Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 22

< 21 October	23 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete—clear consensus and so forth. — Deck iller 23:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next constitution of Zimbabwe

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

Unsourced, dated stub. Note that this would empty its category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I understand the value of this info is 50% less each successive day. Virtually superseded by 2008–2009 Zimbabwean political negotiations. Per its last few grafs, apparently by Feb 09 it was just a constitutional amendment and thus not fitting the title, and there's no reason to retain the title. Merge the category there as a decent expandable category and the only "value" remaining. JJB 04:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and empty per above, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess if you mean literally the "next constitution of Zimbabwe" and not just the process originally in view by the article creator, Hammer's law does apply! There is not now any track order! JJB 19:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Cushing Niles Dolbeare Media Awards

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

This award doesn't seem to have much importance. It's already mentioned in Cushing Dolbeare D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source makes a non-notable award. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award seems unimportant, the material is unreferenced, and is already mentioned in Cushing Dolbeare. The, non-introductory, remainder of the text does not add any much value to the subject, so a merger would not be worthwhile either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idunno271828 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Howell

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

Subject fails notability guidelines Canyouhearmenow 05:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--

(Notability: Musician) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (Tarantic Records- 39 published albums, founded 1998)
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (Theme for Life Love and Health (Currently on Sirius/XM and formerly on NPR))
(Notability: Web content) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster (TWiT Network and CBS Interactive)

There was a large rabble about this before (back in 2007, I think), and I ended up abandoning the argument because of a persnickety admin, and don't really know about what came of the argument. Tcardone05 (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search leads mainly back to his own pages. The article itself is nothing more than a mere promotional page. If the article for some reason should be deemed notable which I still cannot see how it could, it would certainly have to be rewritten to remove the promotional aspects to make it encyclopedic.--Canyouhearmenow 14:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however, I would be OK with a redirect to TWiT.tv. The subject does not appear to pass the aforementioned guidelines. Location (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The music career alone is a reason to keep the article.MLBudToo (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.42 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the editorial input clearly displays a lack of understanding of WP:NOT; for instance, birthdates and full names of living WP:KIDS are a very very bad idea (I'm deleting that sentence now). There are so many WP:SPS that the remaining ones are probably so also (CNET, SFSU). And there goes your article. If someone cared to stub it to WP:RS only and continue to claim notability by some policy criterion after that point, that might get my !vote discounted a little. JJB 00:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The music aspect is not notable enough to keep the article either. Doing a search on the musical inclusions all relate back to the subjects own websites or articles the subject created. I stand by my original delete nomination. --Canyouhearmenow 03:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of G.I. Joe vehicles. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S.H.A.R.C.

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

Lazy stub, no references (not even fansites), no assertion of notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For once I agree with you. This info should be merged into the article for the Deep Six character linked in the article. Lots42 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles as there is a Category:G.I. Joe vehicles with all very similar poor-quality articles. They may be deletion-worthy individually per nom, but a list may actually be useful for everyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of G.I. Joe vehicles. Mathewignash (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Winx Club. Technically the result was merge, but as the content is unsourced and thus not ready for merging I'm redirecting at this time. The content can be merged from the history if it is sourced and otherwise made suitable for inclusion. Sandstein 08:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enchantix

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

This feels exactly like something one would find on a fan site. There doesn't appear to be anything notable about the Enchantix form outside of in-universe meanings in the Winx Club, and there aren't any reliable sources I could find. What is out there is mostly user generated to websites like TV.com or to books from Books, LLC (which uses Wikipedia text). AniMate 22:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Winx Club per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Malkinann. It would be best if this unsourceable article was merged to Winx Club because the Enchantix is a crucial part in the series' storyline. GVnayR (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Winx Club --Elassint (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete—clear consensus based on the proper policies and guidelines in this case. — Deck iller 23:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone (aircraft)

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

Very strange, unencyclopedic "article". Seems redundant, as everything here could be (and probably is already) covered in Aircraft or other core articles surrounding that topic. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. My first reaction was to redirect to Product lifecycle, but this one is just as bad! East of Borschov 23:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone totally rewrites it and changes the title to "stages in aircraft development" or "aircraft development process" or some such thing. Probably not worth doing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide, and if you have the money and talent to build an aircraft, do you really need a how to guide from Wikipedia? Useless, unencyclopedic, ect. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced OR in any case, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Performance Awards

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

Non-notable college football awards, main author has been found to be the founder of the awards. Lots of spam and promotion in the article, should see the version prior to when I removed 23,000 bytes worth of text. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phony awards, whose creator claims to use "scientific methods" w/out ever explaining them anywhere on his website. Plus, they're virtually non-existent in college football media coverage. —bender235 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. This looks like the ONLY actual non-press release coverage of the awards. I with I could find an article debunking CFPA, so we could keep an article telling the world that they're a sham, but they seem so non-notable that no one but us has even looked into the matter! cmadler (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete apparently a confirmed sockpuppet created the page maliciously.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2026

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

Contested PROD. Article is based on speculations. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 21:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:CRYSTAL, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place - the event is clearly notable and is certain to take place. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The year itself is not a notable event. The article is merely a list of conjectural trivia. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All years are notable surely? The articles for future years are bound to be somewhat speculative, but as long as they are sourced and are on the lines "...X event is scheduled to happen on Y date..." then its fine as far as I can tell. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is not a discrete event... only a period of time in which events can take place. Maybe I'm thinking too much about it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. 16 years into the future is essentially pure speculation (I'd equate it as "future history" example). "In fiction" section is trivial. By the same token, the 2020+ year articles should be deleted as well.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is this particular year singled out?SPNic (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG as a nomination that is apparently making some kind of WP:POINT about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 FIFA World Cup and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 FIFA Wolrd Cup (sic), though I don't know what point. We have articles AND TEMPLATES through 2059, 2110s, and 40th century, and we tap out at 11th millennium and beyond. (Did you know the Crypt of Civilization will be unsealed on 28 May 8113?) Who could forget the haunting refrains from "There Will Come Soft Rains", where all the computers are chiming out about 4 August 2026, that are seared into our collective consciousness like a silhouette on a wall? Oh wait, wrong forum. Look, I did some work on the set of articles such as 10 zeptometres, which is an article that happens to list ZERO elements and is still sustainable as a placeholder and part of a set. Basically, this large future-event article set is a long-supported and rarely-challenged function of WP's larger scope and 2026 has significant mention in numerous reliable sources. JJB 00:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:CRYSTAL, part of an established series. Lugnuts (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well established type of article. It is hardly speculative that the year will be 100 years after the birth of Queen Elizabeth, and pretty certain that the 23rd FIFA World Cup will take place. And that other things have been predicted in that year is not speculative either, though the events themselves may be. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As DGG notes, this type of article is well established in Wikipedia. The article established on 7 March 2002 didn't have much to say to begin with, but quickly grew, long before that year arrived. God forbid that we start having a popularity contest over which years in the past or years yet to come deserve an article. Mandsford 23:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly good and useful article (and part of a series). Conjectural? I'm willing to bet that the 100th anniversary of Her Majesty's birth will indeed occur in this year. You can call that conjecture if you like. And the other events are either similarly likely, or are notable and referenced conjectures (or are references to fiction). I don't see why it was even necessary to nominate a good article such as this. Herostratus (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man Automatic

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

Non-notable MySpace band. No other refs, no reviews, no other coverage, only releases are self-published with no notable impact on any chart. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related album page:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-unreferenced non notable band, self promotion. He iro 17:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - now is the time for the singer to find some new bandmates and get a gig. Then if anyone in the outside world notices, there might be something to put in a WP article. There is nothing encyclopedic to say about the band now.--DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Finch (American band). Content can be merged from the history as desired by editors. Sandstein 08:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Barcalow

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

Although a favourite vocalist of mine, i do not believe he is notable enough to warrant his own article, just like many other musicians in bands. There are not many sources on the page and i can not find any reliable ones for him to have his own article. Grey Matter 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect- as he has not performed any notable (by Wikipedia standards) work outside of Finch, the article can simply be redirected to the band as advised at WP:MUSICBIO. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ponyo and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (NAC) 2 says you, says two 21:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labradford

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

Contested prod, band fails WP:MUSIC - a one paragraph bio on Allmusic does not satisfy the notability threshold, nor do the other trivial or user-edited website mentions given. 2 says you, says two 20:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woha! Hadn't checked this since I put it up... I stand corrected and I'm sorry for wasting your time. 2 says you, says two 21:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Are you kidding? [1] I saw Labradford on one of their European tours. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep FFS! Around for years, toured internationally, half a dozen albums released. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep. Meet the general notability guideline as well as the inclusion criteria for bands through releasing multiple records on "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)". Coverage here, here, here, here, here and here. That allmusic info isn't just one paragraph either, they review every album. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article doesn't do an especially wonderful job of clearly expressing notability, but they are. Some potential sources include Washinton Post, Chicago Tribune, and Richmond Times Dispatch. Definitely notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Seriously, a quick search on Google Books should be sufficient to determine notability.--Michig (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I contested the prod, and gave my reasons in both the edit summary and on the discussion page. Bit of a silly nomination, IMHO. Anyway, this AfD has served it's purpose - the article now contains reliable sources thanks to the editors above, and many, many more are easily available via Google. Meets WP:MUSIC, by some distance. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obviously satisfies WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Why is this AfD still even open? Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Admrboltz (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FromUz

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

Unreferenced article. Failed Prod and Speedy, created and edited by two COI users. Tried to find reliable sources, none located from my Google and GN searches. Admrboltz (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Uzbekistan notified --Admrboltz (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination is premature, in that it was made within two minutes of my contesting the speedy deletion tag, while I was still editing the article to add sources such as [2] and [3]. How about giving people a chance to improve articles rather than having this mad rush to delete as quickly as possible? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is sourced, contains more information than a lot of articles, and it is 100% encyclopedic content. I see no reason why to delete it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Croatian NBA players

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

I find this list an unnecessary content fork because the same info is already presented in List of foreign NBA players. I agree that this is well-referenced and notable. But those are not the point of this afd. We should seriously ask ourselves why a separate list is needed here. The main list is not too long yet. So, I can't even think of a valid reason of keeping this. —Chris!_c/t 18:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the above reason:

