiguation page of some sort when it was created in 2006, linking to articles about the contemporary art in different nations. No reason for it to be kept. Mandsford 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not all dab pages are always needed. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Not the place for this discussion Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox

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

The sandbox is a page that has no clear intention, rather than new users posting at times libelous, offensive material and other kinds of vandalism. People should use their user page for experimenting, and removal of the sandbox will decrease vandalism acts, if users are urged to carry out editing tests on their own user page. MikeNicho231 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sandbox is often used for test edits by IPs who don't even know how to find their user talk page. The Sandbox is a good place for them to learn the basics. Yes, there is quite a bit of vandalism that does occur there, but it is better to channel such vandalism towards a project-space page, than to have it sprawl over the mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it is a place for people who are just trying to start to test out what they want to do. Giving them a place to "play" helps keep them from doing things to articles until they are ready. Yes, they can use their user space as well, but I see no compelling reason to take away this space. LadyofShalott 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. First off, pages in the Wikipedia namespace belong at WP:MFD, not here. Secondly, to echo MuZemike's closing comment from the last AfD, sensitive/libelous material can be removed by oversight or RevDel. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Alice in Wonderland (book)

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

Book seems to fail the criteria in WP:NBOOK. I removed a lot of links from the article that were simply to Youtube, blogs, aggregators, etc. and what I ended up with were 2 articles in minor local papers. A Google search mostly brings up discussion topics related to Alice in Wonderland or Alice Liddell, or pieces written by the authors themselves (primary sources) and I can't really find any significant number of reliable, third-party sources covering this specific book. As far as I can tell it has also never won any major literary awards, it has not made a significant contribution to a major motion picture or other art form or religious movement, and the author herself is not uniquely significant. Finally, the article appears to have been originally created by someone with a COI, who has created a number of other abusive sockpuppets to edit war and make legal threats at Harry M. Rubin, as well as creating the article about this book's author. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability and excessive COI involvement. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an AuthorHouse book, print-on-demand. There's nothing wrong with self-published or vanity press books, but Wikipedia is not the place to bring them to the public's attention. Mandsford 19:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Hafeez Ullah

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

Autobiography (presumably) of a young chap who likes writing stories. No evidence of notability at all. Note that he has also created a range of articles on his works, all of which are also up for AfD -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty obvious vanity article with no attempt to establish notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Userification happily done on request. Courcelles 23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Kandahar

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

Fails WP:N. No reliable independent sources discuss this "Jihad Kandahar" organisation, only primary sources. The unnamed unit is mentioned once, on the Guantanamo Inmate Database (linked in the article). This is az bare mention, not any significant info. No other sources could be found through Google Books or News Archive. Fram (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just non-notable--a stronger case for deletion is that the article makes serious allegations about living people (specifically, that they're members of a terrorist organisation) based only on primary sources.
Fram is correct to say this isn't notable, but the primary sources mean it is verifiable. Because it's verifiable it shouldn't be entirely removed from Wikipedia, but because it's not notable, it shouldn't have its own article. A merge or redirect are the only outcomes that would be fully in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I'm normally vocally opposed to "delete then redirect" as an outcome but in this case the BLP issue means that deletion prior to redirecting is a sensible precaution. Delete, then create redirect to Taliban which should contain a footnote or one-line mention of this organisation's alleged existence. Closer to consider protecting the redirect, because I'm anxious to ensure that living people are not named as members of this organisation without excellent sources.—S Marshall T/C 12:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are quite incorrect in your interpretation of our policies. Plenty of things that are perfectly verifiable will never need a merge or a redirect, but just don't belong on Wikipedia. being verifiable doesn't entitle anything to have a redirect here. This doesn't mean that your suggestion that in this case, a redirect to Taliban would be the best solution is necessarily incorrect (I believe it would violate WP:UNDUE, but that's just my opinion). But the reason why you propose this and oppose a deletion is incorrect. Fram (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't actually oppose a deletion. It says "delete" in bold up there, just before my signature. It's just that my "delete" is based on BLP and not notability, and is contingent on creating a redirect.
    My interpretation of Wikipedia policies is that users don't get to remove sourced information from the encyclopaedia on notability grounds alone, which I think is an uncontroversial reading of WP:PRESERVE; I believe it's the opposite view that's a misinterpretation of policy.—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - PRESERVE presents considerations, not hard rules. And note that PRESERVE actually includes "WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal." Combined with WP:V: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", it becomes quite clear that there may well be information that is verifiable but should still not be on Wikipedia at all. "Preserve appropriate content." "Do not remove good information"... what is appropriate or good content is not decided by PRESERVE, and it doesn't claim that all verifiable information is good, appropriate information. The white pages are verifiable, but we wouldn't try to preserve info taken from them (e.g. a list of families in county X who had a telephone in 1947 may be perfectly verifiable, but wouldn't need an article, redirect, merge, ...). Fram (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Apart from the five pillars there aren't hard rules at all. But there are soft rules we're supposed to consider and the fact that WP:PRESERVE presents considerations for editorial judgment rather than hard rules doesn't mean editors get to disregard it; WP:PRESERVE is policy (and notability is not). I don't agree that "...Wikipedia should not have an article on it" means "should not be on Wikipedia at all". That's not what it says and it strikes me as an extremist reading of a more moderate policy. To my mind, "should not have an article on it" means what it says: a separate article is inappropriate.
        The white pages (which I presume is an American institution of some kind) is, like so many analogies, a bit of a straw man. I didn't say "let's include material from the white pages". I said "let's create a redirect to a one-line mention of a terrorist organisation linked to the Taliban".—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only a few brief mentions in primary sources, far from satisfying WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable organisation. Not even verifiable (no secondary sources, no relibable sources independent of the subject), so a redirect is not appropriate--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Pontificalibus. IQinn (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When the word "alleged" appears repeatedly, the big red WP:BLP flag goes up. Given that almost all sources are from the entity that wants to prosecute them, even I can't deem them reliable. The one thir-party source doesn't even verify anything, in fact, it hinders the claim to verifibility. On top of that, the lack of adequete referencing has me doubting that this unit exists at all, much less is notable. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:N isn't met, and there are serious BLP issues with this. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A request -- I request a relisting, rather than closure, as the sheer volume of recent {{xfd}} has left me without enough time to respond to this one. Geo Swan (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails on notability per WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daftar al-Taliban

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

Fails WP:N; Prodded right after creation, but contested. Tagged for notability for over a year now. Mentioned in some primary sources, but no reliable independent sources about this are available at all (Google Books and News archive return nothing, regular Google has 93 distinct results[7], mostly Wikipedia and its mirrors. Fram (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only a few brief mentions in primary sources, no example of in-depth coverage. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable house, the only sources are allegations, so these are not reliable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pontificalibus, not notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Rodhullandemu. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Hancox

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. References do not mention the subject once. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strategies to promote identification

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

Reads like a personal essay, not quite sure what this 'article' is all about. E. Fokker (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend editing the linguistic style and developing the content of the article. More importantly, I recommend merging this article's content with (i.e., into) the entry on organizational identification. The content of this entry represents a significant theoretical area of organizational communication studies. In the interest of full disclosure: I am a professor associated with the individuals who authored this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenkendall (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 11:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that some of this should be incorporated into the article organizational identification, in a much shorter form. Short verison is that one gets persons to identify with an organization through (1) Expression of concern for the individual; (2) Recognition of individual contributions; (3) Espousal of shared values; (4) Advocacy of benefits and activities; (5) Praise by outsiders; and (6) Testimonials by employees; then enhances the "us" with an "us vs. them" approach. This is an oversimplification, of course, but the current version misses the point of an encyclopedia article, which is to help other persons understand what's being referred to. Mandsford 19:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British School of Chicago

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

Contested prod. Article is about a school, but does not demonstrate any coverage in independent reliable sources. The only sources I could find were press releases and yellow-page listings. TN X Man 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous consensus has been that high schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 11:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the usual outcome described in Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education. While there is no policy that says that high schools are inherently notable, the consensus for years has been that a high school is notable enough for its own stand alone article. In this case, the school teaches a curriculum and grants diplomas that meet standards in the United Kingdom. As with "British schools" in any foreign nation, the students are usually from British families who are temporarily living in the United States, in this case, in Chicago. Mandsford 20:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Cell group per nominator suggestion. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huddles

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

This article is mostly original research, and the notability is marginal. I have added a paragraph about huddles to cell group - I suggest this article be redirected there. St Anselm (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cell group, reason given above. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmatullah

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

Fails WP:BIO. There are quite a few Rahmatullahs associated with the Taliban, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, ..., making it hard to search for this one (e.g. Rahmatullah Sangaryar, see also Rahmatullah (disambiguation)). The article provides no reliable independent sourcse about him, only government documents and reprints of those, which are not independent since the government is the one detaining him. Searching for more info did not return any reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable person. Also serious WP:BLP issues as there are no third-party reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only claim to notability is that the subject was a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, however the subject of this article lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails the MILHIST notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N as well as WP:BIO per the nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2010 Panama City school board shootings. At first glance it seems clear that the consensus is to delete this article. However, most of the content has already been merged into 2010 Panama City school board shootings so the history of this article needs to be kept. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Duke

