Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 17

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 16 July 18 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bison System

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 17th June 2010. WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability". Papaursa (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Academy for Special Children

Hebrew Academy for Special Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) to indicate notability. —mono 23:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that the J-post article cited is available on for-pay archival site. Is that considered a dead-link if you can't freely read the whole article but information is cited from the pay-only sections? I think that the same way a print article can be cited even without a URL, an article like this can be cited. Joe407 (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the nominator has conducted a faulty search, and for the following reasons among others: Firstly this is not just one school, it is a network of schools spread over the NYC area consisting of seven branches at different locations. Secondly, even a Google search for "Hebrew Academy for Special Children" yields over 36,000 hits. Thirdly the school is better known by its acronym of "HASC", just that searching for it on Google becomes mixed with a few other "HASCS" but it's still there. Fourthly, this is the most notable school for Orthodox Jewish children with special needs (meaning those afflicted by mental retardation, Down syndrome etc, and there are unfortunately thousands of them, incapable of being in regular Jewish or other schools) in the NYC metro area. Fifthly, it is very famous for its fund-raising concerts known as "HASC concerts that for that alone this organization receives wide media coverage in the Orthodox Jewish community in the NYC area. Sixthly HASC is also famous for its "HASC summer camp that is essentially the leading summer camp for Orthodox Jewish children who are afflicted with the issues described above etc in the NYC area. Therefore to cut out this article, that still needs work, would be to cut out a chunk of the life of the NYC Orthodox Jewish community, the largest in the world outside of Israel and in turn deprive Wikipedia of this WP:Notable organization that has adequate WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Come on, folks, do a LITTLE looking before you write something off! There are a ton of references [1] in Reliable Sources. I added half a dozen to the article, so if you voted delete, please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Merlin (TV series). Jayjg (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin: Secrets and Magic

AfDs for this article:
Merlin: Secrets and Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet notability guidelines as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I was unable to find a single reliable source presenting non-trivial coverage of the episodes. Honestly, the only thing that should be kept from there is the website which we can put in the external links here and on the main article. ChaosMasterChat 17:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CODE for Global Ethics

The CODE for Global Ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was marked for csd. Article's author removed tag. Article then prod'd; author again removed tag, giving no reason. The article does not cite credible evidence that the book meets the guidelines in WP:NBOOK and a Google search does not suggest that the book has been the subject of critical and/or disinterested discussion. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also evidence of possible conflict of interest: the author's website states that the book may be obtained by emailing someone called Carole Jean, and this article was contributed by editor Carole Jean (talk · contribs). --Deskford (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message

A search on Google about “The Code for Global Ethics” has rendered 23,200 results. This is an important book that was the object of a thorough analysis at the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Humanist Association in San Jose, CA, on June 2-4, 2010. The fact that this book is controversial should not be a reason for censorship. The article is a first draft that will be improved upon in the coming days. C. J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carole Jean (talk • contribs) 22:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC) — Carole Jean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete or Userfy until some external sources can be found. The book exists, it is published by a real publisher (not self-published), and it is available through normal commercial channels; so far so good. However, I could not find a single reference about the book in reliable sources. There are a lot of Google hits, but they are to blogs etc. So it currently fails the notability test. Suggestions for the author if she decides to improve the article and try again: first, read the notability requirements at WP:N; the absolute requirement is that there must be independent reliable sources talking about the book. If there aren't, then no amount of rewriting is going to make the article notable enough for Wikipedia. Those sources need to be cited in the article in a references section; you can learn how to do that here. The article currently does too much advocating for the author's viewpoint, instead of presenting information ABOUT the book. There are too many "see also" entries, many only tangentially related to the book. Finally, if the article is userfied, the name should be changed to "The Code for Global Ethics", losing the all-caps CODE. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nom. Raw Google searches mean nothing. There are only 2 GScholar hits for this subject - the book itself and a pdf on the author.[2] There are only 2 GBooks hits for this subject, one of which is the book itself.[3] The are zero Gnew hits on the book.[4] Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could not find suitable independent sources. Racepacket (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basilio Muhate

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

An article on a living person only based on a blog (a BLP Prod was declined). This economist seems active as a blogger and on social networks, but I can find no mention in secondary reliable sources. I don't think this blog is sufficient to even verify the content, let alone demonstrate notability. Fences&Windows 22:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in reliable sources and his work as an economist doesn't seem to go beyond the norm. Valenciano (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitive Dimensions of Creative Architecture

Definitive Dimensions of Creative Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found this article with a WP:PROD template on it, but deletion has previously been contested so it can't be deleted without discussion. The prod reason was "no context / original research / no evidence of notability. Also no changes have been made since Jan 2010 when it was previously prodded". I agree. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. that sources seems to have tilted the discussion Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Frimpong