To clarify, I redirected them to the main list previously (some have been reverted). But now I think they should be deleted. Do we seriously need a redirect for every country?—Chris!_c/t 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list contains match statistics as well as players who were drafted but never appeared in the NBA which will both be lost after it gets merged with the general List of foreign NBA players after you decided to merge without even attempting to discuss it in those article's talk pages. I don't see any reason why these lists shouldn't be able to co-exist, unless you find a way to include all the information contained in those lists into the general foreign players list. Also, the reason you cited in the edit ("separate list not needed;it actually makes updating more difficult") doesn't really sound convincing as this particular list contains a total of 16 Croatian players in the history of NBA, with the grand total of 9 (nine) being drafted in the past 10 years. It doesn't sound too difficult to update to me. Timbouctou 19:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the main list is missing some info. But I argue that those info are extraneous. The purpose of this list is to list foreign player, but not to list other statistics. If one is interested, they can look it up in player's biography. I must add that players drafted but didn't actually play in NBA games aren't considered NBA players.—Chris!_c/t 19:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Timbouctou has already said, these pages contain more information then the global one, and as far as the Serbian page is concerned (i don't really know about the other ones), it has been regularly updated, so I really can't see a single reason for the deletion. As a counterexample, there are lists of episodes of certain TV shows (List of The Big Bang Theory episodes), and then there are pages for the seasons, with more info on the episodes of a specific season (List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 2)), and then, there are even pages on the subject of a specific episode (The Terminator Decoupling). Following your logic, all of that isn't needed and should be deleted. If that is the case, you should make a broader discussion on the subject, but I sincerely doubt there would be many people that would accept your stance...--Vitriden (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 2) has much more information than List of The Big Bang Theory episodes, while here the sub-list contains basically the same information with the main article. The games statistics are equivalent to the years in the NBA. The only difference is the teams information. — Martin tamb (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not much more information, just a short episode info, which can also be found on the episode page. Therefore, I can see no difference between these two cases.--Vitriden (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, the main TV episode list is actually quite redundant (it lists episodes without a summary, while the sublists list the same info with a summary) and could be deleted. That just prove my point that redundant pages should be deleted.—Chris!_c/t 18:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, that absolutely disproves your point. Deleting that sublist would have proven your point, its existence here disproves it. And, if I may be redundant too, if that displeases you, then you should ask for deletion of all such sublists, but you have to start a much broader argument on the subject in that case.--Vitriden (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop twisting my word. I never suggest that all sublists should be deleted. What I argue was that all unnecessary lists should be deleted. Sublists would be necessary if the main list is too long or the subject is too complex that the creation of sublists is unavoidable. But this is clearly not the case here. The sublists here are not necessary because it basically rehashes the same info. (I already explained why those extra info are superfluous) In the case of the TV episode lists, the main list imo is unnecessary. The sublists provide summary that would be too much info if included in the main list. So, no, I do not need to start a general discussion about sublists because I never argue for the deletion of all of them.—Chris!_c/t 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have never said that you had previously said that all sublists should be deleted. Read more carefully. I've said that your point would have been valid had it been proven on previous occasions. It hasn't been, since some lists with more detailed info than the main list, but with less info than the one in the single articles on the subjects listed, do exist. And if these sublists (not all sublists, only the ones you consider contain redundant info), if these lists should be deleted, it should be voted & noted somewhere. I am just pointing out this isn't a lonely case, but something that has been spread all around wikipedia. I don't find it wrong or bothersome in any way, but if you do, you should start discussion on that issue. I see nothing wrong with that. Peace.--Vitriden (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So my points are invalid because tons of unnecessary and redundant contents exist on Wikipedia. I think you are just making a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Remember, there is nothing stopping anyone from creating unnecessary sublists. Also saying that deletion of redundant content hasn't been done on previous occasions is just plain wrong. A recent case I encountered where redundant content was deleted was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of townlands in County Laois.—Chris!_c/t 01:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, other crap does exist. But your comparison is out of place. The info on these pages is not redundant, or, at worst, not completely redundant. And, while adding clubs and numbers of games would overhaul the main list, these smaller lists handle it perfectly fine, as far as I can see. I also see no problem with adding players who have been drafted, but didn't play in the NBA. It would be too much for the main list, but for someone who is looking for the information on Serbian/Croatian/French... connections with the NBA clubs, and therefore comes to a specific page, these are valuable information. I don't understand your point, I just don't. Here is another example. There is an article called Foreign relations of Poland. There is also an article named Foreign relations of Belarus. And then, there is an article called Poland–Belarus relations. This article contains pretty much the same information as do the Belarus and Poland sections of the respective articles, with somewhat more external links, better prose, etc. But - and this is the main part - the people coming to this page focus on this subject knowing that this subject will never be covered as thoroughly in these two articles as it will be in that one separate article, because it explains a relation between two subjects, and that relation itself forms a separate third subject. In the same way, these sublists are focused on a relation between certain country's basketball players and the NBA, an internationally acclaimed world's strongest basketball league. This relation can not be covered in any other way as thoroughly as through these separate articles. Anyway, if that explanation doesn't please you, we'll see the results of this poll in a few days and what most people consider appropriate, we should consider a fact. I see no other way to maintain wikipedia functionally, really...--Vitriden (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Players drafted but never appeared in the NBA are not actually NBA players, so they are out of scope of both main article and the sub-lists. The main reason why these sub-list should not co-exists is because they are redundant, the number of players on the sub-list are relatively small (12 in Croatian list, 20 in Serbian list, 7 in Turkish list, 4 in Montenegrin list, 15 in French list, 6 in Greek list). I also believe that content forking should be avoided if possible. Instead of games statistics, the main article has the years they were active in the NBA, which I believe has the same purpose which is to show the readers how successful they are in the NBA. Listing all the teams they played for are a little bit excessive, even for a stand-alone sub-list. — Martin tamb (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lists are well created, with place to be expanded, and national separation is well arranged. Anyway, even if it is merged to a single article, those redirects must exist. Also, i would gladly search only for Croatian or Serbian NBA players, in a separate article, just because it may be important enough to have it separated. That was the main idea for its creation. And Serbian article is here since 2006! And now it is unneeded? What about all this years? It was well updated, better the "main" list. A Also i find this AfD unnecessary housekeeping, with no good reason. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The time of existence has nothing to do with this. Just because no one has bothered to nominate them for deletion, doesn't mean they should exist. I also disagree that they are better than the main one. The sub lists basically rehash the same information on the main article as I have explained already.—Chris!_c/t 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The argument for deletion is that all information in this list is either redundant or unimportant, but I'd say that seasons/games is a useful addition, especially in a sortable table. (Personally, I'd ditch drafted-only players and perhaps teams and playoff games too.) I agree completely that there is fundamentally no reason not to have a single list (that is, no reason yet, as the number of foreign players is rising sharply), but the layout and content of this list should be built on at least a some kind of rough consensus. You've gone and redirected all those lists - nothing wrong with that, you were being bold - but some sort of discussion is obviously needed. GregorB (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I could have gained consensus before merging but that is all in the past now. You seem to agree that there is fundamentally no reason not to have a single list, yet you are voting keep. Could you clarify that?—Chris!_c/t 20:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons/games could be a useful addition, I don't totally disagree with that. So that could potentially be added to the main list.—Chris!_c/t 20:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I cannot speak for others who voted keep, but I don't think this list should be kept at all costs. Once useful stuff is merged, things will be different. GregorB (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added number of seasons played to the main list. Number of games wasn't added because those figures change frequently and is more difficult to maintain. Please take another look, thanks.—Chris!_c/t 04:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Timbouctou. "The list contains match statistics as well as players who were drafted but never appeared in the NBA which will both be lost after it gets merged with the general list". Kebeta (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you didn't read the above comments carefully. Some extraneous statistics would be "lost" after merging. But I argue that the info isn't lost because they are already in the player's biography. Also players drafted but never appeared in an NBA game are not NBA players, so they are out of scope of both the main list and the sub-lists. Thus, the lost info argument is moot.—Chris!_c/t 18:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point of this discussion is not to decide what is "extraneous statistics" for the main list. Something that is extraneous for the main list may not be that way for lists by nation. Your argument that a piece of information is not needed because it is already mentioned in players' biographies could be used to argue against the general list too (hey, don't all NBA players have seasons stats, club info and nationality mentioned in their respective biographies and why shouldn't we get rid of all lists then because a reader can click through hundreds of biographies and get the same information as presented in the main list?). And since being drafted for the strongest basketball league on the planet is probably considered a sort of an achievement for people who are basketball professionals (and by extension to their national leagues as individual players are products of it), I think it would be better to have a place on Wikipedia where one could see an overview of this. There's simply no good reason NOT to offer this information. I understand that the main list would be difficult to manage and update if all statistics from national lists were to be included into the main list - and that's precisely the reason why these lists SHOULD be kept as they fill a role which is not (and probably will never be) covered by the main list. I for one would like to be able to see an overview of all Croatian/Serbian/French players who ever appeared in the NBA (or came close to appearing in it), accompanied with club info and match statistics and/or any silverware won so that one could see at a glance who was the most successful player from country X in the NBA. I consider this kind of information pretty useful and I have yet to hear a convincing argument against it. Just because the main list is unable to offer something doesn't mean that the same piece of information shouldn't be offered elsewhere. Timbouctou 13:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that the main list is not necessary because one can click through hundreds of biographies and look for the info. I wonder how that is convenient to our readers. The main list is not unnecessary because readers do look for that info somewhere on Wikipedia. But the point is, do we need more lists showing the same info? No, we don't and that is the whole point of this afd, getting rid of unnecessary lists. And sure being drafted to the NBA is an achievement no doubt, but that is not the scope of the lists because they only focus on NBA players. Unless there is a change to the list names to something like List of Croatian NBA players and draftees, it is not appropriate to include them. As for the usefulness of the sublists, I still don't see it. Please ask yourself, what info on the sublists is missing from the main list? (excluding drafted players which I already explained why they should not be included) The number of games is really the only piece of info that is missing. But is that a piece of info people need to see when they search for foreign players? I think not. And the number of seasons (already on the main list) pretty much convey the same thing as the number of games. And you say you want to "see an overview of all Croatian/Serbian/French players who ever appeared in the NBA". Can't you see that on the main list? Can you give me a valid reason why you need to see the exact same info on separate lists? You kept on insisting that the sublists "fill a role which is not covered by the main list". What role would that be? I really had a hard time understanding all that. Thus, I still don't see a valid reason to keep.—Chris!_c/t 19:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these articles could benefit from a little more context (such as the extent to which they are noticed in the media "back home"), but they're appropriate content forks from the quite-large list of foreign-born NBA players. Mandsford 23:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why these content forks are appropriate. They are essentially duplicates of the main list.—Chris!_c/t 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they were duplicates this discussion wouldn't be needed and the definition of "essentially" obviously varies from editor to editor. As for duplicates, see stuff like Category:Lists of Medal of Honor recipients. Granted, Wikipedia doesn't have a full main list with all recipients to date, but it does have lists of recipients by ethnicity, by conflict, as well as three other lists with recipients who are still living, and by alumni of the military and naval academies. Using Chris' logic, if a certain editor woke up one day and decided to compose a complete list of all the recipients these 20+ lists would all have to be taken to AfD because that would make them "essentially duplicates of the main list" and one would see arguments such as "ethnicity, conflict and education are already included in their respective biographies". And I doubt that would go very well. The same could be said for Category:Nobel laureates, where you've got the main list of winners in the main article, plus lists of winners by country, female winners, Jewish winners, black winners, and winners by educational institution (including secondary schools). I'm sure all of the above are included in the main list and are "essentialy duplicates". Timbouctou 13:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure if one "decided to compose a complete list of all the recipients", then the sublists will automatically become duplicates. But back to reality, why would any normal person even compose a complete list of all the recipients? Cramping all that into onto one list would be too much. Thus, creation of sublists is out of necessity. Can we say the same about NBA foreign players? Not really. Having all the NBA foreign players on one list is not too much yet. Hence all the sublists do not need to exist.—Chris!_c/t 19:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess the argument here is not that every sub-list is redundant. It is whether the sub-lists have more information so that they merit their own article. In my opinion, these sub-lists fail to offer more information than the main list, which recently has been expanded to include more information. Sure there are games statistics in the sub-lists but I still believe that it is not essential to list of players. Years and seasons played in the NBA are more suitable for this kind of list. As mentioned above, the sub-lists have plenty of room for improvement. The sub-lists could mention simple information such as the honors, awards or championships won by the players during their time in the NBA. Right now, the sub-lists don't even have any lead section. One or two sentences in the lead could mention the players' achievements in the NBA or probably another column in the table to list their achievements. Unless there are any major improvement to the sub-lists, I still think the sub-lists are unnecessary. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, the list can get mor information and explanations that the main article can have. For example, for countries with few NBA players, we can recall the draft history, allow statistics comparison, etc. A single list wouldn't allow much information and would be virtually unreadable.. Furthermore, you can look at the French wikipedia entry of List of French NBA players to see what is feasible on such a list and why aggregating them is not possible. Poppy (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was rewrite as a disambiguation page. Sandstein 08:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Conway

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

Non notable Irish local councillor, possible vanity article. Fails WP:Politician and WP:GNG Snappy (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does being a representative for the South-East Regional Authority and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe fulfill the "sub-national office" requirement for WP:POLITICIAN #2? Location (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only as dab page. (@Location, I doubt it, I would think those items would let in way too many politicians that would be otherwise nonnotable.) Aside from Location's question, definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN. There are several Joe Conways more notable than this one from Ireland: one from Yeovil, UK, one from Arizona (got 20,000 votes for U.S. Senate), one nominated for a screenplay award. If nonprimary sources arise, create Joe Conway (Irish politician) and add to the dab page. County council is not a subnational office (100,000 people), that would be Munster, one of the 4 provinces of Ireland; I would use that along with the source failure as a delete vote (recognizing my Amero-bias and that events may, might, adjust the playing field later). JJB 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Disambigify per JJB.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Done boldly JJB 06:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glance Magazine

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

Magazine with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Good faith gsearch turns up a lot of PR pieces, but nothing showing notability. Same for news search. Previously deleted via prod and page recreated. Two subsequent editors nom'd for prod, but declined by two different admins citing page recreation Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable webzine rather than a magazine. According to this [4], there is an "intent to release a print version of Glance Entertainment Magazine in the near future" and "the management staff sees the digital version as a very good step in the right direction of making that happen soon. 'We must continue to get the name of Glance Magazine out to the general public.'... says CEO, Anthony West." Wikipedia isn't responsible for getting the name of Glance Magazine out to the general public. Mandsford 23:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be notable someday, but isn't now. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Union 38 School District. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whately Elementary School

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

Non-notable school with no notable alumni. BwburkeLetsPlays (talk|contribs) 17:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Union 38 School District, the appropriate target, per usual practice. Mandsford 23:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; heck, no need to take this to AfD. Ravenswing 15:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Dough 48 72 03:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Union 38 School District. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conway Grammar School

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

Non-notable school with no notable alumni. BwburkeLetsPlays (talk|contribs) 17:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Union 38 School District, the appropriate target, per usual practice. Mandsford 23:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mandsford. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete—clear consensus rooted in the proper polices and guidelines. — Deck iller 23:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of beach access points in Brevard County, Florida