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

Non-notable person ... classic one event. ^Bongo_matic 08:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had his 15 minutes of infamy, dismiss as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERPETRATOR. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is just as notable as the columbine shooting or any other workplace/school shooting in recent decades. Vandersontx (talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC). Vandersontx (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source stating this. He didn't manage to shoot one person except himself, unlike the Columbine or VT massacres. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Does Wikipedia decide what is or is not worthy based on the numerical body count? Ashershow1 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the lack of a source stating that it was as notable as Columbine and the fact that there was only one fatality here (while many fatalities happens less often) means your claim is baseless. /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of fatalities is not the issue here. The issue is this man's motive for doing something like this. Walking in on a school board meeting and killing people is not something that happens every day, or even every year. If things had gone differently, 6 people may have died making this man undoubtedly notable. Wikipedia is not to set a precedent that the more people you kill the more notable you become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashershow1 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's such a thing as a source stating that a body count matters in the notability of an event? Fair enough. Going_postal#Baker_City.2C_Oregon.2C_in_2006. One person killed. A notable event included on Wikipedia. This also at the very least qualifies as a high profile Suicide_by_cop. Vandersontx (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is particularly relevant or would make Duke any more notable but Suicide by cop means a person acts in such a manner as to try to ensure that a policeman fatally shoots that person. Duke shot himself! It was one of the schoolboard members whom Duke later shot at who suggested that Duke was looking to get killed by the cops; Duke made a reply which I couldn't hear clearly enough to decipher, but that's not the same thing. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to sit here and argue what does or does not constitute a suicide by cop since it would sidetrack this debate, but it does not necessarily have to be a death by the police. Duke, made several statements indicating he intended to have the police kill him and did not kill himself until he was struck by returned fire. Vandersontx (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clay Duke walked in on a school board meeting, tried to shoot six people, and then shot himself in the head. Since when is that not Wikipedia-worthy? Duke was a front page news item, and if things had gone slightly differently, 6 men could have died. Does Wikipedia then delete pages of people who's body count was not as high as say Seung-Hui Cho? The Clay Duke incident brings up issues of gun control, security, and the sales tax among others. This article once expanded would be a worthy addition to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashershow1 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to vote twice. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event and WP:PERP. In the case of Seung-Hui Cho the single event brought about worldwide coverage, lengthy discussion about mental illness and gun rights, and revamps of security procedures on university campuses, etc. This guy was a rambling nut whose rambles don't merit repeating on Wikipedia. He didn't manage to hurt anybody and will be forgotten next week. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 15:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the local newspaper, and subject does not appear to satisfy WP:PERP. LadyofShalott 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case is noteworthy, even if for his missing six people at point blank range. While shooting himself dead shows he meant business. Adds to one's understanding of quirkiness of human nature.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.40.34 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are a valid rationale for including this article in Wikipedia. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the unregistered user who didn't sign his/her opinion: there is nothing "quirky" about a misbegotten ex-con with easy access to a gun and ammo, and nothing notable about him in life or in death except for his cowardice. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is yet another copycat rampage with a gun it is not notable for anything other than it failed. By associating this refrence tool with mayhem we grant it notability it is not notableMasterknighted (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Clear-cut case; he didn't even kill anyone. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ "He didn't even kill anyone", not true he killed himself. Besides, since when does Wikipedia judge notability based on the body count?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashershow1 (talk • contribs)

NOTE: This is ~~either an unsigned !vote or~~ apparently User:Ashershow1's third vote (albeit unsigned) on which the following two comments are based: Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Committing suicide when the cops are closing in doesn't earn you a Wikipedia article. It's how you live your life that determines notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than himself, I meant, which I'm sure you understood. It's a lot more rare that multiple people are killed than just a suicide. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERPETRATOR (as above). There is no comparison to Columbine as another editor mistakenly pronounced above. Nothing encyclopaedic or worthy of posthumous attention about this cowardly thug. He was not and is not notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "Just as notable" arguments are nothing short of laughable. Grsz 11 18:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -While the news item itself is worthy of being documented on Wikipedia, the man who caused it does not deserve his own entry. He should certainly be mentioned in an article about the event, but this is the only thing he's ever done to gain notoriety. His name will be forgotten pretty quickly, even though people will remember the bizarre and unfortunate event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.80.45 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not noteworthy enough for permanent keep. This is News at best, not of encyclopaedic value. --tom (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability except for the crime perpetuated, Dismissal according to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERPETRATOR. DrachenFyre > YOU! (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seung-Hui Cho was not notable except for the crime he perpetuated. Yet he has a Wikipedia page. This is because Clay Duke goes beyond "the crime perpetuated," he raises issues of gun control, security, and others. Clay Duke is as notable as the Columbine murders, or the Virginia Tech shooter. Ashershow1 (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cho murdered 32 people. Duke murdered nobody, he could not even shoot straight. Trailer trash with more ballistics than balls. WWGB (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sad that the article was written about the perpetrator of the crime, rather than about the security guard who saved everyone's lives. Perhaps it's because Mike Jones is a very common name, or that the alternative was an awkward title like "2010 Panama City school board meeting shooting". I'm afraid that making Mr. Duke the leading man, putting his name in lights and prominently displaying his photo, doomed this page from the beginning. It's possible that something that has been front page and lead story WP:NEWS might graduate into WP:EVENT, and that school board members will pack heat at their next meeting. On the other hand, a similar incident [8] is not mentioned at all in our article about Mount Pleasant, Iowa, and no indication that it changed the way that local meetings are conducted. Mandsford 14:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERPETRATOR with no prejudice against Clay Duke existing as a redirect to the shooting event if consensus dictates that said event merits inclusion. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are criminals honoured for their job? Not in my perspective. There's a published news source, but it does fail WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BIO1E and WP:ANYBIO. Minima c (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an article about the incident itself per some of the rules stated. I would hesitate to say that this incident is as notable as the Columbine shootings or the Virginia Tech shootings, but the event itself is notable nonetheless. It would probably be fairer for only the incident itself to have an article instead of only this one person. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 06:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree the incident is noteworthy although the individual is not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.173.182.192 (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a lot of criminals and there is no benefit from erecting a shrine to those whose 15-minutes of fame has elapsed. That is, this subject fails notability requirements. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I initially was for deletion, but I think a redirect to an article about the incident would be appropriate. The incident is newsworthy, Clay Duke is not on his own. Marshall Stax (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to those supporting a "redirect", I must point out that there is nothing to redirect to. To be fully honest I don't think the incident itself was sufficiently notable to merit an article, either, but that's another story. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Panama City school board shootings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashershow1 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Panama City school board shootings was created on December 21st, two days after I left the message re no article to redirect to. I will review the article to see if it qualifies as notable; however as the 2010 Panama City school board shootings article currently exists, the Clay Duke page is now clearly ready for its author (Ashershow1) to request its deletion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I echo the comments that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is a notability line for actors in current events. This individual doesn't have a speaking part. Jhw57 (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I maintain the stance that Clay Duke is a notable figure due to the issues he raises, but I will reluctantly accept a merge, not a redirect with 2010 Panama City school board shootings. If there is an administrator here who is strongly for deletion, I will merge Clay Duke with the event article. Ashershow1 (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to vote four times. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out that keeping or deleting an article is not based on whether "there is an administrator... who is strongly for" one or the other, but on the consensus formed by all participants in the discussion, and the relative strengths of their arguments as based in WP policy. LadyofShalott 00:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the existing article on the shooting, there is no need for a separate article as he was not notable in any way beforehand. Zerbey (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Seung-Hui Cho wasn't notable before hand. Neither was Eric Harris nor Dylan Klebold. Ashershow1 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to nominate the Seung-Hui Cho and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold articles for deletion, go ahead. You don't get to vote ~~two~~ five times, though. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Ashershow1. Just like Lee Harvey Oswald, or Jack Ruby. Although obviously you cannot compare the two with this event as its far smaller scaled, it doesn't mean that a smaller event invalidates this article's existence on this wiki. 24.1.211.254 (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 24.1.211.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To say Clay Duke was "Just like Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby" is like comparing Perez Hilton to Ian McKellan, or Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag to Burns & Allen. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, you do not have a source for this. And I'm not going to nominate Seung-Hui Cho and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for deletion for the same reasons that I wouldn't nominate Clay Duke. Ashershow1 (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the Duke page was nominated for you. I can't take the credit as I didn't have the chance to initiate it. Bongomatic did. I am glad to see, however, that you stopped voting after the ~~fourth~~ fifth time. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 15 minutes of fame are over; the name "Clay Duke" is now even harder to look up on regular news outlets due to its passing interest. Therefore there is no enduring notability per WP:NOTNEWS. Cactusjump (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect In retrospect, I would be willing to support a redirect to the shooting itself but not an outright delete. Vandersontx (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand the general consensus here is to delete Clay Duke, so as the author of both Clay Duke, and 2010 Panama City school board shootings I will merge Clay Duke into 2010 Panama City school board shootings. The information from the Clay Duke page will be incorporated into a subsection of the event page. Clay Duke will also become a redirect to 2010 Panama City school board shootings. Ashershow1 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I see this has been a little traumatic for you and I apologize if you think anything I stated was out of line. A bit of advice: train yourself to remember always that no editor owns an article once they have submitted it, no matter how proud he or she may be with it. I know from my own experience. That being said, it is the closing admin who decides what happens to the article, although I suspect he or she won't make any drastic changes to your abovementioned plan of action. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your input, I realize we're all just trying to improve Wikipedia here. I transferred all the info to 2010 Panama City school board shootings and redirected Clay Duke, now do I delete the page or does an administrator do that? Ashershow1 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of AC buses Bangalore

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

There already exists an article listing the various routes of BMTC. I do feel that it is not required to have a separate article just to mention which of the routes are operated by AC buses. A separate section in the article Feeder and Metro BMTC Routes about what routes are operated by AC buses is quite sufficient. Abhishek191288 (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- Wikipedia is not a public transport info page..--...Captain......Tälk tö me 04:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Michalos

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND, WP:WEB and WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, zero Google News hits for "James Michalos", "Plastic Snow" or "Rock n Rolling Snowman". If the song actually does well in the charts, then that might become notable enough for its own article. Proposed deletion removed without explanation by WP:Single purpose account. Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I don't understand how this has been rated as 50/1 by Ladbrokes when it has attracted zero coverage in GNews, but if someone thinks it's got a shot at no. 1, then there's a reasonable chance they'll make the Top 40. WP:CRYSTAL says we don't have articles based on speculation, but there's no harm keeping the article in userspace should the single get somewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to speculation point, have added past success in other industries, notably success in theatre that has already happened and demonstrates Mr Michalos' notability, with the speculative element re potential success reduced to one final paragraph that will undoubtably need editing one way or another later this month.
News coverage for the song has been mainly radio so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityLawyer (talk • contribs) 08:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His career in theatre may count towards notability with or without this single, but you're going about it the wrong way. You have to demonstrate that he has received significant coverage in independent reliable third-party sources. Simply listing previous productions he's been involved in isn't enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Googled and did find online coverage. Article about it here http://www.entsweb.co.uk/ TEACHER’S ROCKING SNOWMAN SONG IS THE BEST BET FOR CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE Ladbrokes offers 50-1 on song recorded for just £100 reaching the top spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.66.162 (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Entsweb.co.uk is a WP:SELFPUBLISHed site, and is therefore not a WP:Reliable source. Invitrovanitas (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The song is listed in Yahoos Top 10 Christmas Contenders list
- http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/hot_new_tunes/3180/christmas-chart-contenders/;_ylt=AmX4Qp6tc4WCob1p6EGF97QqFCYv?page=3#comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.66.162 (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And featured in the Telegraph
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/8202014/Teachers-snowman-song-is-Christmas-number-one-contender.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.66.162 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far from a "contender for Christmas number 1", the song has in fact missed the top 100 completely and in the absence of exceptional coverage is therefore not notable. I have no idea what the people who thought this had a genuine shot at Christmas number 1 were smoking..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Dress