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

A contested WP:PROD, the article is about a 18-year old reserve player of Arsenal with no first team appearances to date, but only youth tournaments, which are definitely not enough to ensure notability. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:ATH, and the few sources provided are coming from non-independent sources (Arsenal FC, FA website), or are just report pages, or articles who are not covering the subject in details or not enough to establish notability alone. Angelo (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted because that last comment offers a pretty decent source and I think consensus requires some comments on it.Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Anonymous above. Multiple sources, including one exclusively on subject. Article does not appear to be spam or self promotion. Appears to meet all guidelines of WP:GNG. I see no reason to delete it. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not really think that source alone may establish notability. It does not really say anything about why the subject is notable on his own, but it is just a few sentences here and there about the lad's story into the youth system, from the guy's own perspective: please read the article, and you'll discover it is actually Frimpong himself who speaks (what the journalist did was to just wrote three lines of story at the beginning of it), thus also making the source appear from a non-independent point of view. --Angelo (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nfitz. He's a young player generating buzz and clearly meets the general notability guidelines70.112.195.170 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC) edit: wasn't logged in Claphands (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article as nominated, and the article as it stands are so different it is difficult to read this discussion as an integral whole. All things considered, no consensus, but feel free to re-nominate if you really want to. Courcelles (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving parts

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

One part OR, one part dictdef, one part stub which hasn't gone anywhere in five years. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose it's a bit out of process to comment like this on my own proposal, but I'll do so anyway. First, Uncle G deserves thanks for putting in a lot of work improving (essentially re-writing from scratch) the article. There's no doubt it's better than it was. It has references. It has nice diagrams. It's no longer a stub. The problem is, it still doesn't tell a coherent story. It's a bit of a jumble of various ideas which aren't closely related to each other. Maybe it's several articles. Maybe it's stuff that needs to be merged into other articles. I'm not sure. Maybe it's just that the name of the article is poor? In any case, I think at this point, the best advice I can give to people who have already expressed an opinion is to go back and read the current version and see if you still feel the way you did originally. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not out of process at all. This is a discussion, not a vote, after all. If it helps in thinking about this, go to Special:Search and look at how many articles on mechanisms, engines, and machines state that something has the advantage of "no moving parts" or "fewer moving parts", often considering this point so important that it's in the first paragraph or even sentence of the article, without explaining in any way why or how this is an advantage, or even why or how the number of moving parts is an important design factor at all. This article, of course, does explain the whys and hows of that, along the way leading the reader who then wants to find out more, to (one hopes) in depth discussions of more specific subjects from lubrication through computer aided design and kinematic design to tribology. (No, you aren't going colour blind. There's a whole engineering subject of kinematic design that we haven't addressed in all these years.) Uncle G (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I think one of the main reasons this article hasn't progressed very far is the poor choice of title. All it says basically is that "moving parts are parts that move". DubZog (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC) * Now that the article has been expanded a lot, I kind of wish I were an engineer to be able to say whether it's any good. Is there a wikiproject engineering that can be consulted? DubZog (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article has a lot of potential for significant expansion with plenty of reliable sources from books, magazines and newspapers. Also, last I checked, Wikipedia does not have deadlines for stubs. The article needs cleanup. AFD is not cleanup. Vodello (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve or Merge until standalone article per vodello. With proper linking the article can be improved by many users. Deletions generally wastes time/effort which can be spent on improving articles. Kasaalan (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Negative comments about what deletion does or doesn't do generally serve only to piss off the people who participate in AFD in good faith. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I can see the editor's sincere desire to contribute. However, moving parts have nothing to do with each other besides being parts that move. And that would just be a dictionary definition, contrary to WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It would be better to write an article on one kind of machine, its history and present uses, rather than on a topic that spans half the universe. Wolfview (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Undecided Article has been improved so that it qualifies as a second-rate WP article. You know, the kind that puts together two or three sections about some related topics and gets some good info to readers, but without really having one topic that meets strict policies. Another example is Peckerwood. (No other relationship between the two however.)Wolfview (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spam (electronic). Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratware

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

Does not even have one source. A neologism. Do I need to mention that it fails to comply with Wikipedia General Notability Guideline? Fleet Command (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University Press of America

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

Delete, non-notable company. The article was speedy deleted once for being an advertisement, and then was recreated in 2007, existing as a stub since with no third-party references. The only third-party mentions I could find online were incidental mentions of it in reviews, all comments indicating that it's considered a vanity press.[9],[10] Which doesn't preclude it from being a notable vanity press, of course, but I can't find evidence of its notability. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Enigmamsg 16:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kane karu