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. There is no precedent for such a list. It may be appropriate to transwiki this to Wikitravel or Wikia Travel. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 16:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename and boil down. First wanted to nuke based on title. Then wanted to keep based on wide precedent at Category:Beaches of Florida. Then realized this is basically a list of streets sortable by parking and bike-rack status. Sorry. If it were List of beaches of Brevard County, Florida it would work with all the unencyclopedic detail trimmed. But the appropriate answer is for WP to provide the brevardparks.com internal page from an appropriate WP page, as that's what this is a basic mirror of, although I don't know what WP page that would be and the brevardparks homepage already shows on Brevard County. So it's hard to find something to keep. JJB 19:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Beaches of Florida is a collection of articles about the beaches themselves. This article is simply a list of streets to take to get to said beaches, and there is no precedent for that. There are likely multiple access points per beach. The beach itself may be notable, but the road that leads to it isn't. The information in this article might be appropriately merged to the corresponding article on each beach, but a list article doesn't make sense here. SnottyWong ^verbalize 21:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admrboltz (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, no reason to go down this path (sorry, couldn't help it). Subject is not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ASHA Foundation

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

Has been tagged with Notability issues since 2009, Google turns up nothing, no additional information since 2008. Talktome^(Intelati) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a well-written article, and I'm sure they do good work - but not every private foundation is notable and this one isn't. Google finds only this article, the centre's website, and several other foundations with the same name [5] [6] [7]. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Per SarekOfVulcan Sandstein 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Masoff

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

Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. This person seems to be known only for writing a textbook, a paragraph of which became a political news item in the US. The lasting importance of this incident is questionable. It would be more appropriately covered, if at all, as a mention in an article about education in Virginia. Sandstein 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC) — Update: the incident is already mentioned in the article about education in Virginia. Sandstein 16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- she's gotten reviews in the NYTimes for earlier books. See http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30B10FE3B540C758CDDAF0894D1494D81 for an example. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiziano Frieri

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

Non-notable footballer. Only Google hits relate to Wikipedia and those already cited. The equivalent article was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia on 27 September 2010 (see [8] Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)</small[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was deleted from Italian wikipedia because it has different standards (it doesn't accept 3rd division professional footballers). He played for three seasons in Serie C, Italian third football level, the equivalent of English Football League One. Wikipedia accepts third division professional footbnallers, and there are thousands of them whose existance is not discussed (some random examples, Danny Seaborne,Alex Chamberlain). Google hits are not important to determinate the relevance of a person, footballer included: it's normal that nowadays footballer have much more hits the the ones that played in the '60 like him, even if played less matches, and this does not affect their notability.--Der Schalk (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - source on article confirms appearances in Serie C, a fully-professional league. He therefore meets WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. He passes notability threshold. —Half Price 15:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on User:GiantSnowman's comments on the notability threshold for Italian football, I am quite happy to withdraw my original nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close; malformed AfD was chilling in the deletion log for 14 years. Now it is closed. jp×g 🗯️ 00:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abandon All Ships

Non notable local band, has revived very little press.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2026 FIFA Wolrd Cup

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

An example of WP:CRYSTAL --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 14:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The information is from veryfible sources.--IgorMagic (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FIFA World Cup (in a similar way to 2030 FIFA World Cup) as the bidding phase has not yet begun. Article is also an example of WP:TOOMANYFINGERS; a quick alteration leads you to this deletion history and then to this. one brave monkey 14:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above and then Speedy delete R3 implausible typo.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids, which should probably be renamed to something like "Future FIFA World Cup Bidding". Mandsford 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as its too far ahead, its not being discussed by FIFa or anyone apart from us right now. The article title is mis-spelt too so no point leaving a redirect as its an unlikely search term. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the correct spelling of 2026 FIFA World Cup to FIFA World Cup, and delete this typo. Giant Snowman 22:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and leave a redirect to FIFA World Cup for the correctly spelled version (note that 2026 World Cup already redirects there). Agree with the others that it's a little early to have an article like this when there's not really anything to write about that can't be covered in the article ollaman future bids. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Normally, I would say redirect to FIFA World Cup. But who's going to look for "FIFA Wolrd Cup"? Also per Wp:CRYSTAL, as FIFA are only focused on the bids for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, restart as 2026 (and 2030?) FIFA World Cup bids when bidding process is annnounced, with a temporary redirect from 2026 FIFA World Cup from that time until the venue is decided and some meaningful specific material is available. No justification for retaining typo in an article header. Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Giants2008. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this (as a plausible typo) and the correct spelling of 2026 FIFA World Cup to FIFA World Cup. Rlendog (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Lind

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

Contested prod. Badly referenced article about a karate teacher. No evidence of notability as either an author per WP:AUTHOR or a sportsman per WP:ATHLETE andy (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can show he meets the authorship criteria in WP:MANOTE--"Author of significant book(s) on their style;- e.g. a book that is recommended study for the art (e.g. by an organisation they do not lead) or by someone who is an artist from a different style and/or school, but beware vanity press." The German wikipedia article gives no additional support and I couldn't find anything else (in English or German) that supports notability, besides his books (and no evidence they were notable). Frankly, one of the German articles said he started studying karate in 1968 and opened his own school in 1970 and later founded his own federation--so apparently his high ranking comes from himself. Someone more fluent in German might find more and better sources. Papaursa (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ATHLETE (WP:MANOTE is an essay, not policy), no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G7: author request. Airplaneman ✈ 04:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmedia Activism

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

Contested prod. Neologism coined by the article creator, who appears to be trying to use Wikipedia to popularize its use. No coverage in reliable sources -- which might matter if Wikipedia were a dictionary, but it isn't. Sourced to blogs, SPS, etc. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete bollocks that sounds like it's selling something: Transmedia Activism is a framework of content production inspired by transmedia storytelling that allows coordinated storytelling and the curation and collection of content around a social change campaign. Content created by multiple, decentralized authors is distributed across various channels to create multiple entry points into a social issue, and is designed to raise awareness and to influence action. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, incomprehensible spam. I've read the whole article and still have no idea what the heck it even is. Reads like it was written in confused marketing babble, like something Dilbert's pointy-heaired boss would come up with. Host your own brochure, guys, and for goodness sake invest in a course on business communication. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPIC School in Hungary, Miskolc

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

Non-notable private art education institution. DB-A7 declined on the grounds that A7 is not applicable to schools, but ~~the criteria at WP:CSD#A7 do not specify this (even though the {{db-a7}} template does make this stipulation). Also,~~ it seems that the school exclusion is only meant to apply to public, general education schools, not to private, limited scope organizations such as this. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected above after a closer reading of WP:CSD#A7. The bulk of the argument still stands however. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not seem to meet the criteria for "automatic" school notability, and nothing can be found at Google, at least not in English. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition casualties in Helmand and Kandahar 2009

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

This article duplicates information already contained in a number of other articles (see for instance Coalition casualties in Afghanistan), while wikipedia shouldn't be used as a memorial. Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Belongs, more likely, on a veterans' or other website. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Also is very recent-ist. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is mostly a list of not-notable people, who's only notability is their dead, but Wikipedia is neither a memorial site or a directory of non-notable entries. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anunnaki chant

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

Unsourced and unsourceable fiction. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, strong hints of WP:MADEUP Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references at all, sounds a bit of WP:MADEUP. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Everybody repeat after me: Baduma konajium farleecehofa... Xangowloy kivordin nucktoe... Hoontamir wiequoob Balacy. You're going to keep doing it until you all reach true enlightenment. This is supposed to be Sumerian, which seems unlikely. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It keeps on coming out "Klaatu barada nikto" when I try it. Sorry. Have you ever had one of those days when you set out aiming for the 12th Planet and end up at the 1950s instead? I blame the IAU for changing the road numbering. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like nonsense, probably an anagram for something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given what the article's creator did to Anunnaki, it's safe to say that this is not encyclopaedic content on its face. Dougweller, it looks like you're going to have to explain to some editors here who Zecharia Sitchin is. ☺ Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete revisions, and censor this AFD. The words are obviously chosen by the aliens to enable combined-term Google searches that determine where their memes are moving. Best not to repeat them anywhere. Of course I'm serious. JJB 20:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete as per everyone. Could be Speedied as nonsense. Edward321 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per all of the above arguments, absolute, unverifiable nonsense, most likely hoax or fiction. He iro 17:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is absolutely unverifiable, a made up term or even a hoax. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon James (Singer/Songwriter)

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines WP:MUSICBIO. See also his band Eighth Wave Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen Eighth Wave (the article, not the band...) And can't see them as being anything much of note. (When one of a band quits to re-join the army, I wouldn't take as a good sign...) And, while I wish Simon James luck, I don't think he's ready for an article. No non-local coverage (one link of which only gives me a blank page), and otherwise only myspace (non-reliable) and an advert from which to download his music. Sharing a stage with doesn't necessarily confer notability, and the 20,000 crowds count to the credit of the topline performer(s), not the support. (Except in very rare cases where the topline make a bad mistake and take someone better than themselves on tour... No evidence of that here. Not saying he isn't good - never seen him nor Ronan Keating either.) Peridon (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC) (Peridon has played live to a crowd of 10,000 - most of whom had never heard of him and wouldn't have bothered to find out...)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth Wave

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines WP:BAND Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon James (Singer/Songwriter), when a band member re-joins the army, it tells me the band aren't going anywhere much. This isn't saying they're no good - they may not have got the right PR or something. Peridon (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2032 olympic games

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

Way too early, as this event will not take place for another 22 years - an example of WP:CRYSTAL. ∙:∙:.:pepper :.:∙:∙ 10:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing known is that there will be a Summer Olympics in 2032 provided that IOC continues holding them every four years. The bulk of the content, a list of "potential cities" is not only "unannounced", it is totally unverifiable at this point. The presence of Harare on the list looks like wishful thinking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete The very definition of WP:BALL. Didn't we have this a couple of days ago? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We still do (as of 2.35pm on 22 October). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think snow delete only applies to Winter Olympic games articles, or maybe to cases where there have been a long list of deletes and no keeps. Mandsford 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although it's for the Olympics held four years before it, this is virtually what Wp:BALL was intended to prevent. There is literally nothing that can be verified here (except that, assuming the IOC don't change it, it will be held in 2032 and announced in 2025), largely because no-one's planning for it yet (especially since the host won't be announced for another 15 years). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced speculation. As the article notes, "The announcement of candidate cities will be at 2025", so that's a long time to keep up a placeholder. Mandsford 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as soothsaying. Although do note that many of the competitors at the 2032 Olympics will be born within the next 4 years, so if there is independent coverage of the ongoing amorous behavior of their parents that may be appropriate for inclusion here. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete, too early, we aint a crystal ball. He iro 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's way too early. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Spring Branch Independent School District. (Nominator doesn't propose deletion) (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Branch Middle School (Hedwig Village, Texas)

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

Redirect to Spring Branch Independent School District. Middle school lacking notability. Cindamuse (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spring Branch Independent School District. The middle school's only claim to notability is that it was a National Blue Ribbon School 12 years ago. Almost 4% of schools in the US have gotten this "honor" (based in part on their own self-evaluations) - that's a fairly high percentage for a supposedly prestigious award. The topic does not meet the WP:GNG - there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I checked the archives of the Houston Chronicle, which is the main newspaper for the area, and found only trivial mentions of the school - including not a single article on its National Blue Ribbon status. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Spring Branch Independent School District. (Nominator doesn't propose deletion) (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Middle School (Houston, Texas)

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

Redirect to Spring Branch Independent School District. Middle school lacking notability. Cindamuse (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The school's notability stems from its National Blue Ribbon School award. Any school with the award is notable. Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Branch Middle School (Hedwig Village, Texas) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I reviewed the previous AfD and maintain that a middle school is not notable based on an award it received over a decade ago. With over 6500 schools receiving the award, several schools awarded multiple times, this one middle school receiving one award over ten years ago, in my opinion, does not support notability. Respectfully, Cindamuse (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous talks and the fact that Notability is not temporary.Moxy (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard policy for non-notable primary schools. When everybody wins, nobody wins, and being one of 6500 "winners" of an award isn't sufficient to constitute notability in Wikipedia terms, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 6,500 out of hundreds and thousands of U.S. primary and secondary schools is not even close to "everybody" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yep only 6,500 out of 132,656 as of 2008. Moxy (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Y was this done?..i believe there is an error here 2 vs 2 means no!!!!!!!!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UTSH

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

Article on a non notable micronation. Sources are not verifiable (ISSN source not found, web site is self made). No other ghits or other mention found. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 06:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources can be provided as required by our notability guidelines. Yworo (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== From the Ministry of Foreign Affair of UTSH ==

This is an Official Warning to all Wikipedians

On behalf of our nation and the Emperor of our nation, we cannot except the exposure of our nation's information to the public through Wikipedia. It is against our nation's law. Thank you for all Wikipedians who have attempted to delete this article. The archive with an ISSN 1344-4727 is our national record therefore should only be counted as a primary source( Wikipedia's policy do not accept primary source, such as letter from judge, constitution written on paper, etc, used as reference.)

Our government and our Emperor have agreed the nomination of deleting this article is good for our nation.