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

Nothing to show that this book is notable. No GHits or GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per WP:NB. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable work. (I originally PRODded this.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable story retold without a point. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a book, merely a story written by a schoolkid. Not notable at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billie and Bella(2):ed to an adventure

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

Nothing to show that this book is notable. No GHits or GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per WP:NB. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if Billie and Bella(1) is unpublished, this sequel(?) is unpublished (and I also can't find any evidence that it is in print anywhere). Zero hits in WorldCat. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the now-deleted article on the author revealed that he was an 11-year-old schoolkid, clearly this is just a story he's made up for his own amusement, not an actual book -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some kid is posting his stories on WP. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billie and Bella (1)

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

Nothing to show that this book is notable. No GHits or GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This story isn't published - says it all really -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally PROD'd the article because it appeared not to meet the notability guidelines -- and that was without the bit about not being published. As per ChrisTheDude, that comment says it all. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unpublished books are by definition not notable. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unpublished, non-notable book. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some kid is posting his stories on WP. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia – Sri Lanka relations

AfDs for this article:

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

this article hinges on 4 sources. 3 of these sources are from embassy/foreign ministry websites so not totally third party. one source merely confirms the existence of a non resident ambassador. the number of actual sources specifically describing Estonia – Sri Lanka relations is weak. this article is not about Sri Lanka-EU relations, just because Estonia entered the EU does not suddenly translate to more relations exist. only one real "cooperation" agreement exists. "Agreement for Co-operation Between the Estonian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce " is from 2 non official organisation not official government treaty. those wanting to argue keep should provide actual evidence of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard Wikipedia almanac entry. I am not sure what notability is required for an almanac entry. We use government or United Nations websites for all the almanac like entries on countries and economic data. The almanac entries for townships are just census dumps. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then every bilateral pair would be notable? even though over 100 have been deleted through the AfD process? LibStar (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What good is an almanac that isn't complete? I don't know of any information that was deleted. Smaller articles were merged into larger articles on the foreign relations of those countries. So instead of one article, we duplicated the information in the two articles. Deleting the entry here just doubles the information elsewhere. Why duplicate it in two overly long lists? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

many articles were deleted though. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The TITLES were deleted because the redirects for say Estonia – Sri Lanka relations could either be directed to Foreign relations of Estonia OR Foreign relations of Sri Lanka and not BOTH, so they didn't make sense to keep around. An experiment was done to make a disambiguation page with redirects to both, but they were voted down by the editors that concentrate on disambiguation. The end result was duplicating all the information into the two articles. Which made sense for the articles containing just a few sentences, the Groubani stubs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – oh for fuck's sake, LibStar. Consular relations. Overseas visits. Commercial agreements. Promotion of tourism. This. This. This. This. It is completely beyond me why anyone would make a good-faith claim that the pair's relationship is not notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 20:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer at those four sources you just dug up. They are truly pitiful. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's wrong with a source like this but if you don't like it then just make do with the consular relations, overseas visits, commercial agreements and promotion of tourism. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's only one that vaguely resembles a decent source (though it's about a specific event, and there's not much about the actual topic of SL-Estonia relations in general in there.) But the other three are utter shit. Why would you even bring them up here? Do you think people aren't going to check? Yilloslime ^T_C 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite good at selective ignoring, aren't you. We went from all four sources being "truly pitiful" to one of them "vaguely resembling a decent source." And you also managed to conveniently fail to notice if you don't like it then just make do with the consular relations, overseas visits, commercial agreements and promotion of tourism. So well done! ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury a reminder to be WP:CIVIL, if it's so obviously notable, it will be a unanimous keep. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so that's your reason for nominating perfectly decent articles for deletion – others will do the work for you. Great. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 08:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there appears to be virtually no trade or news of significance between the countries. Hard to see anything truly notable here.Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the consular relations, overseas visits, commercial agreements and promotion of tourism, quite right. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not indepth coverage and is merely mentioning Sri Lanka recognises Estonia, almost all nation states in the world recognise each other. this seems to source "Wikipedia" for its text.this is more about Iraq meeting Sri Lanka AND Estonia on the same day rather than Estonia-Sri Lanka relations. the sources are weak in establishing a notable relationship. relations exist but far from covered indepth in press. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per documented paucity of independent, reliable sources that address the topic of Estonia-Sri Lanka relations directly, in detail. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Treasury. Ahmetyal 17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Why is this article being nominated for deletion again? It received a keep in the first AfD.[9] This article was adequately cited to achieve notability and that notability does not expire. This discussion is simply a second bite at the apple.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we should be restricting how often we can nom articles for AfD. Repeated noms have been a problem, but should be used when a previously kept pages get gutted or develop serious problems. However, in this case, nominator clearly did not use the talkpage to voice concerns prior, none of those problems apply to this page, and the nominator is abusing the Afd system Outback the koala (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per treasurytags reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per treasurytag.--Blackknight12 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this one is quite a ridiculous nom. At first glance, I was skeptical, but just look at the article! The rest per Treasury, big time. Outback the koala (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems most of you have presented WP:JUSTAVOTE. I doubt you even looked at the sources Treasury found. They are weak indeed. This topic lacks indepth third party coverage. Please find some better source than Treasury than simply turning up and !voting. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simultaneously ignoring WP:AGF and WP:PERNOM is quite impressive, but I should remind you that alleging bad faith is generally unacceptable unless there is clear evidence, and it is perfectly fine to argue based on another contributor's point: "if the rationale provided in the [point] includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence [...] a simple endorsement of the [point] may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per X'" – ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 08:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have examined the sources in the article and those presented, and as much as the topic still doesn't seem notable to me, it nevertheless (a) passes the test of significant discussion in reliable independent sources and (b) the various markers that we have used to determine the notability of other bilateral relations topics (state visits, mutual embassies, significant bilateral agreements and projects). It therefore should be kept. And I'd again urge everyone participating to remain civil. We've done a LOT of bilateral relations AfDs at this point, and it's pretty clear that the community doesn't see attempts to delete them, or attempts to save them, on whatever grounds, as either foolish or in bad faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there are no mutual embassies, no known visits of leaders to the other country and there is only one cooperation agreement, the other agreement is between the chambers of commerce which does not represent the official goverment. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, you're technically correct, an embassy one way and a consul the other. There have been visits of leaders but not visits by head of state. The sources details significant bilateral agreements and projects. It's all sufficient to found notability of the topic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe existence of a comprehensive set of articles provides the structural framework that facilitates and encourages further contributions. In the case of many if not most articles at Wikipedia the eventual quality is the result of a process of accretive contribution, little stone on little stone. I really don't understand why so much effort is devoted to undermining that structure. Opbeith (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, sources found by User:TreasuryTag, but without his vehemence. If they are not good enough for you, then you need to re-read WP:RS and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Spellman

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

Delete. Non-notable person -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Non-notable. Yet another example of how low some people set the notability standard. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitive Collection (The Blues Brothers album)

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

Non-charting album, no sources outside Allmusic. Permastub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It's apparent that this release was a poorly-promoted quickie that was ignored by the world and therefore doesn't deserve to be noticed here. However, per WP:NALBUMS, notice from AllMusic usually suffices for the tiniest glimmer of notability for an album. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Norton (politician)

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

Not noteworthy, First Person Links ☠ Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from this article's talk page that this nomination is a result of an off-wiki dispute between the subject and nominator. As a member of another another Pirate Party I would say that as former head of the United States Pirate Party and coordinator of the first incarnation of Pirate Parties International that he is somewhat noteworthy and has been mentioned in some WP:RS, as has been mentioned on the article talk page. The article does need some more reliable sources but I think the article should be fixed before it should be deleted - especially if the main motivation behind the deletion is not an improvement of Wikipedia but the furthering of an off-wiki dispute. Thus, I say Keep and improve for the time being, if insufficient WP:RS appear then bring it back at a later date. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 06:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You got it M2Ys4U. The animosity Travis has for me is longstanding. Of course, Travis knows plenty of WP:RS (he was in charge of promoting the party, that was his job for 5 months) but instead of adding them, he choses to try and delete, what twice in three weeks? I'd add them myself, but it's not really allowed, is it? Never mind, I'll dig up links and send them to others to evaluate.Ktetch (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can post them in this AFD for editors to evaluate. I'm certainly open to revisiting my opinion if sources can be produced. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, some sources. Not sure on the RS of some but here we go. Since Robotics is mentioned as my degree, we can start there. I was on the UK Show RobotWars, as part of the middleweight winning team, running Hard Cheese (final episodes of both season 2 and season 3 of the show confirm). I also worked on the US show BattleBots including as a safety and technical inspector, and running the pits. Quite a lot of background footage throughout the seasons of that, plus things like Battlebot Beginnings - badges here (not an RS I know, since it's my own, old (untouched since i moved to the US site). I was also profiled on ComedyCentral.com during the 2.0 season, and was the frontpage for a day (alas I have no copy of it any more, and the internet archive doesn't carry that particular day, I've sent an email to them asking for them to check their archives). Finally, I was in episode 10 of Spaced (including some personal closeups, such as 20:39 on the hulu copy). I'm digging through for some 'politician' ones. And I think the only reason Gamesbart used _(politician) is because there's already another Andrew Norton, and that best describes what I'm currently doing in one word. Oh, and I think i'm in 'yes Admiral Ozzel' (ISBN 1840241039) as well (Michael was the first friend my wife met), from my sci-fi event days. Ktetch (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As an unelected politician, he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. I can find no significant independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, so WP:GNG is also not satisfied. The sourcing in the article is not independent. I can find no coverage myself. The sourcces alluded to boce in the article talk page are not sources, but assertions that coverage exists without actually providing any examples of said coverage. He is quoted in articles, but that's not coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. He was chairman for a year and a half of a very, very minor political party which has never run a candidate for office. The only coverage found is self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve As head of the national party, and the first head of the international group, it's notable, but needs moer sources. Look at Michael Steele, The majority of that article is about his time as RNC chair, rather than his time as an elected politician (Lt Gov somewhere) or if you want another politician that ran, and didn't win a seat, there's Michael Badnarik. I also think that there's a strong personal motivation behind the deletion. MOst of the other Pirate Party articles are even worse sourced, and they have not been put up for deletion. Muon1 (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Muon1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Comparing the national chairman of the Republican Party to the national chairman of a minor-to-trivial party like the Pirate Party is ludicrous. In particular, Michael Steele has generated a ton of coverage as national chairman, while Andrew Norton has generated virtually none. In my opinion the Pirate parties are barely notable (neither of them has ever run a candidate for election or gotten certified to appear on a state ballot), but I am leaving them alone since most of us tend to cut political parties a lot of slack. However, I have put a note on the talk page of Talk:Pirate Party of Oklahoma saying that I think the state party does not deserve its own article and should be merged/redirected to United States Pirate Party - as per WP:CLUB which indicates that local chapters of national organizations are not generally notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither of them? Theres about 30 different parties. and as for 'never run a candidate or been certified' there are two Pirate MEP's in Sweden, elected while I was head of Pirate Party International (in fact trying to get people into office for a big multi-national election like that was WHY I moved over to be PPI's first head, and the strain of it was why i stepped down not long after the election. Ktetch (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was unclear. Yes, there are Pirate Parties in Europe that have some credibility. I was talking about the two Pirate Party affiliates linked to Andrew Norton (which I gather is you) - namely the United States Pirate Party and the Pirate Parties International. Those both seem pretty trivial at this point, but there seems to be some ongoing activity so I am willing to leave their articles alone. The discussion here is about this article about you. It's possible that you as an individual will get more coverage at some future time, but for now you don't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for an individual (which you can read at WP:BIO) - namely, significant coverage ABOUT YOU in independent reliable sources. There are other places where you can have articles, but Wikipedia's standards are pretty high. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I agree with MelanieN's reasoning here. The Pirate Party Sweden is a party that has members elected to legislatures, the Pirate Party US and PPI does not. GNews search of "Andrew Norton" pirate suggests coverage is slim, and we don't keep articles just because someone promised that reliable sources will be added one day later. Oh, and Mr. Norton might want to read WP:PROUD before pushing for his inclusion on Wikipedia too hard. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Montessori Society