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

Creator of YouTube page, both non-notable per WP:WEB and WP:BIO. WP:PROMO claims of "most subscribed" and "100 million views" are not borne out by the site itself: as of 17 July, there is a post from the owner reading "Guys, i need subscribers please !!!!" Evident WP:COI and WP:AUTO from creator. Sole reference is a link to the YouTube page. Zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Empty Buffer (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the tip. Empty Buffer (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nom. I saw your notice on the Computer Security wikiproject talk page, and "advertising Jailbreaking softwares" has nothing to do with that, so I'm removing the project from the page. --DanielPharos (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well his software reverse engineer the iphone somehow. Doesn't it related computer security/computing. Kasaalan (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, his software isn't AI, so it can't reverse engineer anything. Also, it's (apparently) not HIS software; he only made a video about the software. (At least, this is what I gather from the article.) So no, he's not related to computer security. --DanielPharos (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Biesi

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

Delete. Bypassing the "prod game" as this needs to be deleted the old fashioned way. Totally non-notable. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam Superstars

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

The page contains unsourced and useless information which is biased and classified by the fans of popular actors. This page does no value addition to Wikipedia. Sreejith K (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No encyclopedic Value --Anoopan (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#A10. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The secret annex of anne frank

The secret annex of anne frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. This isn't an article, it's an essay ... and one that looks like it was cut and pasted from somewhere. Blueboy96 16:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Thomas Ryan

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

Notability and verifiability concerns. Have searched Gbooks, Gweb, Gnews for indications of the subject (with or w/o middle name), no secondary coverage save for a listing credit at tv.com was found. Try as we might, even the BLP Rescue Squad has to admit defeat. Unsourced for 2+ years. j⚛e deckertalk 15:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Zmijewski

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 00:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramkrishna Nagar

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

Non-notable topic, no refs and internal inconsistency. Article says the township is near Karimganj. However, the infobox appears to imply that it is located in Karimganj. Also contains coverage of very trivial information.Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 13:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You people seem to be confusing this village for a town. The link provided by TheCatalyst31 says that it has a panchayat. Towns don't have panchayat in India, villages do. Also it would be great if you could read the article. :) At present, there are no references at all. One link (to a government website) does not constitute significant coverage. Plus, I have serious issues with the content of the article (but that I guess can be easily rectified). Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 01:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether this is a town or village is immaterial. Consensus, as can be seen from many AfD discussions over the years, is that we should keep articles on verified settlements of any size. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Towns do have panchayats in at least some parts of India. (I live in one :-)). --Sodabottle (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is valid only if backed by policy, and to be able to do so you need to find non-trivial coverage in media. One link to a government site is hardly significant coverage. If you would continue to hold that the subject is notable, please make sure the statements have at least some refs. And please, can we please remove the last paragraph.
@Sodabottle: Thank you for the link about Town Panchayats. I was not aware of this. But they are for rural areas too (for their transition to urban areas) according to that site itself. I am from India too, I suspect no other state has adopted this. Have they? Specifically, do rural areas in Assam (even more specifically, Ramkrishna Nagar) have a Town Panchayat? If the Panchayat in Ramkrishna Nagar was a Town Panchayat, wouldn't it be called so?--Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 20:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you've got that the wrong way round. Policy is valid only if backed by consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policies reflect a much wider consensus than an AfD discussion does it not? When I said consensus, I meant consensus reached at in the AfDs you were citing. There is obviously no valid argument in saying that these AfD or any of them reflect much wider consensus than say, WP:Notability.--Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpa tulaskar

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

This person does not appear to meet WP:GNG for actors. No third-party coverage provided, no significance determined, and text like from there on there was no looking back. Shilpa is adept at portraying a wide range of emotions reads more like WP:RESUME than an encyclopedic article. — Timneu22 · talk 13:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Discounts and allowances and merge. no clear consensus on where to merge this but since mome material has already gone to Discounts and allowances I have chosen that. Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mates rates

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

This is a colloquial expression and a WP:DICDEF. Gobonobo T C 13:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenseido

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 30th June 2010. WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability". Papaursa (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Albanese

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

Unreferenced BLP. I can find no record of any MMA fights, nor does Sherdog show any fights for him. It seems like WP:HOAX--29 professional fights for someone who just turned 18 years old. Papaursa (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's because I find my requests for CSD are frequently rejected because there's a claim of notability (such as 29 professional fights), regardless of the claim's validity, and told to take it to AFD. Just thought I'd go directly. Papaursa (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham John McKenzie

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE, 17 year old, good luck to him, not there yet Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Shimshilashvili