(User talk:Wongchi) 03:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable.--Yopie (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota). (Nominator doesn't propose deletion) (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whittier Middle School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)

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

Redirect to Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota). Middle school lacking notability. Cindamuse (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard Wikipedia practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota). (Nominator doesn't propose deletion) (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Henry Middle School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)

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

Redirect to Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota). Middle school lacking notability. Cindamuse (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard Wikipedia practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota). (Nominator doesn't propose deletion) (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy Elementary School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)

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

Redirect to Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota). Elementary school lacking notability. Cindamuse (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cindamuse and per usual policy. These are sometimes tolerable for a week when it's a class project about using Wikipedia, and we delete them at the end of the week, but this is someone's project to write a few sentences about each school, which can be done in the school district article. Maybe someone will create an Elementary Schools Wiki someday, with access only from school computers, and make some money off of a state department of education. We're not that Wiki, however. Mandsford 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard Wikipedia practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota). (Nominator doesn't propose deletion) (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Center Elementary (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)

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

Redirect to Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota). Elementary school lacking notability. Cindamuse (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I appreciate the nominator putting this up for discussion rather than the law-in-your-own-hands approach of redirecting. It's the "gifted students" school, so more likely to be notable than most. The article itself refers to a 2nd place finish in a national competition, and I imagine there's more out there. Mandsford 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard Wikipedia practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding precedent. Could have been done without AFD, as nobody including the nominator is arguing for actual deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota). (Nominator doesn't propose deletion) (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Elementary School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)

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

Redirect to Sioux Falls School District (South Dakota). Elementary school lacking notability. Cindamuse (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per usual practice. I'm sure someone will gripe about this to the effect of "you're not supposed to come here for redirects" but so what, we're already here, thanks for the invite, maybe someone will make a discovery about Discovery, I'm not betting on it. Mandsford 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard Wikipedia practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One SD (nominator, who only has 9 edits), one merge, one keep - there is clearly no consensus here, and I see no justification for relisting this -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasia Al Thani

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

SPEEDY DELETE This person has been deleted before and the writing, structure, tone is the same. Also I believe it's self promotion on wiki and no data supports info such as college, birth date, birth location, etc. Again another person promoting themself. NO ref. Poetry Truth Justice (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC) — Poetry Truth Justice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge to Abdelaziz bin Khalifa Al Thani, due to WP:BIO#Family. There are a few sources specificially about her and a defunct business she started, but not enough to merit a separate article. --Hongkongresident (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - merge is a bit messy imo, Mr and Mrs ... better separate if they have coverage. Uncited birth date, just remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Tires

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

Fails WP:NSONG, and no References Talktome^(Intelati) 05:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Husband. Song might not be notable, but the musician should be.--Hongkongresident (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find coverage in RS of this and article says the album was sold at shows, which suggests only at shows. Hekerui (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article can be renamed editorially. Sandstein 08:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taisha miller

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

~~As tragic as this is, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Event itself fails WP:V and WP:N. 2 says you, says two 05:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

I rescind my nomination - the spelling confusion noted below made me think this didn't receive significant coverage. 2 says you, says two 21:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion noted, you are wrong, and unnecessarily interfering with the dissemination of public information.

This is not "memorabilia", this individual was at the center of a historical event which received significant media attention to make it a likely subject of information searches. The circumstances of her death and the coverage they received makes this a notable case, your facetious comment about "memorial sites" not withstanding.--APDEF (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please read the policy WP:VICTIM. This is the story of a terrible tragedy and quite possibly a crime. However, the young woman who died in this incident does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above - Miller is the victim of an awful, tragic crime, but that alone doesn't put her at the level of notability required for wikipedia. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as tragic as this is, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. JIP | Talk 08:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Possibly with a move to Killing of Taisha Miller (or a more sensitively worded title). The article as written is not a memorial or biography, it describes a specific event that by any measure was notable, including coverage by the NY Times (9 articles), LA Times, CNN, Salon, etc., etc... In any case, WP:VICTIM states "2. The victim, consistent with WP:BLP1E, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." I believe the news sources available would satisfy this criterion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I withdraw my delete vote and request the article to be cleaned up and more sources to be added. Oh, and all the sources you mention above cite her name as Tyisha Miller, not Taisha Miller. JIP | Talk 09:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done, suggest Snow keep is now the most appropriate action. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [9] and [10]. Mandsford 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT. Suggest renaming to Shooting of Tyisha Miller or something similar. Location (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT. Suggest renaming to Shooting of Tyisha Miller or something similar. 01:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.187.120 (talk)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn LibStar (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian National Judo Championships

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

fails WP:GNG. 1 gnews hit [11]. also under WP:NOTSTATS, just a sprawling list of results of little encyclopaedic value. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the national championships of an Olympic sport is an encyclopedic topic. Tests such as Google News searches are pretty pointless in my opinion and quite frankly the lazy man's AfD argument. Believe it or not, the world contains much more than Google knows. NOTSTATS does not apply here either for the simple reason that the article is not a table of statistics! It is a table listing the winners of events and it is not indiscriminate - there are clear criteria for inclusion. The article is clearly referenced and I can't see a valid reason for deletion.WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Having said all that, the article could be improved and some context added but we don't delete articles simply because they need improvement. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

besides your argument of inherently notable and the value of google news did you find third party sources covering this championship, did you actually look? LibStar (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National competition thats been running since 1958(possibly 1952), unfortunately GNEWS deals with only recent events and its still not comprehensive, The article is about "Australian National Judo Championships" what one needs to do is to look for alternative names as it wasnt always called that, take for example the 1952 report in The Argus, The Argus was a newspaper published in Malbourne from 1848 thru to 1957 its not going to be on GNEWS indexing, but it is on TROVE, though it quotes the first national competition being in Melbourne in 1952, there another 5300 references on trove I've yet sort thru feel free to help. Also Picture Australia has photographs from 1960 event in Leichhardt NSW, but there not PD so we cant add them. Gnan garra 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judo teams will held carnival. (1952, October 31). The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848-1954), p. 12. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article23218249

Weak Keep It certainly seems like this event should easily be notable--it's the national championship for the organization recognized by the International Judo Federation. The problem was that my search turned up far fewer references than I would have guessed--mainly local papers saying that so-and-so (overwhelmingly kids) did well at the tournament. The only good source I found was an article from the November 1968 issue of Black Belt magazine. Perhaps someone with better access to Australian papers will have better luck. Papaursa (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support a summary of this article being put into Judo in Australia. unfortunately that article does not exist. LibStar (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment That might work but there's no other articles of style Judo in xxx [12], that proposal is about the creation of a whole new structure of articles even then this would be legitimate daughter article of such a structure and it complimentary to the current structure of Judo articles which focus on events. There also no article Judo Federation of Australia so its an area of knowledge that is currently significantly under developed. Gnan garra 13:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the national championship of an Olympic sport. It is fully referenced. The results of a national sporting championship are worthy of Encyclopedic reference, especially one that has been in continuous existence for more than 50 year. I don't see how this is WP:GNG. It contains no 'stats', rather, it contains 'results'. It is a reference list where a person can find information on who-won-what-when - and that surely is the basis of what an encyclopedia is all about. Winners who have their own entries are cross-referenced. Should it be included in a broader article? Perhaps, but I know of no authoritative study on Judo in Australia and 'original research' is specifically prohibited by WP. Peter phelps (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Populations of Cities in San Luis Obispo County

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

Unnecessary list, especially for a county with only 7 cities; any relevant information belongs in San Luis Obispo County, California rather than here. It's also several years out of date and orphaned, and other counties don't have these lists. No need for a redirect, as it's not a likely search term. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly unnecessary, far too few entries to merit a separate list.--Hongkongresident (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a place for raw data. This information should already be given in the articles on the county and on each city. No need for this article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why someone thought this needed a separate article is beyond me, but it's from 2005 when IP's could create pages. Put some numbers at the section of the county article entitled "Cities and towns". Mandsford 15:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I also added the numbers for the CDPs. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless article; the information belongs at the articles for San Luis Obispo County, California and the relevant towns (only San Luis itself really ranks as a city). Thanks for doing the "merge", Catalyst. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicholas (US author/actress/screenwriter)

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

Not completely non-notable, but aside from proficient at self-promotion and with a unique writing style, there are no reliable sources to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. For instance, "Homegrown: The Terror Within" is available on Amazon and appears to be from bournos.com, a small publisher. But Bournos appears to be Anna Nicholas, both in writing style and because the content is actually hosted at web.me.com/annanicholas/Bournos. The best information is found at IDMB, and shows Nicholas has had many bit parts. Still, despite being an author, actress, screenwriter, publisher, lawyer, Olympic-hopeful equestrienne, and self-publicist, WP:BIO and WP:GNG still apply. tedder (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. He iro 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Acather96 (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Dolan (centenarian)

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

A declined speedy (aborted AFD nom was also attempted) by NickOrnstein read, "James Dolan doesn't seem too "notable" in the outer world. The article doesn't note that he has been, for example a governor, nor a longevity record holder at minimum. While being employed in the economy, chances are you are more recognizable due to being in the media a lot more often. If he was, for example, 110 years old (also known as a supercentenarian), it would make more sense - longevity record." This basic nonnotability argument is valid in that being 103 based on half an article does not a WP topic make. I say half an article because the one news reference is also being used to support Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Dolan Quinn. JJB 04:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thparkth said as to his sister Mary, Delete. Although I declined the speedy (there is a robust debate going on about whether articles like this should be speedy-deleted at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion) I do not think the subject of this article, or her brother, are notable. In my opinion merely reaching the age of 105 does not establish notability. Thparkth (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC) JJB 15:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable only for being pretty old. Stub bio adds nothing whatsoever to the info pool. Shoulda been speedied, I reckon. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People who've lived to age 103 are a lot more common than one might think. According to Centenarian#Numbers of centenarians there are 455,000 people worldwide who are 100 or older. I imagine that there are quite a few people in Ireland older than he is. Mandsford 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO at this point. Take another look when he hits 110. Edison (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its only one article, besides, being a 105 year old is not notable if he and his sister were the oldest living siblings then maybe they would deserve an artclie, but even with that being said, Maggie renfro's siblings, both older then James Dolan, don't have articles, is James Dolan the oldest in his country, What made anyone think he and his sister should get articles? Longevitydude (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is barely asserted in the article, let alone established.David in DC (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Dolan Quinn

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

A declined speedy by NickOrnstein read, "Mary Dolan Dolan doesn't seem too "notable" in the outer world. The article doesn't note that she has been, for example a governor, nor a longevity record holder at minimum. While being employed in the economy, chances are you are more recognizable due to being in the media a lot more often. If she had been married, for example, 80 years it would make sense to keep the article - longevity record." This basic nonnotability argument is valid in that being 105 based on half an article does not a WP topic make. I say half an article because the one news reference is also being used to support Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dolan (centenarian). JJB 04:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Although I declined the speedy (there is a robust debate going on about whether articles like this should be speedy-deleted at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion) I do not think the subject of this article, or her brother, are notable. In my opinion merely reaching the age of 105 does not establish notability. Thparkth (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO at this time. Take another look when she hits 110. Edison (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its only one article, besides, being the only living sibling of a 105 year old is not inherently notable, especially if shes only 103, what the point in her and her brother getting articles, 105 and 103 are not notable, if they were the oldest living siblings then maybe they would deserve an artclie, but even with that being said, Maggie renfro's siblings, both older then James Dolan, don't have articles, is James Dolan the oldest in his country, What made anyone think he and his sister should get articles? Longevitydude (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repeating comment from the brother's page. Notability is barely asserted, let alone established, for this personDavid in DC (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eva McConnell

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

A declined speedy by NickOrnstein read, "There is no reason to create an article on her now. It would make more sense if she were a supercentenarian and/or if she was the oldest living resident in her country. An article on Wikipedia is being used as a source, which is against the rules." Nick also said here, "Eva McConnell is not the oldest after Australia's formation, which was on January 1, 1901. Mary Rothstein born February 27, 1901 is the oldest (known) and oldest born after." I add that Nick has access to sources like the Gerontology Research Group to back up this statement, which combined with not yet being a supercentenarian pretty much gives the lie to notability. There's also that circular sourcing going on. JJB 04:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

comment Mary Rothstein was born in Russia not Australia, the claim for Eva is that she is the oldest person born in Australia since Federation, no opinion either way on the article just correcting a misnoma in the nomination. Gnan garra 16:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous in my opinion. Simply being the 4th oldest person in Australia is not enough to create an article. What next? 6th oldest in Aust or 11th oldest in Japan? LibStar (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being fourth oldest person in her country does not provide inherent notability. Edison (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere are three people older than her living in Austrailia, and the oldest person living there, a supercentenarian, doesnt have an article, so it seems odd for her to have an article when the oldest person living there, a supercentenarian, doesnt. Longevitydude (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isnt a reason to keep or delete Gnan garra 00:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Federation/Independence/formation of Australia as a single body is a significant point in time Eva McConnell is the oldest person born in Australia since federation, that makes her notable in the Australian context, even if others are older they where born elsewhere or before Federation. Gnangarra 00:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But "oldest documented living person born in Country X after federation and still there" has no significant coverage in secondary sources, and is a one-event fact about her life, and may not even qualify to make her notable enough to be included in a list article. JJB 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Agree with John J above.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We edit (and delete) on a case-by-case basis. However, there do seem to be a whole passel of articles for people who are old, but have no other notability. If you specialize in studying old people, I guess these subjects may seem notable. But they don't fall within wikipedia's definition of notability. I'm reminded of the assessment of the Mel Brooks character's notability in To Be or Not to Be. He's a Polish vaudevillian described as "World-famous, in Poland."David in DC (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that being the 4th oldest person is not significant enough. The point is that she is the older person born in Australia - that is since Australia'a birth. (The oldest person in Australia was born in a colony.) Alan Davidson (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment No sources indicate that Eva McConnell is the oldest living person born in Australia after it's formation. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie McMenamin