I went to try to balance this article today, and found it impossible without deleting a great bulk of the content enclosed. It is well written from the point of view of IMS, but seeing as it's an extreme splinter group, with fewer than 10 'accredited' schools in the USA, and is non-accredited by the certifying body for Montessori teacher education (which is not funded by either AMI or AMS), this article is essentially an advertisement. A closer look at the IMS website revealed no quantifiable criteria for a school or teacher of theirs, they cite no work not published by themselves, and not known in the industry. They are accredited by an accrediting body that is not recognized by the USA department of education and of which they are part of, after being denied certification by the state of MD and the USDE. They appear to be a Montessori diploma mill. For these reasons, I am nominating this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastAlcoholic (talk • contribs) 2010-12-09 01:25:49

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's borderline, but I'm leaning towards delete. I cleaned up a good deal of the puffery, but basically the story is "Sometimes I get in the newspaper for failing to meet education standards, or for leading a workshop". There's a below-average amount of coverage, and I don't think that we could write much of an article based primarily upon WP:Independent sources (as required by WP:V). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least as a stand alone article. I wouldn't even go so far as to recommend a merge into one of the existing Montessori articles, but could see a cited mention of their existence (possibley including accreditation by a non-authoritative accreditation body), but the article adds nothing to this encyclopedia other than proclaiming the group exists. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USS Indianapolis in popular culture

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

Trivia. WP:NOTADIR. No reason why this deserves a separate article. Bulldog123 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge to USS Indianapolis (CA-35). Several of the entries are not references "in popular culture," but rather nonfiction books and documentaries about it. The remainder appear to be substantial and notable enough to merit mentioning in the main article, which can easily incorporate them. Those aren't just one-off lines (strawman example of a trivial reference: "In an episode of Will and Grace, Grace threatens to "sink [Jack] like the USS Indianapolis"), but rather substantive portrayals and references, such as the famous scene in Jaws. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge per Postdlf - meant to post this earlier but got distracted following links after reading the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's something I'm often afflicted of myself. :P bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Straight delete there's no secondary sources for the cultural impact. As of this date stamp Jaws which is of obvious cultural impact is already in the main article, many of the other points already present. Seek secondary sources for cultural impact for the main article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fifelfoo. Nothing here is worth salvageing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge per Postdlf. A little bit of the meat here is salvagable. bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge back into USS Indianapolis (CA-35), where originally came from [10], and trim if necessary. Moving "in popular culture" sections into seperate articles is never a good idea; it is usually part of a cunning two-step plan to get rid of these unloved sections while avoiding discussion about it: first split them out (which is uncontroversial because the content is not deleted), and then just wait until they are nominated for deletion because they are just lists that don't work well as stand-alone articles. --memset (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we have to have a popular culture section in every article? The original assumption was that popular culture was notable while military history is not, so a popular culture section prevented your military history article from being deleted. But I have nothing but sympathy for an editor who is an expert on warships who has what he feels is a feature quality article but has no idea how to verify or reference a passing mention of his ship in an obscure novel and an unreleased movie. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MILPOP which states: "In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture." I fail to see how the entries in this article are either well-cited or have a had a notable impact on popular culture. As such I think deletion is more appropriate than merging which will only detract from the parent article (per Hawkeye). Anotherclown (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a more general version of Wikipedia:MILPOP#Popular_culture somewhere? Bulldog123 10:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm afraid. Anotherclown (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content what you're looking for? -- saberwyn 02:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I don't know why it was so hard for me to find that. Bulldog123 11:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it different where the cultural work actually depicts the article's subject, rather than just referencing (i.e., mentioning) it? As long as the cultural work is itself notable or by a notable creator, and the depiction is substantial. Then I don't think it's really an "in popular culture" section, but "dramatic depictions" or "fictional depictions" or something else. postdlf (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Anotherclown and Fifelfoo and oppose remerge as that would just keep this stuff around. If someone wants to tack on a reliably-sourced prose addition to the main article they would be more than able to do so without any of this. Them From Space 06:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there have been significant dramatizations of the sinking of the Indianapolis that deal solely with the Indianapolis, or the courtmartial, and those should be documented on the popular culture list. The current entry on the Indiapolis page about JAWS is useless and should be removed. "The sinking of Indianapolis and ordeal of the survivors and subsequent rescue at sea is chronicled in the book In Harm's Way: The Sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis and the Extraordinary Story of Its Survivors by Doug Stanton, originally published in 2001. Survivor Edgar Harrell recounted his experience in the 2005 work Out of the Depths, co-authored with his son, David Harrell. Earlier accounts of the Indianapolis tragedy are Raymond Lech's All the Drowned Sailors, published in 1982, and Richard F. Newcomb's Abandon Ship! The Saga of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, the Navy's Greatest Sea Disaster, originally published in 1958 and re-published with a new introduction and afterword in 2001." should be in the Indy article, as it documents NON-FICTION about the sinking. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are non-fiction works about the sinking popular culture references? Surely they are just potential references for the article itself (assuming they're reliable)? Anotherclown (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a popular account of the sinking, instead of the courtmartial transcript? Or the memoirs of the sailors who survived... 65.93.13.227 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to make a Sinking of USS Indianapolis (CA-35) article, with the sinking and aftermath portion of the Indy article separated into the new article, with it's impact on popular culture, and enduring popularity as evidenced by the dramatizations that keep cropping up and documentary specials. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nonfiction work could be a popular culture item if it were widely known but not researched or documented at the level needed to be a useful source for the article. This would not necessarily be a rap on the work; if there are two or more heavily referenced histories a lighter popular history is not needed as a source but may have a lot of influence on the public understanding of the event. Popular culture is broader than fictional treatments.Dankarl (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we split it off? It's already covered at the main article. If you can properly source the pop culture impacts, then cite them there. Article size isn't an issue in its current form. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a naval engagement that is notable, which had legal consequences (the courts martial), and entered popular knowledge because of the sinking. 65.94.46.54 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That argument extends only to the necessity of coverage, which is already present, and not to the necessity of an entire article. The majority of the Indianapolis article covers the event, and to split it off would strip most of the substance (and most of the notability). Article size and readability isn't an issue, and the incident didn't really involve enough ships to be considered a battle proper. Most of the noteriety comes from the Navy's mistake on recovery, and not from the sinking itself anyway. I just can't see the need for having an independant article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or MergeThe sinking of the Indianapolis has entered into popular culture, and should be treated someplace. It should not be too hard to document; typing up proper citations to the individual works listed would be a start. Where to treat it may be a matter of policy or of editorial judgment that I'll leave to those closer to the issue.Dankarl (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia clearly unworthy of its own article.Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect or Merge. These are not popular culture manifestations, these are ordinary depictions. Abductive (reasoning) 02:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IF we are going to have a page on the pop culture relating to Indianapolis - and that's a very big if - then this page is surely a 4.0 demonstration of how not to go about creating such a page. For starts this is a list, and the material poorly cited at that. Aside from its milpop issues, the fact remains that the material present asserts no notability whatsoever. We could merge it back into the parent article, but why bother when what is presented here is not worth saving in the first place. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to HBO. Courcelles 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HBO Signature Asia

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

Very Promotional Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Merge with HBO Signature. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 02:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Both parts of the deletion rationale have been addressed, not delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Blade

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

Very short, limited notability. • 03:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I rewrote the entire article from scratch to become a decently sized article. With a length gameplay and reception section as well as an infobox and a proper lead section.KiasuKiasiMan 05:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest keeping, it could have limited notability but for now this is a topic people care about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.54.135 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This deletion nomination was made when the article looked like that. If it still looked like that I would agree but given its current state I think its unfair to delete it.KiasuKiasiMan 06:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The updated version improves it, but even just a quick peak at a google news search [11] shows a large number of RS (including Gamasutra, Time, PC World, and IGN) covering the game in depth. Yes, normally mobile games are non-notable, but this is a clear exception --MASEM (t) 19:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 03:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Martín Imbert