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

Substantially unsourced autobiography of an entertainment personality, no indication of any notability (WP:BIO) found on Google.  Sandstein  10:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Typical poorly written promo-style article. --erachima talk 11:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a WP:SPA who is only a vandal. — Timneu22 · talk 15:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily-deleted by User:Alexf --erachima talk 10:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kochi tours/vector.css

User:Kochi tours/vector.css (edit | [[Talk:User:Kochi tours/vector.css|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this promotional page could contain malicious content capable of compromising your account TeapotgeorgeTalk 10:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this page could contain malicious content capable of compromising your accountTeapotgeorgeTalk 10:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding the software. That's his .css page, if he were to screw it up it might damage his account. --erachima talk 10:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... sorry about that I tried to mark it for speedy deletion because of the promotional aspect but the template wouldn't apply for some reason?TeapotgeorgeTalk 10:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot edit other people's .css pages. You can edit yours, but I'd strongly suggest you not do so since you don't understand them. Visit Help:Cascading style sheets if you want to see what these things are all about. Anyway, I'm closing this AfD. --erachima talk 10:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geonext

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

Delete. Free software with no apparent ties to notability, subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable and independent third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 08:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This does not prevent prevent the recreation of a list that contains more information than just the alphabetical listing of articles, because, as some correctly say, lists have a different purpose from categories. But I have to give the "keep" opinions a little less weight here, because they do not address the "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages" issue that some "delete" opinions raise.  Sandstein  06:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of furniture companies

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

This article does not seem to add anything over the Category:Furniture manufacturers. Si Trew (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Lists are not strictly redundant with categories in that lists can contain redlinks. Given Wikipedia's spotty coverage of corporations that aren't household names or currently in the news for scandal, this is quite hypothetically useful.
    This one doesn't do that, of course, but "it sucks right now" isn't a deletion argument unless none of the current content would be included in a future revision of the page. --erachima talk 06:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nom read the nomination and decided after four years people may have changed their minds on what they think about articles like this. The nom considers that although lists should serve different purposes than categories, lists that have no information other than the names of articles are not serving a different purpose and so deserve deletion. The nom finds it a bit harsh to question his motive when he brings an article to AfD in good faith. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Vodello is wondering why the nom is speaking about the nom in the third person. It doesn't matter if there's a delete vote here and there: Lists and categories served different purposes in 2006, and they serve different purposes in 2010. Vodello (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with nominating an article after 4 years. Much has changed, except this article, regrettably. I don't find appealing to the past AfD compelling in this instance. Shadowjams (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ontario Universities by Average Entrance Grade

List of Ontario Universities by Average Entrance Grade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ontario universities by average entering grade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hard what to make of this article, but it seems to be an unnecessary content fork. I also sense a bit of WP:IINFO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "per nom" I guess :) Maashatra11 (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:::nom and Morn on ST:DS9....  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Skálová

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

This article (a BLP) is unreferenced 4 years. I can't find any sources indicating notability of the subject. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE for grossly violating our BLP policy. Enough!!!!!!! JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 08:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1995 is one of the last years before the Internet took over, so I'd not be surprised if this case needs offline sources. I'm no expert on beauty contests, but wouldn't we need her to have won Miss Czechoslovakia rather than only being a finalist? If so I'd say delete as not quite notable. ϢereSpielChequers 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Czechoslovakia split on 1 January 1993. I don't know if there are any notability guidelines for participants in the beauty contests. There are two competitions in the Czech Republic: Česká miss and Miss České republiky. A lot of girls participate every year in the final part of the contests. Some of the finalists became celebrities (Alena Šederová, Agáta Hanychová) even if they didn't win. They are notable for this project . However, I can't find any evidence of notability for this contestant. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Courcelles (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability

This is a mass nomination encompassing all members of Category:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability whose list does not have an actual article corresponding to the superhuman feature or ability described. List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire, for instance, is not included due to the existence of the article pyrokinesis.

We have established a precedent in prior deletion debates on plants, weather, and superpowers that these articles are ill-suited to the project due to a combination of original research, unencyclopedicness, and organizational concerns, so I am listing the remaining like articles in one batch for ease of discussion. (It is also worth noting that these lists all exist in much better form on TvTropes.)