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

A declined speedy and an aborted AFD nom by NickOrnstein both read, "McMenamin is NOT the oldest living resident in Ireland. The oldest is Kathleen Murray, born in 1902, followed by Stasia Kealy, born in 1903, Paddy Gleeson, born in 1904, and another case unknown. The general reason is she is not the oldest living Irish person." I add that Nick has access to sources like the Gerontology Research Group to back up this statement, which combined with not yet being a supercentenarian pretty much gives the lie to notability. JJB 04:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleteThere are three people older than her living in Ireland, and the oldest person living there doesnt have an article, so it seems odd for her to have an article when the oldest person living there doesnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevitydude (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The closest this article comes to even an assertion of notability is two sources for the proposition that "Katie McMenamin is described as "probably Ireland's oldest living person". "is described as"? "probably"? C'mon.David in DC (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete - however if a suitable WikiProject wants to contact me on my talk page, I will restore and move to a subpage for the project. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of the oldest living men

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

I am nominating this article for deletion due to having a list of the oldest living men but not oldest living women - lack of consistency. The 108 and 109 year olds go to WikiProject:Future supercentenarians. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Not added to main daily AFD page until 03:42, 22 October 2010.[reply]

Delete: While Nick and I have other disagreements, this is an eminently sound nomination. The first three sections are redundant with List of living supercentenarians and the remaining section is full of 108- and 109-year-olds when there is no consensus that line-item notability for old men starts at 108 (although tracking them off-mainspace seems acceptable, at first glance). There is also significant pro-deletion commentary at talk, and DerbyCountyinNZ 10:01, 30 June 2010, points out there the arbitrariness of "108" as a determinant age. JJB 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete: The List of living supercentenarians is short enough that separate lists for men and women are unnecessary. Tracking 108+ year olds off-mainspace may make sense, as some of those people will turn 110 and therefore become eligible for inclusion on the List of living supercentenarians Circumspect (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is redundant with the list of living supercentenarians, and also imbalance by the lack of an article about the oldest living women. JIP | Talk 08:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When did "Other stuff doesn't exist" become a basis for deletion of an article? Rather than being the "political correctness gender-balance police," judge this article on its own merits. There are Wikipedians who are somehow able to create an article in a minute or two, so the lack of the other article should be readily correctable if such an article satisfies the relevant guidelines for notability. Edison (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Let's be honest, if the GRG list has 79 persons (76 women and 3 men), then it's reasonable to expect a separate article on men, due to the fact that they are much rarer. A list of "oldest women" would be too redundant.Ryoung122 06:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If it's "reasonable", ad Jimboneam, it should be easy to name proponents of the idea that it's reasonable. But at least Ryoung122 recognizes redundancy does have its limits. JJB 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge the information to a wiki project, this information would be better off as a wiki project than as a stand alone article, just send us a link so we would know where to find it, its notable enough to be somewhere, but not on its own stand alone wikipedia article. Longevitydude (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there are so few men on the list of living supercentenarians, I do not see a problem with having men on a stand-alone article. The oldest women are already represented on their other article. There are 56 men listed. The list of living supercentenarians already lists 156 women (75 verified, 32 pending, 49 unverified). Do the maths: there's no justification for a separate article on women, and there's no justification for deleting an article based on the absence of another article. Previous issues with the article (for example, lack of citations and rankings for unverified people were addressed). SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Theres already an article about the oldest men ever, the oldest women ever, and one for the oldest people ever, I don't fight for the deletion of articles, I just give my opinion and let other take it for what its worth, but if I want an article kept, I'll fight for it. Longevitydude (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOWEVER, I can think of a few good reasons to keep it, they all have a source, and the article seems to have no errors, and besides, there are more validated living supercentenarians than there are living men aged 108+. Longevitydude (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Were you going to name third-party reliable proponents of the idea of listing the oldest living men separately from oldest people? JJB 18:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    - I don't care where the information is as long as its somewhere, wether its a stand alone article or a project, I dont care one way or another as long as its somewhere. Longevitydude (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful page. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 22:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For those who think the article is notable. Longevitydude (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because almost 100% of the information on here originally came from List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. The only difference is by branch of service, but there are no improvement hardly; no one else is hardly known in other branches of service per country but the last veteran of it. The only other branches of service added are those from the USA, UK, CAN, and a few others. The majority of the article is filled with question marks. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Not added to main daily AFD page until 03:42, 22 October 2010.[reply]

Second the deletion on exactly Nick's reasons. A ridiculously titled content fork of the other biglongname. JJB 03:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unnecessary fork. Virtually all data not at List of last surviving World War I veterans by country is just a question mark on this list anyway, so no loss. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The list is also nonsensical in that it arbitrarily has fields for military services that didn't exist (the most obvious of which is that only Britain had a separate air force; all other military aviators were part of either their national Army or Navy). Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's reasoning. He iro 18:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator's statement. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no information that isnt in other military related articles. Longevitydude (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The question here is: "Is this article Original research?" The consensus would appear to be that it is, and as such it should be deleted -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest military veterans

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently malformed nom by NickOrnstein as follows:

===My opinion on deletion=== I am nominating this article for deletion because there are no sources saying that Choules, for example, is the 3rd oldest veteran in the world. There have been tons of other World War II veterans, for example on Willard Scott's centenarian birthday wishes on NBC. The only ones being listed are well known ones. There is no list saying the oldest military veterans ever (that I can find). Ranks should not be included because no source is supporting almost all of the people on the page. Sources aren't being cited. A whole lot of this information is original research. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJB 03:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Not added to main daily AFD page until 03:42, 22 October 2010.

Second the deletion due to very few having line-item notability as supercentenarians, very few having sources, and those that have both either appear in other articles or should be copied there. The title is also WP:OR in not being a subject of study in itself by any of the usual-suspect longevity trackers. JJB 03:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little unclear on the nominator's rationale. Is he saying that there is OR in the fact that the list is incomplete, or that this chronological organization isn't used in any of the sources? Why would either make a good rationale for deletion? bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chronological information isn't used in any of the sources. It's ridiculous having a top 50 oldest veteran list ever when no sources are being cited about for example, Józef Kowalski being the 16th oldest veteran to ever live, this is total original research. There is a 135 year old claimant from named Nasir Al-Hajry, another being 120. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that sorting a list of data qualifies as OR/SYNTH or a reason for deletion. If the issue is the numbered ranking, that can be easily addressed without deletion by removing the row. bahamut0013^words _deeds 02:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there haven't been any satisfactory replies, I'm going to go with my gut here and say keep. I don't think that the given rationale is worthy of deletion; while there are issues that can be dealt with, a re-write need not necessarily entail a full-on deletion. I think that the topic of the list is not a trivial intersection or lacking in encyclopedic notability; though it could use some more clear definition (as in what age marks the threshold, and what constitutes military service). But in all, AfD is not for cleanup. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I'd like to point out that for JJBulten to "second the deletion" is disingenuous. Check the talk page of Nick Ornstein, it was virtually JJBulten's idea. CANVASSING is against Wiki-policy.

But checking out the article in itself, it holds value. It helps to answer questions that many ask, such as "who is the oldest veteran ever"? The article may warrant some refinement, but that's no reason for deletion.Ryoung122 06:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Users, please welcome Ryoung122's unique style to the mixup. If he means where I told Nick, "I have gone ahead," and Nick replied, "Thank you John. I had trouble trying to nominate deletion on these pages," Ryoung122 is obviously misinformed. Ryoung122 should also source the weasel WP:WORDS "many ask" (which should be a simple matter given his apparent extensive access on this topic), and it is also appropriate to mention his oft-discussed COI, which also includes his own experience with understanding canvassing.

This nom is one of seven initiated by NickOrnstein and seconded (or firsted if incomplete) by me. Nick, Ryoung122, and other occasional editors are generally very inclusionist in this topic area; I have long argued for a "reasonable" cutback; and new discussion at the fringe-theory noticeboard and elsewhere (not initiated by me) has brought in two outside editors that appear to favor even further "reasonable" cutback. I took the opportunity of Nick's activity to initiate the community process of discussing the deletion needs of the whole topic area as per the consensus at the FTN, beginning with the 7 articles he chose.

As to this article, an apparent majority rule that is not fully agreed is that only people aged over 110 (supercentenarians) have inherent line-item notability for inclusion in lists. There is some wiggle room for those under 110 who are the oldest in some widely notable category, but the leeway should not be based on creating OR categories, nor does it generally extend past the oldest (or sometimes second oldest) in the category.

The general lackadaisical approach to longevity articles is also shown in this topic by the first table being wholly incorporated in and redundant with the third. The third and largest table is also almost wholly unsourced except for WP links. Without checking, it is my supposition backed by experience that many of the linked articles are created by the same group of editors and lack the notability of some of the other names Nick requested for deletion, a notability that User:Griswaldo challenged categorically at the FTN. Given that, the topic has only five sourced supercentenarians, not enough for a notable list, and no assertion that the topic itself, "oldest military veterans" as a general list, is notable. The article is also relatively redundant with the manifold other "War-related lists" at Template:Longevity, without doing an hour of comparisons to determine the degree of redundancy.

I do note that all 5 of the sourced supercentenarians each appear in WP at least 4 times, which is excessive. Nick's mention of the 135-year-old is also an excellent demonstration of workgroup bias in favor of modernly-verified claimants (53) as opposed to unverified claimants (4 plus Nick's), which is an inherent POV not easily remedied by less than WP:TNT. There is also the topic-wide problem of presenting very old people who were alive in 2006 (Buckles) as if it has been verified that they are alive today, when IMHO WP should not make an explicit statement for or against whether the person is still alive (while still treating them under WP:BLP and WP:BDP), a general exception I propose to the basic policy of assuming people are still alive (what if Buckles's death remains unreported indefinitely?).

Even the statements made to categorize the claims demonstrate the inherent lack of POV standards; the unverifieds are called "Claimants who served for their country", as if the service has been verified while the age hasn't, but then in all 4 cases the service is also later discounted as an unverified "claimed service", a contradiction (not to mention a WP:CLAIM violation). So what's been verified and who can tell? Without going into the motives of WP:WOP for maintaining what has been repeatedly characterized as a WP:WALLEDGARDEN (of Babylonian proportions, I add), I think this set of AFDs is a reasonable first step at determining the limits of encyclopedicity of longevity. JJB 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete firm definition of subject has not been established. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I requested assistance on nominating remove articles. John Bulten was the first to do so. If it was Robert or anyone else, I would have approved. I am not choosing any sides, I am choosing my side on removing this article, and on the subject. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, your argument has two holes in it.

1. You claim that age 110 is the cutoff minimum, but the "oldest veterans" are as old as 115.

2. In fact, the age cutoffs are for general-age notability. Cutoff may be lower for other topics, in combination, whether it be "oldest twins," "oldest married couples", etc. So, to claim that "oldest military veterans" should go with the general cutoff standard is in fact not correct.

And the point I made is that you, as you admit above, have been campaigning to have cutbacks in this area; bringing in other people from a pro-cutback cabal (fringe theory noticeboard), and then "launching" messages. Anyone who knows boxing knows what a one-two punch is. When you have a two-fisted "attack", the article doesn't get a fair chance. I note that a previous AFI resulted in this article being kept, there's no explanation for this delete-again.

I also note that of the 7 aricles nominated for deletion, I voted on two of them to keep. I realize the article on the 103-year-old Irishman wasn't notable, but a general-interest article on veterans should be.