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

No professional games, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE (see: stats) Fache (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fache (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Admrboltz (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.315 UF Round

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

Contested PROD. Apparently fails WP:GNG, can't find any third party sources and doesn't indicate how it is notable. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: given that all referencing is by the manufacturer, Urban Firearms, and that the whole things sounds like an advertisement, I'm not inclined to believe that there is notability (yet). The pen-drawn diagram was worth a few yuks, though. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the Urban Firearms News Page will show you the majority of the information. Other information has been acquired by talking to my fellow designer, as I am the CEO & Founder of UFWD. A lot of the information regarding this round has not been decided. Please reply ASAP and notify me of you doing so. Also, around 5-10 minutes after this post, an updated version of the drawing will be uploaded and inserted. This is not an advertisement, as we are not planning to have the round manufactured, though a good friend of mine is making a prototype. This is only a concept round, once the prototype is made, a picture of it will be added to the article. LiamMCSHERRY (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of rifle cartridges. No secondary sources, and also appears that it violates WP:CRYSTAL. No bias against recreation later if the round becomes notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This round will exist, though it may not be in use. Dates are currently confirmed, as stage 1 ends January 31st 2011. Already, a prototype is being made. The round is not in the List of rifle cartridges because the project to design it was started on the 5th of December 2010, once it's design is officially completed and if the article is not deleted, I will put it on the list with a reference (^[1]) beside it saying who it was added in by, why it was added and when. LiamMCSHERRY (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahamut0013: It is not an advertisement because we are not the manufacturer. At the moment, there is no manufacturer. Only an outside source, one of my friends, making a prototype cross-section. We are only the designer.

Being the designer is still a conflict of interest though, unfortunatly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying my best not to be biased in favour of my conceptual round. In the case of conflict of interest, I'm trying to be unbiased which I think I have succeeded in. It is quite reliably sourced, with a link to the Urban Firearms Website. Other information was gathered by talking to another official designer working at Urban Firearms, which wont be on the site. I don't think I'm promoting my design as it isn't for sale officially. LiamMCSHERRY (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no to redirect Not only bullets can be for sale. Ideas, theologies and charities can be promoted, too. This looks to be promoting a not yet manufactured bullet not yet made by a company whose article here has been deleted for being spam - or indeed by anyone else. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SPAM. I'm not going to mention WP:COI. Yes, I am. WP:COI. "The private design company that designed rounds has stated that if any firearm or ammunition manufacturers wish to manufacture them, that manufacturing company will have to pay a fee for manufacturing rights but the chance is open to anyone." In other words, "Come on guys, get in first". WP:SPAM. You can't use your own website as a reference to establish notability - see WP:RS. As to WP:CRYSTAL, "the project to design it was started on the 5th of December 2010" - it's only a fortnight into the design stage. I didn't manage to see the diagram, as it seems to have gone, so I can't comment on that. Peridon (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.urbanfirearms-weaponsdesigners.moonfruit.com/ "Urban Firearms was founded on the 8th of November, 2010. Since then we have been brainstorming and sketching to design some good urban weapons. We don't expect our designs to be manufactured, but if you'd like to make a scale model, please contact us using the "Contact" page." To me, that says a lot. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Company Urban Firearms may have been founded on the 8th of November. But designers from a larger parent company have been designing for a few years. As for the project to design it, that was for the weapon designed to fire it. We have ideas like this for some months before. As for the picture, It exists, but the file itself is too large, and we have greater things to worry about than getting a picture the right size. Since it is only a concept at the moment, no other websites have been given mention of it. Once the model a friend is making arrives, we will take it to a manufacturer. The designs up for sale are not for the rounds, but for the weaponry. Although the site shows 3 or 4 weapons, there must be about 20-35 more stored in a cabinet somewhere. LiamMCSHERRY (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think you are getting the point(s). As this is a 'concept' with no outside coverage, it fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. As it is a concept that hasn't yet got off the ground (left the muzzle?), it fails WP:CRYSTAL. As you are part of the project, you need to look at WP:COI. Sorry about the alphabet soup, but you'll find the policies clear enough when you look at them. As to the 'parent company', sorry again, but I'm not so sure. To me, Urban Firearms looks like a couple of engineering students or recent graduates hoping to get taken on by someone bigger and better financed. This view of mine is supported by the location of the company website being at moonfruit.com. I quote: "Moonfruit offers a free website builder that creates beautiful websites simply with no ads and no catches. It's so easy, be up and running in 10 minutes." And they provide domains with the Premium Pack. Don't think I'm trying to do you down. While I disagree with firearms in general as a principle, that doesn't come into my concerns here. (I can't stand rap, but saved an article about a rapper because I could see he was actually notable.) You are being enterprising, and good luck. But, it's way too soon for a Wikipedia article. You can go to AboutUs and LinkedIn and get free space there with no worries about notability etc. They probably don't have the cachet of being on Wikipedia, but that's life. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm storing a copy of the coding and text on my page. Feel free to delete the article. LiamMCSHERRY (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Jesus theft

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

US-centric, non-notable type of theft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiao (talk • contribs) 2010-12-16 02:37:02

Strong Keep. Being US-centric isn't at all a reason to delete, any more than being Philippines-centric would be a reason to delete My Way murders. Also, this is a notable type of theft that has even been covered in popular culture, as the article mentions. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought this was a hoax but sources confirm the notability of this article. If the news finds this notable- it is notable. I think it would be wrong to question notability on personal opinions, rather than quality and quantity of sources. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Delete per Tarc below, the sources linking these individual thefts as a phenomenon are not sufficient in my view (see ABC article). Note that I can not access the guardian reference, perhaps this would link the phenomenon. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SYNTHESIS. Individual thefts are being noted in the article, there are no sources asserting that the overall theft of these types of statues/figures is itself notable. There is a difference between the two. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Tarc 's argument. Such thefts, individually make the local news, but collectively there is nothing of significance to say. They are unrelated, non-notable crimes (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N/CA).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Google Search on theft of baby Jesus statues results in over 33,000 hits, topic is notable. Articles such as describe it as this where GPS, from one firm alone, is used by 30 plus communities denotes that this is wide spread and not just single notable events.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because a newspaper observes that there's be a rash of a certain type of petty crime recently, doesn't make it notable. EEng (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synthesis, as noted above.Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a widespread crime, and it is not synthesis when news articles link the thefts as a trend, such as this article which discusses 100 such thefts [12] and this one which discusses 14 thefts[13] as possible attacks on the religious beliefs of the owners. This article says it is "a trend that is prevalent across the nation" (the US) but it is a worldwide phenomenon, as shown by press reports from European countries. This article also discusses a series of such thefts as trying to remove God from Christmas. Here is another article discussing it as a phenomenon rather than a simple theft. Here is yet another article describing it as a nationwide phenomenon (US). Edison (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer inspection of your "news articles [which] link the thefts as a trend, such as this article which discusses 100 such thefts" reveals, Fredericksburg isn’t the only place experiencing such crime, according to a scan of Google News. The search engine turns up more than 100 recent reports of disappearing nativity figurines. Hardly a discussion ~~-- more like a stringer straining to meet his 200 word minimum for tomorrow's edition~~. EEng (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet those articles demolish the complaint that the article is a "synthesis" of individual crime reports that news publications have not joined together as a trend. I cited several such articles which I quickly found by scanning the multitude of related press reports. The trend of stealing the Jesus statue from the manger has multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, satisfying notability. Your speculation that a "stringer" rather than a qualified reporter wrote it, and that that he was "straining to meet a 200 word minimum" is not a meaningful argument against notability, unless you can cite a reliable source to back up your claim. Otherwise your complaint falls under the "unsupported statements" which the guidelines at the top of the edit box discourage. The reporter noted the hundred such crimes, and certainly could not be expected to discuss each one at great length. And that only refers to one of several articles noting it as a trend. Edison (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever one may think about whether this phenomenon is real or not, I have to agree with Edison that there are sufficient reliable sources (most notably the articles from The Guardian (2009)[14] and from the Washington Post (2004)--sourced here from the Seattle Times[15]) that treat it as such. The article needs to be carefully monitored for POV purposes, but the subject does seem to be notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck out the "stringer" conjecture, and apologize to the Bismarck, South Dakota, Freelance-Star journalist. I don't expect a discussion of each of the "100 such crimes" (obviously just an eyeball-estimate) "at great length"; I do expect , if there's going to be an article on this allegedly new "phenomenon," that it will be based on someone's discussion of these crimes at any length at all. Oh wait! There is some discussion, as cited above (Washington Post):

Some see the rash of stolen Christ figures as indicative of hostility toward Christmas or Christianity. "There will always be some young people who are drinking who would smash a menorah or a Nativity scene, whatever is there," said [Religious Leader X]. "But this is happening so much this year, I can only see it as part of the trend of Christian-bashing and trying to stamp out Christmas..." But [Academic Y] thinks the thefts have more to do with economics. "It's a function of the commodification of this holiday..."

The problem is, that's the only serious discussion you've cited (and it's hardly in-depth) -- and that's not enough for an article here. Beyond that, we have a headline...

Thefts of baby Jesus figurines sweep US -- Over the past month, pranksters have nabbed dozens of the items in New York, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

...and a shamelessly self-promotional press release...

For the fifth year in a row, BrickHouse Security is providing free GPS trackers to churches and communities across North America. This successful program is free to any qualified non-profit for the month of December.

After that, where will this article go? Other than additional he said-she said exchanges on whether or not there's a war on Christmas, what will be in this article other than a list of thefts? ~~It's easy to use Google to come up with similar alleged culture-war crimewaves:~~

~~A nationwide pumpkin-theft epidemic evidencing a war on Halloween;~~

~~The national nightmare of July 4 flag theft evidencing a war on American independence by terrorist sleeper-cells; and of course~~

A jump in Easter-bunny thefts easily seen to be part of the ongoing War on Easter (including such stories as Police hop on theft report, recover stolen bunnies and Callous theft of pet rabbits devastates young owner in Seville).

I might note that there are 3 million Google hits on "theft of bunnies," 300,000 for "theft of flag july 4" and only 30,000 for "theft of baby jesus", so the need for an article on Easter crimes is ten times more urgent than that for one on anti-patriot crimes, which in turn is a problem of 10 times the magnitude of manger larceny.

Filler stories on everyday petty crime, absent serious discussion deeper than that of the Washington Post article, cannot be the basis of an article on Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Old Dragnet episodes, as outlined in the article, don't count as reliable sources.

re bizarre thefts: theft of snowman (994,000 hits and numerous news reports) is a classic complete with BBC report and an in depth coverage by Sky News. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is obviously snowballing. EEng (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC) (Another P.S.: As a not-trivial technical point, if these thefts really were "bizarre" then they might actually be an appropriate subject for an article -- assuming sources are available etc. But these aren't bizarre or even unusual.)[reply]
Note that in a Google search, if you list several words without any quotes, you overestimate the number of hits because any site with any of the words comes up. And you are getting websites, not news articles as in Google News Archive. So your posting is irrelevant and misleading. So the articles cited by Arxiloxos and by me, while better than the notability demonstration for half of the other articles on Wikipedia, are meaningless to you, since by your standards the subject is silly or trivial. Fine. We can agree to disagree. We are left with "the subject is silly" which sounds like "IDONTLIKEIT" or "OTHER STUFF LIKE THIS EXISTS WITHOUT AN ARTICLE" which is also an ineffective argument. We are discussing this one subject, not snowmen. The "synthesis" argument was the basis for a number of the Delete !votes early on, and that argument seems to be demolished. Edison (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's best to avoid humor with some people. Once again I've struck out portions of my reply (and Czar Brodie's too, for which I hope he will forgive me in view of the greater good) which seem to distract you from the main point, the gravamen of which, in an abundance of caution, I've placed in bold for your convenience. The Google counts have nothing to do with it. It's that there's excruciatingly little serious consideration of

(a) whether or not there is some new phenomenon or trend here; and

(b) what if anything is the significance of it.

While "original synthesis" and "original research" are forbidden on Wikipedia, so also are articles with no research and no synthesis at all -- it's just that you have to find an outside, reliable source that's done some research and synthesized something worth noting. That's absent in this case.

You (collectively) say there's a phenomenon of increased Jesus thefts. OK, point me to a source that seriously considers that question via sober numerical analysis. Can't find one? Is it possible that there just aren't any good statistics on this? Then, unfortunately, this subject will have to remain outside of Wikipedia, because it's outside the realm of the knowable.

EEng (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I have no problem with (and enjoyed) the humor. To be clear, I am not saying there's hard evidence of an upswing in Baby Jesus thefts; in fact, it's possible that your and my personal skepticism about this may be similar. What I find, however, is a pattern of reports in reliable sources asserting that such a phenomenon exists (or is claimed to exist). Finding such sources, I see no basis to exclude the subject from Wikipedia. I do think you've raised valid concerns that this article could end up as a soapbox for the culture wars, but as with the article on Christmas controversy (f/k/a War on Christmas), I see that as a problem to be addressed by editorial monitoring, not AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the title would need to be Perception of increase in theft of baby Jesus or some such. That being absurd, this material might be a subsection of the War on Xmas article.
Meanwhile, we're well past the point where we should be comparing the available sources to applicable guideslines. At this point I'll outdent, and the bolding here is mine:

Let's start with WP:INDEPTH:

An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable....In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines...Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally.

One user's essay on the subject([16]) puts it very well:

Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact...News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria:

1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate.

2. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way....

Can you point me to any of this with regard to our poor baby Jesuses? Or, if you prefer, can you explain why the criteria set forth above shouldn't apply? EEng (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be stuck on the notion that something must be "increasing" to be notable. That is not found anywhere in WP:N. The Earth is notable, even though its mass is not markedly increasing. Similarly, the present subject only needs the demonstrated significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. If the proportion of "Baby Jesus" figures stolen each year had been exactly the same every year since the first recorded Nativity scene, set up by St. Francis on December 24, 1223, that would not, in the slightest, provide a reason to delete this article. There is absolutely no requirement that anyone demonstrate that "X% more Baby Jesus figures are being stolen in 2010 than 20 years ago." That is quite irrelevant and does not merit mention in this discussion. Edison (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cited lack of serious quantification as just one of the many contrasts between the vague assertions in the cited news stories and the kind of analysis which is a prerequisite for an article. EEng (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources showing this is a notable topic. Just read about it again this week, in fact. [17]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For chrissake, will you please read WP:INTHENEWS??? EEng (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you take Jesus' name in vain in your edit summary and comment suggests you don't read rules very well.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn. I told myself to stop using humor. But really -- lighten up, will you? EEng (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essay cited (not even a guideline, let alone a policy) applies to current events, and in no way to a cultural theme going back more than 60 years. One from 1949 cited the Dragnet radio episode as a "famous story" about a boy taking the stolen Baby Jesus for a ride in his new wagon. Edison (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took pains to point out that it was an essay. As always, you've half-addressed one argument and ignored the rest. Since you make a point of it, WP:INDEPTH, which is indeed a Wikipedia guideline, is quite enough. Please point to the sources that, as specified, either

"[put] events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines" or
do more than "highlight either the old event or such types of events generally"

If you once again fail to reply to what I actually say, rather than a strawman, I won't bother to respond. You don't seem able to follow the discussion. EEng (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really funny when someone demands that I acquiesce to their views, or I "just don't have a sense of humor." "Aw. Shucks, Ah wuz only funnin,'" variously expressed, is the defense of bullies the world over. I am dead serious in trying to edit this encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can have fun even in the midst of serious business. As predicted you're responding to a meaningless exchange (with someone else) several paragraphs back, instead of my substantive points above. Your insistence that you're some kind of victim is duly noted. EEng (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All should desist from the personal attacks on anyone with opposing views (such as "I guess it's best to avoid humor with some people" and "You don't seem able to follow the discussion") and stick to discussion of policies, guidelines, and sources as they relate to the notability of the topic. As for WP:INDEPTH, see the significant and in-depth coverage in some articles cited above by Arxiloxo, including in the Guardian, and the Seattle Times. Edison (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have at last responded to my challenge to point to (as called for in the notability guidelines) "in-depth coverage" which puts this topic "into context." You have pointed to two articles.

I have to ask you: Really? This is really the "in-depth coverage" documenting (what you call) "a cultural theme going back more than 60 years"? A 900-word article from 2004,[18] and a 400-word article in 2009,[19] constitute treatment "such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents..."? Really? EEng (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This subject seems pretty good compared to the average Wikipedia article. Try the "Random article search" for 20 articles and let up know how many have a 60 Minutes episode, a book from a university press or a Time article devoted to it among the references. The present topic stands up very well in notability by comparison to the rest of the content of the encyclopedia. It meets the standard of "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Edison (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself from above: "As always, you've half-addressed one argument and ignored the rest." It's inappropriate to keep quoting WP:GNG while ignoring the guidelines for specific classes of topics, in this case WP:EVENTS (and within that, specifically, WP:INDEPTH). Please also review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. At this point I'll wait for the closing admin to make what he or she will of what's been presented so far. Goodbye. EEng (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article as nominated had some synthesis, but the potential here is for a decent little article. Many good sources, as noted above, have been found, and can easily, with a little copyediting, be added and fixed. Comparing this article to Featured articles smacks of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What??? No one said anything about Wikipedia Featured Articles, if that's what you mean. Please re-read my post, and the notability guidelines it cites, and reconsider your comment. EEng (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison. The abc article in particular shoots down the synthesis argument for me. On a side note, some of the comments above are unacceptable in tone. --Banana (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Here's the entirety of the ABC article, other than the narration of a particular family's victimization:

Local law enforcement officials around the country say thefts from holiday displays are an unfortunate but familiar occurrence this time of year, and, unfortunately, the items are difficult to recover. "It's not uncommon to have vandalism to displays during the holiday season," said Fort Collins Police Department spokeswoman Rita Davis. "And many people don't report it when Rudolph gets taken from the front yard." ....Morris said most thefts from nativity scenes are committed by people who either have malicious intent toward the particular church or are teenage pranksters out for a thrill.

("Morris," by the way, is owner of a security company which uses free loans of GPS equipment for religious displays as a promotional gimmick. I guess that gives him standing to comment on the psychological motives of thieves.) Now compare the above to WP:EVENTS:

Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. EEng (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

". . .since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally" This article can indeed be used to prove notability of the trend as it is not giving notability to the specific theft, but to the type of event generally. --Banana (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...which makes it... the type of article... which editors... "should not rely on"... to afford notability. What could be clearer? I'm beginning to think I'm the victim of some elaborate joke, whereing people interpret guidelines backwards just to see how I'll react. EEng (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusion comes from that you are taking a guideline written for a specific type of article (articles about events) and applying it to a topic it was never intended to cover (a sociological trend in crime). The part of WP:EVENT that you quoted was stating that articles such as the abc article do not give notability to each individual event, but only to the overall phenomenon. --Banana (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? You're quite right. I was blind to the word "new" in affort notability to the new event. That still leaves us with the first part of the WP:EVENTS, which calls for in-depth coverage. But you seem to be saying now that WP:EVENTS doesn't apply; I disagree, since the only coverage anyone has pointed to is news coverage. What alternative guideline would apply, and what evidence is there that the topic conforms to that guideline? EEng (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced about 30 articles (about various African politicians) with only news articles. Does WP:EVENT apply to those articles as well? --Banana (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SYNTHESIS and NOTNEWS. Routine coverage of a criminal act. Not actually a Baby Jesus theft, which would be a kidnapping, but a Baby Jesus figurine theft, and not that generally, but specifically am outdoor Christmas Nativity scene Baby Jesus figurine theft, an act that isn't recognized as a unique criminal act of theft anywhere that I'm aware of. Some of the articles note other nativity scene figures are stolen as well, or Christmas trees, or menorahs, or atheist holiday displays, or whatever. Not really any different than crucifix thefts, of which many are reported, or business mascot thefts, of which many are reported. *Any* property of sentimental, aesthetic or monetary value is a target for theft, especially if it's outdoors and unguarded, something which should be obvious. The popular culture "reference" in Dragnet is synthesis, not really a theft but investigated as one, not based on a real crime, and not referenced in any article about a real crime. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is plenty of reliable source material for the article, which really isn't the question. In that regard, the topic is valid as noted in this news article:

Mucha, Peter (December 27, 2008). "Baby Jesus thefts seem to be epidemic". Kansas City Star. p. A9.
"GPS technology protecting Baby Jesus". Daily Record. December 3, 2010.
Dwyer, Devin (2010-12-13). "Nativity Scene Thefts Holiday Tradition, Police Say". ABC News.