And forget the idea of "voting," it's who has the strongest argument. The FACTS of the matter is that such material is reported in the media, and has been for many years. We've seen "oldest veteran" stories in the media in the 1990s, the 1950s, many different decades. Each person might not be individually notable but as a group there is a reason for an article.Ryoung122 22:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Your two points were already addressed. To correct errors in the above, I did not initiate FTN, or the prior mediation, or this nom; and I empathize with articles not having a fair chance, but we have discussed the topic-area problems for 1.5 years and this is the first AFD, so you've had time to fortify the topic area. You might converse with Nick about his explanation for nom at this time. Please limit this discussion to matters pertinent to deletion of the article, thank you. JJB 11:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

KeepThis is ridiculous, the article has already survived one afd, whats the point in another, maybe there needs to be a limit to how many afds articles can have before there not allowed to get any more. Longevitydude (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im gonna repeat what a different editor said in the first afd:

If a page has probloms with some contnet then you fix it.Longevitydude (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The rankings are WP:OR. The lists are simply an amalgamation of different sources in an attempt to further a position by introducing the ranks. There's no definition on what constitutes a verified/unverified veteran. The oldest-ever list is incomplete and shows bias. Where are the veterans from wars prior to 1914? Where are all the other female veterans? SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A veteran who proved his/her service in a military is a verified veteran, once again, if an article has problems then fix it. Longevitydude (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the ones who have sources should be listed, maybe then it won't come off as original research, and if you think it has problems fix it, if you know that some veterans are missing add them, if someone doesnt have citations or sources remove them. Longevitydude (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These arguments are fixits: enumeration column; very incomplete; very unsourced; questionability of ranks; OR; redundancy; alive-in-2006 treated as alive-today; contradiction about (verifiable) service vs. claimed service; WP:CLAIM; pro-20th-century bias; pro-male bias. These deletion arguments are not fixits: potential wideness of category and sparseness of fill leading to undue-weight magnet by any scope; "[list of] oldest military veterans" not a topic with significant coverage in reliable sources (OR title); sort by age not found in sources either; no line-item notability for majority in current scope (under 110); no lowest cutoff age found in sources; trivial intersection; lack of definition of military service; linked COI and controverted volubility of Ryoung122 demonstrating ongoing antipolicy militancy; linked FTN position strongly deletionist (2 primary editors there have not commented yet); no line-item notability for runner-ups in categories; nonnotability of individual WP articles; current sourced supercentenarians too short a list to be notable; redundancy with other war-longevity articles; excessive WP appearances of people notable for inclusion in only one or two lists; bias against unverifieds being better solved by delete (and restart, if at all); SiameseTurtle sees "attempt to further a position by introducing the ranks"; and WALLEDGARDEN. Proposals for fixing all these nonfixits are welcome. JJB 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I have notified the two primary editors who have taken an interest in the topic area in general at FTN. JJB 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Disclosure - I'm here because JJB posted a comment on my talk page about this AfD. This subject matter fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of stuff. This is one of many longevity related lists that ought to be deleted.Griswaldo (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find all sorts of flaws in the deletion argument. It appears to me that sourcing was in progress when the article was nominated. The suggestion seems to be that the entire article should be removed because the nominator is concerned over the choice of words used within the article title and the titles of the article's sections and that all of this is beyond fixing, assuming it even needs to be fixed at all. I can forsee that some people might ask "What does 'oldest' mean? What does 'military' mean? How do you define 'veteran'?" but I would describe that as unreasonable. To me, it would be like going to the gas station and asking the cashier, "How can I be sure this gasoline is unleaded? How can I know that I really am getting ten gallons? How can I be certain that my payment and the change is legal tender?" It's a higher standard than we require here. Longevitydude (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly valid and useful list that meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Lists. Longevitydude (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons that I nominated this article for the first time. To summarize that argument: the list a) is original research b) has no defined set of inclusion criteria and c) any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary and/or trivial. The full explanation is at the first AFD and there's no need to reproduce it here. Canadian Paul 05:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no clear-cut consensus here - however, I am closing this without prejudice against a speedy renomination should it be felt that it was a suitable next step. However, I would advice at least a week or so of discussion on the article's talk page to allow a clear consensus to be approached. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a request on my talk page, I have relooked at this close, and concluded that I was in fact mistaken to close it as "no consensus". I have re-read the arguments presented, and realise that the consensus was in fact to delete - especially when the fact that the "keeps" were mainly from editors with limited experience in the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia - and one of them changed to "delete", but neglected to strike out their previous contribution to the discussion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by statehood

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

Redundant to List of sovereign states by date of formation. A merge tag has been sitting there for a while, but it is clear from the intro to this article that it has no idea what it is about and, being unsourced, there is nothing suitable to be merged. It violates WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V and probably WP:COATRACK and WP:LISTCRUFT, as well. To demonstrate, the title assumes a distinction between a "country" and a "state" and implies to tell us when any given country became a state. Then its lead paragraph informs us that usually this date is just the first date on which a territory is mentioned! (And where are the reliable sources for the lead, which appears to determine the content?) The dates for most pre-modern states are baseless, San Marino being just the most obvious example, but since there is no clear date to assign to San Marino (or, if that's not important enough for you, France neither) it cannot possibly fit anywhere in this list. This page is unsalvageable and thus should be deleted. All titles redirecting to it, too, such as List of countries in chronological order of achieving statehood. Srnec (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Geez, what is not wrong with this article?. He iro 18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And would the closing admin please see the comment left by an anon. on the talk page to this AfD. Srnec (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the problems of current article is only lack of reference, which I have started to add. If one view its history, he/she will understand that the introduction is only a copy-paste from another article, and it doesn't suit here. If admins give me enough time, I can improve this article. As an example, in the reference which is used for China, the author mentions Yu the great is the founder of China, and same thing about Korea. i suggest the name of article be moved to List of countries in chronological order of achieving statehood. --Aliwiki (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't address the WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V and WP:COATRACK issues. He iro 16:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does Yu the great being the founder of China have to do with Chinese statehood? And what China? Are we talking the Republic of China? Do you see why this page is just not even possible? Srnec (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Srnec's reasoning. I see no practical use for this list to exist separate from individual country/history articles, even if it were to be rewritten with sourced information. 207.207.127.233 (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Could be redundant to List of sovereign states by date of formation if the later article contained such a chronological list – it does not! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundancy was not the only reason for deletion, but the titles of these articles indicate that they are redundant, even if one of them does not have content to match its title. But there is a sortable list section in the latter article, so you're just wrong. Srnec (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP; And suggest Edition rather than Deletion; just because there are some items that are not properly entered, doesn't mean the whole article should be deleted. Many of the similar articles have the same problems and they are all in need of Editions. Thank you. Armaiti (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Armitai has only eleven article-space edits since beginning editing in January of this year. That and the fact that s/he does not address the issues raised in the nomination suggest that this vote is of slight value. After all, we're not a democracy. Srnec (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the discussion of Merger Proposal I say making better articles out of these two is possible and would be good if they would do this. But it needs a great deal of work. But deletion is not a proper answer to the need of such articles.--Hame fan harif (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of Hame's article-space edits are to the article up for deletion. Considering the lack of argument accompanying his vote, and the fact that s/he has only been editing since August, why should the closing admin pay attention to it? Does either of the above two users know or understand the policies I linked to in the nomination? Maybe they do, but who can tell from their non-arguments? Srnec (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; You don't get it. I understand your reasoning for deletion. You can delete the whole article but I say we can create an article similar to this one as we discussed it in Merger Proposal. I was one of the people saying the article is nonesense. That's what we should do, creating articles that has been discussed in Merger Proposal discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hame fan harif (talk • contribs) 08:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles that deal with a myriad of different histories and time periods (in this case, all histories and time periods!) would be hard to maintain by a handful of editors with a general interest in the subject. Besides, the history of each state and its formation is NOT set in stones, and there are new and conflicting theories, which would be hard to fairly represent and keep up-to-date in the space provided (a pity table cell). Moreover, readers can already find this information in the article of each country (often better maintained and more watched than this article). So I see no point in maintaining this article, and such efforts are better used elsewhere. Wiqi - talk 15:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Smith (businessman)

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

Non-notable, obvious COI with author and his sockpuppets. Promotional, and only notable for founded College Football Performance Awards, which has questionable notability. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Circumspect (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, and probably a case of WP:AB anyway. —bender235 (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pretty big stretch. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Notability of even the award he founded is dubious. Strikehold (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am sure he's an outstanding businessman and a real football fan, but he is just not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, before you make any character assessments of Brad Smith, I would consider this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Obamafan70/Archive. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. with no prejudice against recreation as redirect to an appropriate target page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Lynn Sailors season

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

A non-notable season article on a minor league team. While these are accepted for major league teams, they are not for the lower level ones. Anything noted here could easily be merged into either 1980 Eastern League season or the Lynn Sailors article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wizardman. I notice that this franchise has a season article for every year through 2009. (I guess nobody bothered with 2010?) There are others too; I noticed at least one for the Harrisburg Senators. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor league seasons are not inherently notable, and nothing about this season has established its particular notability. ~~There are also a number of these for other teams -- there are season pages for the Canton-Akron Indians from 1989-96, for instance, that should also be deleted.~~ -Dewelar (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh...that IS the same franchise, so that has already been noted. Instead I'll throw in 2008 Huntsville Stars season as another example. -Dewelar (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should we roll all of those into this AfD? --Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see why not. -Dewelar (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The 2008 Huntsville Stars still have 470 Google News hits two years down the road. That's not notable? I am pretty sure that they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Dewelar notes, the individual season of minor league baseball teams are not inherently notable, and there's certainly nothing notable about this particular team's season, whether it's 1980 or 2010. There are plenty of alternatives for individual pages-- one could mention this in the Eastern League season article for a particular year, or one could place the stuff about each season's won-lost records and notable players in the article about the team. Mandsford 15:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many are saying that this article and ones like it are not notable, but not one person has been specific as to why it is not notable. Which particular notability guideline is not being met? It sounds like you all just "don't like it." Kinston eagle (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I did not say that such seasons could not be notable, just that they are not inherently so. WP:NSPORTS says the following: "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." The guidelines say nothing about teams in professional leagues that are not the top, as minor leagues obviously are. Therefore, the article itself must assert its notability, in the same way that articles on minor league players do. None of the articles I have seen do so. -Dewelar (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Eagle. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those of you voting Keep -- are you arguing that minor league team-seasons are inherently notable? Or is there some criteria to determine notability? It has been established by consensus that minor league players are not inherently notable, and I would infer that the default starting point for any discussion of creating a guideline for team-seasons should be that the same is true for them. If you are arguing for inherent notability, then I believe this nomination should be suspended, pending a resolution at WP:NSPORTS, or at the very least at WT:BASEBALL. -Dewelar (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Dewelar says, it sounds like those voting keep are saying that minor league seasons are inherently notable. This sounds like a very dangerous slope to me; are we going to start creating a bunch of boilerplate articles like this for the thousands of minor league seasons that have happened when the main team articles are stubs and are a better place for any relevant information? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing anything concerning minor league team-seasons in general. In my opinion, the afd process is for discussing the notability or non-notability of individual articles. If you wish to discuss the inherent notability of types of articles in general, that discussion should be had on the notability talk page. My only concern in this discussion is the notability of 1980 Lynn Sailors season. Nobody has given any reason why it is not notable. What specific guideline is this article not meeting? A Google news search for the Lynn Sailors in 1980 reveals 118 hits [13]. News articles do not stay online for long periods of time and 30 year old newspaper articles are rarely brought online. The fact that 118 articles are available online for a 30 year old minor league team is pretty impressive to me and goes a long way to establishing the primary guideline for notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This notability guideline far outweighs any guideline found in the sports notability guidelines. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a comparison, the 1980 Kinston Eagles have no Google News hits at all: [14] Kinston eagle (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though it seems that the majority of the sources are either about Lynn receiving the minor league franchise, or mentioning the games in passing. The first one is more suitable to the main article, while the second ones are nice but may not be significant sources in terms of validating a one-year article, though it's definitely good for one on the team. The rub isn't that the team is not notable though, I think we can all agree that the Lynn Sailors themselves are notable. What reason is there, however, to split out a bunch of two-sentence articles when they can easily be combined into the main Lynn Sailors article? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same road we went down for minor league players. There was also an aborted discussion on minor league managers for the same purpose. In general, I will submit that every single minor league player, manager, coach, team, and team-season ever could -- and probably does, given enough time to research it -- satisfy WP:GNG. Also, just because something has x number of Google hits, that doesn't make it notable. We have compromised on minor league players, because otherwise we would have a flood of such articles. I believe we need to do the same for team-seasons. There needs to be a higher threshold, because as Wizardman said above, this is a dangerous slope. There are over 2,000 MLB team-season articles. Even creating an article for all minor league team-seasons that meet Kinston eagle's qualifications would mean an eventual number of articles in the tens of thousands. -Dewelar (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at the sports guidelines page here, if anyone is interested. -Dewelar (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easy to find sources for minor league seasons pre-internet, but if you know where to look, you will find coverage of games from the 1980 Kinston Eagles in The Sporting News' digital archive. Vodello (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think having an article about the 1980 Lynn Sailors or any other minor league team season is worthwhile unless that particular team did something truly outstanding. The 1980 Sailors are already mentioned on the 1980 Seattle Mariners season page and the Lynn Sailors page itself is pretty sparse. Any relevant content can be merged to one of those two sources... but this page is fairly devoid of content. Spanneraol (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory. The current version of this article consists of two sentences of text and a couple of tables of statistics. The only source cited is a statistics site. WP:GNG calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." With respect to minor league players, WP:BASEBALL/N says that statistics sites "are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability." That seems like a reasonable standard for minor league season articles as well. BRMo (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The number of google hits may at first suggest that the season is notable. However, WP:ROUTINE coverage does not count for notability. The only coverage on this season that is borderline non-routine, in the first few pages of google hits, is a few articles talking about team logistics such as moving the stadium and how much money that costs. I think a better solution is to merge this info into the team page. If enough stand alone info, and sources can be produced with time, one can always move it back. I don't think this will happen though as all the coverage appears to be routine. --MATThematical (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor league team season. Secret ^account 21:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is notable. Also, recentism seems to be a theme. It just seems like if this was a "2010 Lynn Sailors season" article, it would more widely be accepted as notable. Nick22aku (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with this, at least for my own part. I would support having team-seasons for PCL teams from, say, any year before 1960. Minor league baseball was much more popular, and thus probably had much more coverage, during that era. I might also be persuaded to support individual season pages for the Mexican League. High-level unaffiliated teams would have much higher claim to notability than teams in the affiliated minors, for which the vast majority of coverage is routine, or is in the context of their parent club. -Dewelar (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, this was the first season in franchise history, (a successful franchise that still exists today) increasing the notability of the article even more. No doubt the article needs expanded. Nick22aku (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be just as ready to delete a similar recent page, such as 2009 Harrisburg Senators season. I expect AfD's will commence on all of these if this one is closed as delete. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not necessary for minor league seasons to have individual articles, can be easily merged. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with team or league articles, as appropriate. WP:ROUTINE is what eventually brought me over, with help from Wikipedia is not a directory. Ma^t_chups 01:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Borlasian Club