In addition, there are plenty of more sources supporting the premise that "Baby Jesus theft is the theft of plastic or ceramic figurines of the infant Jesus from outdoor public and private nativity displays during the Christmas season. The prevalence of such thefts has caused the owners of outdoor manger scenes to protect their property with GPS devices, surveillance cameras, or by other means.": BABY JESUS STOLEN FOR 2 YEARS IN A ROW (December 28, 1995), CRIMES AGAINST CHRISTMAS THIEVES TAKING BABY JESUS FIGURES FROM LAWNS (December 29, 1996), Anarchists in Italy kidnap baby Jesus from nativity scene (12/29/98), BABY JESUS THEFT HINTS AT BIGGER HOLIDAY CRIME (12/7/99), THIEVES TAKE MORE THAN JUST BABY JESUS: EMPTY FEELING ENGULFS NEIGHBORHOOD (12/24/99), BABY JESUS STOLEN OUT OF CRECHE BARRINGTON DISPLAY HIT AGAIN BY THEFT (12/27/00), IT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN EASY FOR BABY JESUS AROUND HERE (12/14/03), Baby Jesus taken from nativity scene -- again (1/7/04), Aussie brewery offers cases of beer as reward for stolen baby Jesus' return (11/17/04), Nativity scene thefts baffling Frustrated Lansdale officials will try to figure out how to stop thieves who are stealing the baby Jesus figurine. (2/7/05) California maintenance worker finds 13 stolen baby Jesus figurines (12/30/05), Stolen away from their mangers 27 baby Jesus statues, taken from crèches, found in car (1/3/06), Christmas: Odd crimes reported Strange crimes abound during the holidays From plastic baby Jesuses to marijuana stashed in card, police blotters are full during holiday season. (12/25/06), First 2 Baby Jesus thefts reported (11/29/07). Theft of Baby Jesus figurines harbinger of holiday. quote="The theft of Baby Jesus figurines from outdoor holiday creches is becoming as much a part of the holiday season as lighted trees and shopping sprees" (11/29/07) GPS, hidden cameras watching over Baby Jesus (12/10/08) Robbing the cradle In response to increasing thefts, some churches in the U.S. have more than angels watching over their ceramic baby Jesuses UK Globe and Mail (12/11/08) Churches can track baby Jesus statutes (12/14/08) Security from above: Baby Jesuses watched over by GPS devices (12/21/08) Christmas spirit? Baby Jesus stolen in Swedish bible belt (12/23/08) Reports appear around the U.S. of thefts of baby Jesus from nativity scenes, December 27, 2008, GPS technology protecting Baby Jesus (12/3/10). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point, among all that (most of which has been cited already in this discussiom), to the in-depth coverage called for by WP:INDEPTH. Or, if you believe some other guideline applies, what guideline would that be, and how is it satisfied? EEng (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, EEng, responding to every single keep vote isn't helping you. You seem to have a different opinion for what constitutes in-depth coverage of something. I've seen countless AfDs end in keep with far less coverage than this. Based on your earlier cussing, I think you may have had your personal baby jesus stolen from your heart.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The headlines above are the ones relevant to supporting the premise that this topic is covered by reliable sources and is a commonplace phenomenon connected through (i) Christmas season, (ii) the Baby Jesus, (iii) common rections of outrage, (iv)counter measures via such as GPS, and (v) relatively harsh punishment for those caught. I also threw in some to show that this is more of a global happening rather than merely U.S. based. As far as quantity of material, in news headlines alone, I found over 400 articles having "Baby Jesus" in them related to theft, stolen, etc. Within those alone, there is more than enought reliable source material to support a stand alone article on the topic. In addition to these, Google books, Google scholar, relevant news that does not have "Baby Jesus" in the title, etc are additional sources from which to mine information for the article. Clearly this meets WP:GNG. In regards to Wikipedia:Notability (events), that guideline is limited to current and past real events, as well as breaking news. Since Baby Jesus thef is a topic, WP:INDEPTH doesn't apply. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Green (running back)

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

not WP notable - has not played professional gridiron football Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable. Had he played in the Canadian Football League, he would meet WP:NSPORTS, but that isn't the case. He also fails WP:GNG; the only mention of him I saw was in a game recap on the CFL website, though the presence of another James Green may have hampered my search. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless a source can be found that he played in a game, he is not notable per WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without additional information, as near as I can tell he's a good college athlete that didn't make the pros. Hundreds of similar articles have been deleted of similar US athletes, this one is in Canada.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to A Trick of the Tail. Courcelles 00:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squonk (song)

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

I don't think this song has the needed notability D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trick of the tail. pablo 13:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep - I haven't investigated whether the song meets notability requirements, but if not it should be redirected to the album, per WP:NSONGS, not deleted. Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the album article. Completely unreferenced after multiple years, containing only quotes and opinions. It is only one paragraph which can easily fit in the albums' article. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitive Collection (Air Supply album)

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

No reliable sources besides Allmusic found. Fails notability for albums. Simply being by a notable act means nothing. Only other source in article appears to be an unreliable fansite. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Per WP:NALBUMS, notice from AllMusic usually suffices for the tiniest glimmer of notability for an album. This article makes a claim for notability, regarding the presence of non-album tracks, but that fact doesn't seem to have been noticed by the outside world, which would have helped. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Blues Brothers Complete

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

No reliable sources beyond Allmusic found. Fails notability for albums as no one's reviewed it, the album didn't chart and wasn't certified, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It's apparent that this release was a poorly-promoted quickie that was ignored by the world and therefore doesn't deserve to be noticed here. However, per WP:NALBUMS, notice from AllMusic usually suffices for the tiniest glimmer of notability for an album. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss New Zealand Titleholders 2010

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

Contested PROD. Very limited scope, not really deserving of its own article. Questionable notability. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some useful information. Maybe merge or redirect to New Zealand at Miss World.--Visik (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need for an list of current titleholders. A list this narrowly defined will forever be a WP:PERMASTUB. Either delete or merge up to a broader article, like List of New Zealand beauty pageant winners or something similar. SnottyWong ^express 17:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Balone

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

I'm not sure if this particular subject meets the notability guidelines for WP:BIO. (Former prisoner turned motivational speaker.) He is apparently quite well known in Buffalo, but his notability is geographically limited from what I can see. He was mentioned in the NY Daily News as having been paroled under Gov. Spitzer, but it's just a mention.[20] On the other hand, he was on the 700 Club.[21] I'm neutral on the issue, but I feel like it needs clarification. ... discospinster _talk 02:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He also has an article devoted to him in the Christian Science Monitor. I think, based on a strict read of the basic WP:BIO criteria, he passes muster...but it's a close thing, and the geographic limitation is an interesting point to raise. Regardless, I think barely passing the basic BIO criteria is grounds for a keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this is very much on the line as far as WP:BIO and was wondering. Could a motivational speaker be considered under WP:CREATIVE? I would think so and would lend more to a keep argument. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social floor

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

This article in a nutshell states the following: "A social floor is something that all people are entitled to. Here's what a social floor includes and what it may or may not include. Here's why it's right. Some people don't agree, but they're wrong." Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy of any particular point of view, and this article would need to be completely blown up and started over to come even remotely close to being NPOV. ~~POV issues aside, I find minimal reliable, non-editorial coverage of either "social floor" or the related "social minimum".~~redacted; see below —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So despite the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy's article on the subject being cited five times here in this very article, you didn't find it? And you didn't find Jeremy Waldron's treatise on the subject? Or Jan Narveson's? Leonard Marsh's definition of the subject may be hard to find, but those three aren't. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this article's style in very poor taste. It reads, well, like an essay written by a high school student, rather than a dispassionate encyclopedic treatment of the concept, its history, and its role. Whether this is sufficient for deletion under WP:NOT, or whether somebody wants to take a go at fixing it, is the real question. Suffice to say, I think few would miss it if we deleted this article as it stands now. Ray^Talk 05:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the late response; I've been busy IRL. To answer Uncle G's question, I did see the Stanford article and the other sources cited on the page; however, those and the others I did find are all advocacy pieces that essentially state the same thing that this article does: "This is what it is and why it should be done; some people don't agree and here are the reasons why they don't agree, but here are the reasons why they're wrong." I've taken a closer look at the sources and now believe that a decent quality article may be written on this subject; however, in its present state I still believe it is so hopelessly POV that it needs TNT. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's a good thing that our article says essentially the same thing as reliable sources? That's the whole idea of our policies on verifiability and original research. Much of our article is far from "hopelessly POV", consisting of reporting what others have written about the subject, with attribution, so is perfectly acceptable content. If you think that any conclusions are drawn incorrectly that that can be easily fixed by removing a sentence or two rather than throwing away all of that good content. In other words, keep the "A social floor is something that all people are entitled to. Here's what a social floor includes and what it may or may not include. Here's why [some people think that] it's right. Some people don't agree." and ditch the small part of the article that says "but they're wrong". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our editing policy is to improve articles in situ rather than to delete them and start again. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep (a) I think the nominator did not quite capture the meaning in their summary. The page does not say "A social floor is something that all people are entitled to" but rather "A social floor, also called a social minimum, is the concept that there is baseline level of social services and human rights to which every human being should have access." one is POV, the second isn't. So the POV objection is not valis. (b) a page being POV is not grounds for deletion anyway, only for rewriting. (c) a cursory search on Google finds tens of thousands of hits for social floor, including presentations at the UN, so it is clearly notable. Francis Bond (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is so clearly a keep that I would urge the nominator to take a moment to reflect and perhaps be a little slower to propose deletion in the future Francis Bond (talk)

Keep but requires a lot of editingLm 997 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 04:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur R

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

Only notable for insulting France through his lyrics and allegedly fuelling riots. I think WP:BLP1E applies here. Mattg82 (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't agree with the BLP1E rationale for this nomination. There's no doubt that there has been extensive coverage of this artist in both English and French--lots of hits at Google News, for example.[22][23] A 2006 Public Radio International story refers to him as a "top selling rap musician"[24], so he is not the sort of "low profile individual" that BLP1E is designed to protect. The article describes a multi-album discography. He seems clearly notable to me.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Note that if Wikipedia has an article on someone who insulted France, that does not mean Wikipedia is also insulting France. And it appears from the article that the guy has only insulted a certain political party and not the whole country. Anyway, the source found by Arxiloxos above is useful and there are some news stories available on the artist (though they're mostly in French), meaning he's somewhat notable beyond one event. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would disagree with "top selling rap musician" looking at this French chart archive; therefore rather weakly imo meeting #2 of WP:MUSICBIO. All the sources I've seen relate to the insult incident and gets name dropped with other rap artists for allegedly inciting riots, even from the more recent sources. I don't think his is notable beyond this one event, which comes from only one song "FranSSe". Can a artist be notable from just one song ? There are some artists that are notable for been one-hit-wonders, but he hasn't had any hits, and I might be wrong, no articles about his music or album reviews etc. Mattg82 (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Týr (band). feel free tocopy across content Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heljareyga

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BAND. despite attempts at improvement since last AfD, still has many unreliable sources. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Týr (band) as an item of minor interest in the Band Members section. There's not enough for a stand-alone article on this side project. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Doomsdayer520, or to the lead singer of both bands, Heri Joensen. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Van Halen discography. Courcelles 00:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Van Halen projects

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

Composed almost entirely of unreliable sources. Any important projects can be mentioned in Van Halen. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a paragraph into Van Halen discography. It is noteworthy that VH has so much unreleased stuff, including whole albums, and at least some of it is sourced. But I agree that the full list of all tracks and so on is excessive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Van Halen discography as suggested by Starblind. Some of this stuff is actually verifiable but there is no call for a separate article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Myles

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

Not finding any reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. BLP is unreferenced with two external links to IMDB. SnottyWong ^express 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO through 3 Golden Reel Award nominations...[25] in 2001 for The Huntress,[26] in 2006 for King Kong,[27] and in 2009 for The Tale of Despereaux.[28] These nominations simply need citing. [29] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lawson (audio engineer)

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

No reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG can be found. There are several other Mark Lawsons out there who are more well-known than this one (see Mark Lawson (disambiguation)), so sources may be harder than usual to find. Everything I could find about this particular Mark Lawson was Myspace and LinkedIn, no significant coverage. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 23:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find credits like this where he is mentioned as producer or audio engineer, but there is no significant coverage bout him to establish notability, or any indications that he has won significant awards or peer recognition for his work. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. This AfD has been up long enough, move along. It appears to be unique as a 501(c)(3) team. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racine Raiders

AfDs for this article:

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

I've listed this separatley from several other semi-pro football teams nominated for deletion because there is more content to the article. This one has the most information on the page. However, the same issues do persist: extraordinarily weak assertion of notability, no independent reliable sources, and a stronger case for violation of neutral point of view. Paul McDonald (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to MidStates Football League per my reasoning here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP*** This page is well sources, talks about a very important football team, and has sources from news papers and radio stations, needs to remain the way it is. I'm sick and tired of this semi pro witch hunt!
- Please remember WP:CIVIL, and, I'm afraid to say, the article is not well referenced at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is not sourced at all. It has some external links that go to primary sources, and the base URLs for a local radio station and newspaper, but nothing to direct coverage of the team. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Merging may not be possible, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidStates Football League--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable independant sources. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although most semi-pro football teams are not notable, the Racine Raiders are notable within the world of minor league and semi-pro ball, primarily because they have been in continuous operation since 1953-- longer than the Oakland Raiders, or for that matter, more than half of the teams in the NFL. [30] and [31] and [32] provide plenty of independent sources. Mandsford 14:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And can you find any that actually talk in detail about the team instead of passing mentions. Also in regards to link #2....almost all of the books that show up there are reprints of wikipedia so not really sources either. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoughts My thoughts are that if the team is only notable within the world of minor league and semi-pro football, then they would not be notable for our purposes here. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true, but Wikipedia is also WP:NOTPAPER. It's not like Wikipedia is running out of space. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahhh, but that same policy states "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done..." I don't think that "We've got plenty of room on our servers" is a valid argument to keep an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racine Threat

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

I've listed this separatley from several other semi-pro football teams nominated for deletion because there is more content to the article. However, the same issues do persist: extraordinarily weak assertion of notability, no independent reliable sources, and a stronger case for violation of neutral point of view. Paul McDonald (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to MidStates Football League per my reasoning here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Merging may not be possible, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidStates Football League--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable independant sources. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Illinois Cowboys

All of these pages are semi pro football teams and should not be deleted due to the fact that people use these pages for information on teh teams.

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

Extraordinarily weak assertion of notability and no independent reliable sources. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are essentially the same articles with only changes in names. All have same notability, reliable sources, and potential NPOV issues:

SEE ALSO Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake County Steelers for similar discussion of similar articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to MidStates Football League per my reasoning here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Merging may not be possible, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidStates Football League--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independant reliable sources. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roscoe Rush The Roscoe Rush Should not be deleted because it is a semi pro football team that is registured as a non-profit, and they also participate in community support.--unsigned comment by 98.103.189.242 (talk)
- So what? Thanks for your comments! Many would argue, including WP:NSPORT that being a semi-pro football team is exactly the reason it should be deleted. Why does its status as a for-profit/non-profit matter? And why is the community support notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Sounds like a boy scout troop... Please provide more solid reasons.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No notability shown with outside sources, semi-pro teams generally not notable. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lake County Steelers

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

This is a batch nomination for a series of regional football teams. I declined speedy deletion - this nomination is procedural because it seems there are real doubts about notability, but it warrants discussion. The 7other noms are:

If this is a keep or no consensus close, Chicago Mustangs (football) should be restored. Mkativerata (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably better to run these through AFD, and yes if these are kept then Chicago Mustangs should be restored. Although some have an ssertion" of notability, they are really very weak assertions. I would say it is questionable if even the league is notable. From what I can tell, there isn't even any local coverage of these teams in the local news. If the local newspapers don't even care, why should we? Further, the articles are all missing independent reliable sources and are only "self-sourced" -- most contain almost no information on the subject. It looks like the league is gearing up to use Wikipedia as a "free hosting site" for their organization. I'm sure that they are great people, play great games, and are a blast to watch--but it's just not notable for our purposes here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not as accurate as you think, last years the Steelers had games broadcasted on ESPN Radio and Blog Talk Radio. This will be the 12th year of the Lake County Steelers Football program who not only provides a good football game, gives young players the opportunity to earn college scholarships as well as some players get the opportunity to move up to the next level by playing in Arena Footbal.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Similar discussion of similar articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Illinois Cowboys.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to MidStates Football League. The league seems to be barely notable (quick google hits: [33] [34] [35] refute the "local newspapers don't even care" argument). The teams however probably aren't sourcable to establish notability outside of the league. So merging little blurbs into MidStates Football League#Teams seems to make the most sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Merging may not be possible, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidStates Football League--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable independant sources. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alll Notability not shown with outside sources, semi-pro teams rarely notable. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Transformers: The War Within. Courcelles 00:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Strike Coalition

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

This article has no reliable third person sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Transformers: The War Within, the comic book where they appear. Mathewignash (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems okay, but they have to be mentioned at the target article. Right now, they don't seem to be mentioned at Transformers: The War Within, and I don't know how to add a mention since I'm not very familiar with he plot. NotARealWord (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Transformers: The War Within. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peke-a-tese

Peke-a-tese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This is a completely non-notable "designer" dog cross. There are hundreds of these portmanteau names for crossbreeds. This material could be covered briefly in the article List of dog hybrids. Precedents have been to delete these pages for portmanteau names and move them to the list page. JoKing (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia policy, the simple fact that an article is not notable is not sufficient reason for an article to be deleted. This article has several reliable sources as per the general notability guidelines and provides information that would not easily be merged into the List of dog hybrids. Merging information into that list would force much of the information contained in this document to be deleted. Similar to specific products of a company in the product article guidelines, if all of the information of specific types of dog hybrids were contained in the list of dog hybrids, the list would become unwieldy. Per Wikipedia policy, specific articles can be summarized in a larger article, in this case the hybrid dog list, and provide more detail in individual articles, which is the purpose of the Pekeatese article.--Falconhs02 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this is a notable cross. See List of dog hybrids. Zetawoof (ζ) 03:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Car Patrol

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

This article has no reliable third person sources to assert notability. A poor article with poor notability that should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Micromasters. Mathewignash (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- article about extremely minor Transformers characters with no sources. Wikipedia is not a database of all fictional characters ever invented. Disagree with a merge because there is no usable content, and disagree with a redirect because anyone looking up "Sports car patrol" will most likely be looking for an actual real patrol in real sports cars in the real world. Reyk _YO! 22:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect as a minor character with no third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Conner Humphreys

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

Non-notable former child actor. Does not meet WP:ENT as he has only had a single significant role in one production (Forrest Gump as a child actor). Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources - there is a smattering of coverage in local news affiliates only. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And that's all I have to say about that. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Zerbst

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:CREATIVE NW (Talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I am unable to find significant discussion of this woman in independent sources, and I am also unable to find any evidence that the Arthur Nortje award is a notable award. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete zero coverage [36]. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyaz Arif Akbas

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

The article does not state why the subject of the article is notable. Google searches for the author bring up mostly self-published sources and eBooks. Also the author of the article is the subject of the article itself. Jeff3000 (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my searches confirm the opinion of the nominator. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Franco

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

Part-advertisement of an article. The subject doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:SIGCOV, at least from my impression. NW (Talk) 15:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Spanish Wikipedia also lacks sources. --Jmundo (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alverez

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks more like a resume' with no work being attached to anything notable. Hourick (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about deletion. if any action at all, would say WP:MOVE or rename to "The MostCold" or "Alverez the MostCold". Thephmp (talk) 9:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, there is nothing notable about that article, while music may have been produced, nothing has even remotely hit a chart, and the people that ARE mentioned aren't notable. Even the other person that is mention in the article is someone that is equally un-notable. I don't put things up for deletion for the most part, but if there were two articles that need to be the subject of one, then those two are it. --Hourick (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no notability here. He has worked with a bunch of peaple, mostly non notable, but notability is not inherited. He has released some stuff but nothing that gained significant attention. The article has a ton of references (some which don't mention him or verify statements in the article) but I see none that I'd call non trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Example

[1] Example

[1]