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

Most of this article is copied from Sir William Borlase's Grammar School. The bit that's original is unsourced and peacocky. A list of alumni of the school is provided, but there is no evidence that they are members of any club beyond simply having graduated. ... discospinster _talk 02:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not, and probably will never, meet Wikipedia's guidelines for organisations. Highly doubt a club of grammar school alumni will ever be notable.--Hongkongresident (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most grammar schools of this age (or older) in the UK have "old boys' clubs" and most do not meet WP:ORG. The sections added to the copy and paste from the school website do not demonstrate how this club is notable at all. -- role^player 12:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the lack of significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Most references in the article doesn't even mention this club. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Bolden

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

This article was previously tagged speedy delete, which was inappropriate, but it still might not meet notability guidelines. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep admittedly the article needs work, but there's widespread coverage of this player in regional and national publications. The subject matter itself is a notable individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)0[reply]
Keep. There's sufficient non-trivial coverage of him in the mainstream media to establish general notability. See, e.g., (1) Bolden's 228 yards in victory give Rebels hope, The Washington Post, Sep 25, 2010; (2) Bolden following path blazed by grandfather, The Advocate (Baton Rouge, La.), July 10, 2007; (3) Rebels' Bolden making big splash, The Advocate, November 20, 2008; (4) Bolden heads Rebs' deep group of RBs, The Clarion Ledger (Jackson, Miss.), Aug 25, 2009; (5) Bolden dominates in Scotlandville win, The Advocate, Sept. 8, 2007; (6) Brandon Bolden ends his recruitment process, Ole Miss Spirit, Jan. 20, 2008; (7) Brandon Bolden stands out at OM Sr Camp, Ole Miss Spirit, Jan. 9, 2007. Cbl62 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian League of Kosovo

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

The organization this party is partnered with did win some seats in 2004, but is otherwise not notable enough. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources about this "party". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. speedy delete as hoax DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"90 Percent Of Statistics Are Made Up"

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

Obviously this article needs cleanup, much of it easy to do (like linking, formatting, refs, and possibly page move too eliminate quotes). I removed the speedy delete tag (not appropriate in this case), but it probably still doesn't warrant its own article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I CSD'd it because it has no references, no definite or confirm-able content, and very little encyclopedic value. At any rate, I'd support it's deletion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as an obvious joke page and hoax. "90 Percent Of Statistics Are Made Up" is an extremely old joke, it's pretty clear it wasn't "invented by Carlislean Jameson Moore".--Hongkongresident (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced original research. I estimate that 90% of this article is made up. Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lolz. I'm wondering if the department of fun has a place for this comment. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, OR. Anna Lincoln 07:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, joke page and/or personal essay, absolutely zero sources. JIP | Talk 08:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, well, if this article was real, keeping it would be justified. But now I'm starting to wonder if I should have let the speedy delete take its course. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete for the hoax joke page. — Hun ter Ka hn 13:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 90 percent of statements about who made up a joke are made up. I got a bigger laugh out of trying to figure out the name "Carlislean James Moore" -- I thought it was "car-LIZ-lee-un" and it's actually a reference to a guy who lives in Carlisle, Massachusetts, so I guess it's CAR-lyle-un. After it's deleted, James's friends can call him Carlizleon. Mandsford 15:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely un-sourced and at best dubious. Thorncrag 05:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per everyone above. He iro 18:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn and no !votes for delete. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Dental Society of Anesthesiology

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

Article is written like a advertisement. The sources are all first party. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whatever stylistic misgivings one happens to have about this article, the organization was founded in 1954 and has published the journal Anesthesia Progress since them, so the only issue here is whether this is a KEEP or a SNOW KEEP. Carrite (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use some work, but it's clearly a notable organization publishing a journal noted and respected in its professional field. Circumspect (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hyperion Cantos . (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deathwand

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

This article seems to be diving much farther into the fictional world than is appropriate for Wikipedia D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree that it's very crufty, but a redirect to Hyperion Cantos would be much better than straight-out deleting it.--Hongkongresident (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Hongkongresident (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyperion Cantos.Shsilver (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyperion Cantos -- there's already a fair amount of duplication, so I don't think anything else needs to be merged. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sarek, with no prejudice against allowing spinout again if and when multiple independent RS reference this fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, it's a clean title (no parenthetical term). Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boogenhaagen

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

I hate to nominate articles for deletion, but this really need to be deleted, I make a PROD, but was removed by creator, something that must be forbidden. I am nominating it for the same reasons: The article fails WP:NBAND, it has no reliable sources. The most notable is the rumour about a future concert, that it's unsourced. Non-encyclopaedic and seems like a fansite. About the metal charts, a self-published source that state that only reached a number 17 on Harrogate borough (see WP:NSONGS). Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hongkongresident (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail WP:GNG and WP:MUS. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and Catfish Jim. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MySpace band. Nothing resembling a reference that isn't self-published. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dxbx Compatibility

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

No assertion of notability through reliable, published sources. WP:VG reliable sources search yielded zero hits. Teancum (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - as with the related article (Dxbx), ~~this is pure A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content).~~ This emulator does not have any notability - and makes no claim to it in the article. In fact, the article itself states that it doesn't work - and no games function on it. It doesn't need an article at all, let alone a sub-article like this. A complete lack of sources and it seems clear this should go ~~right~~ away. -Addionne (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This isn't any of those things you've just listed for A7. Marasmusine (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment CSD A7 does not apply to software. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Removed speedy above. The remainder of my argument remains the same. -Addionne (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Teancum, in your apparent zeal to rid the WP world of the scourge of Cxbx and friends, you have referenced Cxbx (not Dxbx) in your Google custom search. Please nominate more carefully. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes. I've corrected the link. --Teancum (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an spinoff page for a piece of software that is itself not even notable. The article on Dxbx is about to get deleted at AfD, so clearly this will not survive either (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dxbx). The developers of this software are attempting to use WP as a platform for increasing the visibility of their product. SnottyWong ^prattle 00:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and Snottywong. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dxbx

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

No assertion of notability through reliable, published sources. WP:VG reliable sources search yielded zero hits. Teancum (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete per A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content) This emulator does not have any notability - and makes no claim to it in the article. In fact, the article itself states that it doesn't work - and no games function on it. Add to that a complete lack of sources and it seems clear this should go right away. -Addionne (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment CSD A7 does not apply to software. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Removed speedy above. The remainder of my argument remains the same. That said, the article seems a bit to be conflicted as to whether it is about the collaborative online development project (web content, organization) or the software itself. What I mean is it discusses future development plans, refers to the aim of the project as much as it does the actual function of the software, and lists all members of the development team by (user)name. -Addionne (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Teancum, in your apparent zeal to rid the WP world of the scourge of Cxbx and friends, you have referenced Cxbx (not Dxbx) in your Google custom search. Please nominate more carefully. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link corrected to show the zero hits for Dxbx. --Teancum (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^spout 17:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. This emulator appears to be a work in progress, doesn't play any games, and is used by virtually no one. SnottyWong ^verbalize 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Snotty, do you have any evidence for your assertion "is used by virtually no one"? I see 15K+ hits on Google for the words "dxbx" and "emulator" together (not the phrase "dxbx emulator"). That suggests to me a lot of interest. (I'm not saying this interest rises to the byzantine WP definition of notability; it may not.) — HowardBGolden (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer It's common sense. The emulator has not even been developed to the point that it plays a single game. Therefore, I can all but guarantee that it is not used by anyone. Unless there is a huge underground group of video game fanatics who get together every weekend to watch "introductory movies and animations" on their PC's. SnottyWong ^communicate 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for what it's worth, I only get 2,790 google hits for "dxbx" and "emulator" together, and 136 hits for "dxbx emulator" in quotes. As a point of comparison, I get 4,540 hits for "dxbx" and "elephant" together, and 1,180,000 hits for "flamingo" and "shart" together. That's why google hits is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. SnottyWong ^prattle 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this article is just a version history, sourced only to the project's home page. The software doesn't run a single game and there is no indication that anyone uses it. There is no coverage in independent sources. This thing is clearly not notable. Reyk _YO! 23:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See the related AfD's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dxbx Compatibility and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cxbx. SnottyWong ^confabulate 00:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus here is that this emulator is not notable at the present time. Once it's completed (and assuming it gets some coverage) this article can be recreated. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cxbx

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

No assertion of notability through reliable, published sources. WP:VG reliable sources search yield only forum hits and blogs. Teancum (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - ~~G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion.~~ This is a non-notable product with no connection to notable developers or companies. It has no reliable sources at all. It plays 4 games, and even then, it does it poorly (no sound or network capability). It is an WP:ADVERT plain and simple. -Addionne (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This product has been mentioned in Slashdot. Does that make it notable? If you would look for more references to it online you would probably find because it was the first Xbox Emulator that played a commercial game. The previous reasons given to delete the article would apply to most of the emulators out there. So if your above reasons are valid you should also check and delete most of the other emulator-related articles. You can get started here: [15]. It is also mentioned in a book [16], and another book: [17]. Ahtabai (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot can have user-submitted content, meaning anyone can add news, thus making it an unreliable source. As far as the books go, they are nothing but extremely passing mentions, which do not provide significant coverage.

--Teancum (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What justifies the other emulator articles. There seem to be a lot of them that would be categorized as non-notable product. Will you mark them for deletion too? Ahtabai (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)— Ahtabai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The books add some minor credence - enough to make me remove speedy from my delete above - though I am not sure I would call it significant coverage. As Teancum says, it looks like those are relatively passing mentions. One puts it in context as a 'good place to start' - but the other is referring to another project (OpenXDK) and simply mentions that one of the members of that project has also worked on CXBX, which it refers to as CXBE. A quick check shows these companies have some editorial control over what is published (not totally self-published) but someone with more knowledge in that field would have to weigh in on that.

As for the List of video game console emulators, I'd encourage you to take a look and see why what about these articles? is not generally considered a valid argument in deletion discussions. -Addionne (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your assertion of WP:ADVERT is unjustified by the text of the article. It seems to be WP:NPOV to me. I'm unsure about notability. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the other articles about emulation should be reviewed, and most deleted since they don't comply to Wikipedia's rules. Like Dxbx. It's still in development and the versions that have been published don't play commercial games. I would suggest merging Dxbx with Cxbx under Xbox Emulation. Ahtabai (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How good are these articles? [18][19][20] Ahtabai (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 17:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. This emulator appears to be a work in progress, barely plays any games (with no sound or network), and is used by virtually no one. SnottyWong ^babble 17:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ahtabai, care to disclose your interest in this article? Your only significant contributions are to Cxbx and Dxbx, and their corresponding AfD's. You have also tagged this article for rescue despite it being pretty clear that reliable sources do not exist which cover the emulator in detail. Are you involved in the development of either of these emulators? If not, why have you come to WP to create these articles? SnottyWong ^squeal 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am involved in the development of Dxbx. Dxbx is a derivative work of Cxbx. Cxbx is the only Xbox emulator known to play more than 1 commercial game. It is still under development. However, I'd like to note that I did not create the Cxbx page; it was created some years ago. I once tried to create a page for Dxbx, but desisted due to conflicts of intrest (that's why I haven't even commented on it). The sources I cited before are not reliable? Most news of this emulator have already faded since its development was more active in 2003-2004. Do you have a source to state that "it is used by virtually no one"? Or is that your opinion? Ahtabai (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's common sense. I would be quite surprised if there were millions of people who regularly use a pre-alpha video game emulator that can only play 4 games with no sound or networking capabilities, especially when the development of the emulator appears to have been abandoned. Do you have a source to state that it is widely used? SnottyWong ^soliloquize 21:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as software goes. Click on the Google news search, and you find plenty of results, mostly in Spanish. Using Google translator on the first result [21] I see they talk about this emulator, and demonstrate a major commercial game that runs quite well on it. Dream Focus 00:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that your keep rationale would be a glorious combination of WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:GHITS, and a turkish website with a 2-paragraph description of the software which doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV. SnottyWong ^converse 19:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, can we keep it neutral here for once? no offense, but this isn't the first AfD where the two of you have bantered back and forth. If you want to make a point fine, but stay away from WP:NPA. --Teancum (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. There were no personal attacks in my last statement. Also, while there seems to be a general perception that Dream and I have "bantered back and forth" on numerous AfD's, that perception is false and I would be surprised if you could find more than one or two AfD's where Dream and I actually had a back and forth discussion with one another. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snottywong, you might think about toning down the sarcasm if you feel you are being misunderstood, I'm just saying....--Nuujinn (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Others have commented on him attacking the ARS and various people within it. He does seem to be commenting on the editor instead of the content of the message here. Anyway, my argument wasn't about Google hits, it was about news coverage found in Google news search. All those sites are considered valid news sites by Google, and seem legitimate enough to be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. And two paragraphs is quite significant. The article was about the software. Most software reviews aren't long, since there isn't much to say about them that requires more than two paragraphs. Dream Focus 23:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dream Focus's link posted at the top of this fork should pass WP:RS since, by the translation anyway, it has a street address, which typically is taken as a sign of reliability. However I just don't think one write up covers it. If anything it's on the extremely small side of significant coverage, but it still is just a short writeup - not much to it. It's sort of a "this exists" type of writeup. The intro paragraph and the one after the Turok picture are the only ones that talk about Cxbx. The third talks about emulators in general, and the fourth gives the Xbox specs. After that it's all PS2 emulator stuff. If there was at least one more article that provided WP:SIGCOV I'd say this would be a worthy supplement, but alone it's just not enough. --Teancum (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see this meeting the bar for notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angels (The Tea Party song)

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

Article doesn't assert notability for the song, as it doesn't seem to have any. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability offered. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Good arguments have been made as to why the lack of Google News hits does not necessarily prove unsourceability. However, I'd strongly recommend someone actually find and reference some of these notional pre-internet sources, because the article is still rather lacking in that department. ~ mazca ^talk 10:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Club Managers' Association Australia

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits [22]. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 10:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed info has been added "Leagues Club Association of New South Wales it produced a joint submission to the Productivity Commission on Australia's gambling industries". the source is not third party coverage and does not qualify as a reliable source as it merely hosts a submission made by the organisation. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying too hard. Trade Unions are important bodies that relate to governments and the community as well as their members. This is a small union, but it seems likely that it has been noticed. For example this journal article, Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, March 22, 1997 by Roache & Gerard, appears to discuss it and praise its efforts, but that volume is not available to me. The reference above is not a good reference to establish notability, but it is an Australian Government site so it is third party. It allows other editors to join me in looking to see whether there was press coverage at the time for that productivity commission investigation. Note this was in the 1990s. Google News will be quite useless. There are other submissions such as this one on gaming machines in Victoria in 2008. This is a hot topic in Melbourne and it may well have been considered in depth by the newspapers. I remain neutral for now, but think that sources may well be out there. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Australian Government site so it is third party."" no the productivity commission is merely hosting all submissions by interested parties. it is not indepth coverage by a third party about the organisation. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It not say it was "indepth coverage by a third party about the organisation". I explained why I added it. Why not look for sources yourself rather than wasting my time. Your use of gnews only in the nom was quite inadequate. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's not inadequate, you're the one that wants to keep it not me. why should I look for sources when I am editing other articles? LibStar (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is what you are supposed to do before you nominate an article for deletion. gnews is inadequate for an organisation that goes back decades. We are not just concerned about only recent times. I am not wanting to keep it. I said neutral above. I am just giving it some due diligence which all articles should have before they are deleted. Nobody else is, so I decided to have a look. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gnews contains coverage for over 100 years. it includes Sydney Morning Herald for many decades too. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bduke - passes notability, based on pre-internet sources. Libstar, Google News really doesn't cut it for Australian topics before a certain point. As a fun activity, I looked up three discredited former ministers from the early 90s from my state and couldn't find even one on Google (other than a cursory reference to his present job), and only cursory references on Factiva. No mention at all of controversies so serious that they cost one his job, another his liberty and got them named in the findings of a Royal Commission, even with a specific search for the years concerned with only the name used as a search term. Orderinchaos 05:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government Appointed Boards (New Zealand)

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

Unreferenced list (?) of boards. Little notability. No clear layout or format.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is referenced, but as embedded external links in each section rather than as footnotes. Obviously incomplete, but only a week old.-gadfium 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Covered at Public sector organisations in New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Movement Etoile d'Azur - Help with Art

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. An editor on the talk page has suggested the lack of coverage could be due to this being a hoax article. PhilKnight (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I did a bit of digging, having done some wikifying on this article. The postal address in the article is searchable – does this throw any light on the topic or the hoax allegation?
- http://www.praguesinfonia.com/content/contact.php gives it as the address of Marianne Maurer, coordinator of the Prague Sinfonia Orchestra
- http://www.avv.ch/parcours.html (and many other websites) makes it the address of Galerie Michel Foëx
- http://www.notrehistoire.ch/photo/view/6132/ implies it was the studio of Gustave Maunoir from 1910–1919

I also looked at the domain name given in the article: etoiledazur-helpwithart.org was registered on 15-Oct-2010 09:53:36 UTC by Domains by Proxy, Inc. in Scottsdale, Arizona and the website at http://www.etoiledazur-helpwithart.org/ was last modified 15 October 2010 13:49:20 – being so new, this could account for its absence from search engine indexes. — Hebrides (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, if it isn't a hoax, then it almost certainly isn't notable, and should be deleted anyway. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not finding any coverage in Google news. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crush (Pendulum song)

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

A single that is not due to be released in two months with the only source saying it will be a single. Clearly fails notability requirements of WP:NSONGS (no charts, awards, covers, etc.). Redirects to the album article have be reverted. No prejudice against recreation when song charts or otherwise establishes notability. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been confirmed to be released. Information will be added to the article as and when it is made available. Every article is built upon as information is available. And alot of articles are about advance releases from notable artists. Alinblack (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, shouldn't be deleted. As the band (or at least it's lead singer) stated in an earlier interview that i'll try and find, this was going to be the first single, they wouldn't just change their minds and not release it. I'll put more info on the actual song87.114.35.194 (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete per WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)" Rubbish coming from an anonymous IP address. There is nothing on the article that is speculative. Alinblack (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please be civil. Did you bother reading WP:NSONGS? The song has yet to be released thus it hasn't even charted, and consequently it doesn't deserve an article at the moment. And the point of WP:CRYSTAL is not merely verifiability but notability of future events.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rewrite. The article is indeed overly promotional and kay contain WP:COPYVIOs as well. A complete rewrite is needed, I may do some serious chopping after completing this close to remove spam and possible copyvios. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Networks

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

This article has one reference, was written one year ago by a WP:COI editor and little to no progress since May 16, 2009. The article would require a major rewrite to be acceptable to Wikipedia standards. See the talk page for an agreeing editor. Talktome^(Intelati) 17:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It does receive some mention in the press [23][24][25], but the article needs to be rewritten. It reads like a company promotional release. Eudemis (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry, but those links alone are enough for a pass on WP:ORG - they come from reliable sources and discuss the subject in significant detail. Obviously the article needs a rewrite, but that's what it needs, not deletion. Ravenswing 21:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very description of this business is both unambiguous advertising --- ....provider of intelligent software solutions for forecasting, planning and optimising Next-Generation Networks and Services --- and patent nonsense: does that sentence carry enough meaning to enable anyone else to restate it neutrally? All it means to me that it has something to do with computers and networks, and their networks are Next Generation! When the text is this irredeemable, notability is not an issue, even if routine announcements of financing deals and other puff pieces conferred notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMO, your statement, "when the text is this irredeemable, notability is not an issue..." is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Perhaps you can't redeem the article, but it is highly presumptuous for you to assert that no one can. The article needs rewriting. However, if the topic is notable, the article should not be deleted. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a WP:COI but I agree the page content needs rewriting. Looks like a cut n paste of Aria's old marketing blurb. But, IMO, not grounds for deletion based on WP:ORG. See coverage [26] [27]. Would an NPOV rewrite, all be it by a disclosed WP:COI, be a more acceptable resolution than deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamespullen (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, afd is not cleanup, and there appears to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the bar of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of G.I. Joe vehicles. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.N.G.

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

No real sources or assertion of notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles as there is a Category:G.I. Joe vehicles with all very similar poor-quality articles. They may be deletion-worthy individually per nom, but a list may actually be useful for everyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G.I. Joe vehicles. Mathewignash (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of G.I. Joe vehicles. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly (G.I. Joe)

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

Stub article with no assertion of notability. Only reference is a fansite. Divebomb (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has potential; why not let it stick around? Give it a chance. Lots42 (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. NotARealWord (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles as there is a Category:G.I. Joe vehicles with all very similar poor-quality articles. They may be deletion-worthy individually per nom, but a list may actually be useful for everyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G.I. Joe vehicles. Mathewignash (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest X-30

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

No references (not even fansites), no assertion of notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info better merged with articles of the pilots who flew them. Lots42 (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles as there is a Category:G.I. Joe vehicles with all very similar poor-quality articles. They may be deletion-worthy individually per nom, but a list may actually be useful for everyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Divebomb has it exactly right. The one "reference" is an external link to another Wiki and there is no assertion of notability. Reyk _YO! 02:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of G.I. Joe vehicles. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROCC

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

For god's sake. No references and no assertion of notability. Therefore no article. Divebomb (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles as there is a Category:G.I. Joe vehicles with all very similar poor-quality articles. They may be deletion-worthy individually per nom, but a list may actually be useful for everyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G.I. Joe vehicles. Mathewignash (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of G.I. Joe vehicles. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOBAT (G.I. Joe)

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

No notability asserted. No references. Divebomb (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, references are there. Lots42 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lots42 has done lots of work with this one in the past, and this one has potential. BOZ (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sure have. http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=g.i.joe+mobat&btnG=Search+Books Lots42 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles as there is a Category:G.I. Joe vehicles with all very similar poor-quality articles. They may be deletion-worthy individually per nom, but a list may actually be useful for everyone. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lists of characters are great, lists of vehicles not so much, especially since none of the G.I. Joe vehicles have the enduring cultural notability of, say, the Batmobile or the USS Enterprise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of G.I. Joe vehicles, per sgeureka, seems about the right level of coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G.I. Joe vehicles. Mathewignash (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Rebecca Fortnum

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

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

Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at present. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof. Little to be found of general notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I found a little biographical information about this artist/researcher: spacefor10.org.uk, Macmillan. However, her book Contemporary British Women Artists: In Their Own Words has received reviews in The Times, southlondonwomenartists, britannica.com. You can find plenty of coverage at WorldCat and Google Books, see for example Interpreting visual culture: explorations in the hermeneutics of the visual. I can imagine an informative article about this artist and her activities. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other than an interesting artist [28], her book - mentioned above - Contemporary British Women Artists: In Their Own Words is well respected. In it she outlines the current situation with regard to women artists' status in the UK. Other outcomes: lectures at New Hall, Cambridge University, UK Friends of the National Museum Women in the Arts, Washington DC; debate during an exhibition of the photographic portraits of the artists at the ArtSpace, Camberwell College, UAL, with the writers Paula Smithard and Reina Lewis; 4 x 10 min interviews with artists (Anya Gallaccio, Tacita Dean, Sonia Boyce and Paula Rego), BBC Radio 4, Women's Hour. Reviews: Rachel Campbell-Johnson, The Times, December 20, 2006; State of Art, Issue 8, winter, 2006 (authored article); I-D Magazine February 2007; Cate Elwes, Contemporary Magazine, Issue 90, 2007; Paula Smithard, Journal of Visual Art Practice [29]. She is an important academic [30], having started the Part-Time BA in Fine Art Course at Wimbledon College of Art, London, and currently running the MA in Fine Art at Camberwell College of Art, London. She is also a well respected curator having curated the inaugural exhibition at Gasworks, Dad, [31] with a project coming up at The Museum of Childhood in 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Burnett (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Weak keep. Several dozen hits at Google Books [32] seem to validate that she is notable enough as an art world figure. The article needs some serious work, however.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found at WorldCat, Google books, etc. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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