The following pages are included in this nomination:

I, as nominator and for the reasons described above, am for their deletion. --erachima talk 05:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all or merge into single article, sortable tables are extremely useful Useful sortable table based list for fiction genre. Articles like List of fictional characters who can manipulate cold and ice is very useful for comparison. When some user put effort on gathering some verifiable facts about comics etc. everyone claim Original Research. WP:OR is mostly about reaching conclusions by OR, not categorising verifiable fact/info. Fictional abilities can be easily verified by wikilinking. It is easy to delete, hard to create content.
  • Nice job on notifying WP:WikiProject Comics. Most of the nominators does not care about proper announcement during AFD. We may also notify some more projects like WP:WikiProject Films. Kasaalan (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So who's gonna create this single article, with all this "info" in tables... you? Ryan4314 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have accomplished over 9000 edits, around half most of them article edits or sandboxing, rest unnecessary debates. So I can do that yes. Kasaalan (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncontroversial and routine maintenance of the encyclopedia does not require the permission of any WikiProject. Reyk YO! 21:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; "Wikiprojects" do not require notifications for AFD, that is for the deletion discussion categories, of which 3 above have already been notified. Do you require a hand stepping down from that soap box, it's awfully high. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not good point at all. Random, small-circle AFDs without any proper debate processing is wrong and against WP:AFD guidelines. First of all WP:AFD advise you to do make research, assume potential, make debate, seek consensus, then AFD and notify others. Nominator properly did that, I congratulated him as you can tell, that is why a wider and more healthy debate is in progress. Kasaalan (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore it. This user has been harassing me for weeks about not bringing an AfD of mine to his prompt and swift attention. If people want to care about an article, then they can watchlist it. I never have and never will seek out random wiki-fiefdoms to alert to such. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is you are disrespectful user who directly insults/swears multiple users including me, and cannot be even thankful they don't take administrative action. So your opinion does not matter to me. Kasaalan (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I appreciate WikiProjects for the work they do in getting masses of articles into a readable state and teaching new editors who don't "get it" how to do things. (I also directly alerted four of them of this deletion debate.) I don't really think that either of our opinions of WikiProjects, or your opinion of Kasaalan, has much to do with the discussion here, however. --erachima talk 03:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My English isn't great But I assume I congratulated you for your notifications with a link to your post, didn't I. "Nice job on notifying WP:WikiProject Comics. Most of the nominators does not care about proper announcement during AFD. We may also notify some more projects like WP:WikiProject Films." How could anyone take a congratulation negatively. Kasaalan (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not take your congratulations negatively, I appreciated them. Where did you get the idea that I took them negatively? --erachima talk 07:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly because other editors. Thanks for your efforts on wider debate. Kasaalan (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood your initial post, Kasalaan. To me it sounded like you were saying something like, "You mean you only told WikiProject Comics? Pfff!" but I obviously inferred sarcasm where none was intended. Nevertheless, I do not agree with you that AfDs need to be cleared with the various relevant WikiProjects before they can proceed. Reyk YO! 08:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry happens. I just suggested we might notify 1-2 more. Well it should be stressed more strictly in the policy. I will try to ask a policy focus on AFD process. Creating articles really takes time. AFD nominating/debating shouldn't be too easy and swift. Sometimes they even delete articles with a few user opinions, while dozens of people contributed that article. That is not fair at all. Also for specific articles like comics, manga, films, technology, politics etc. it might be good to take opinion on focused users. It wouldn't take more than 5 minutes for the nominator anyway. On the other hand if the objecting users notify projects etc. it brings CANVAS issue. You may claim people should watchlist or watchlist AFD discussions, why and how people can manage thousands of articles in their watchlist daily in the assumption that someone will AFD one day without their notice. That is not effective at all. Kasaalan (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just asking, are there categories for these lists? As in a Category for characters who can manipulate electricity? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There were. They got axed. --erachima talk 03:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay... 2007 said turn it into a list now, they just want to get rid of it entirely. What about userfying it? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the number of times these things have been decided unencyclopedic, the fact that userpages cannot be used to preserve deleted pages indefinitely, and the far superior coverage these lists have on TvTropes, I suggest just using TvTropes. --erachima talk 03:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with how TvTropes works, does it create articles similarly to Wikipedia? And i'm not sure how putting it on TvTropes would help accessiblity unless we created a category and linked the category to the TvTropes page. And instead of "Characters who manipulate [insert power here]", can it not be renamed to a much shorter and convenient category title? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TvTropes is a wiki which specializes in categorization of works of fiction (and occasionally real life events) by their shared thematic elements. It lacks policies such as WP:SYNTH that prevent Wikipedia from containing similarly informative pages on these subjects, and generally does a much better job of them. It's also a bit harder to navigate than Wikipedia due to the fact that all their page names are puns (e.g. the corresponding article to List of fictional characters who can manipulate cold and ice on TvTropes is called "An Ice Person"), but hey, you can't have it all. --erachima talk 21:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all The basis for selecting these lists for deletion - the existence of corresponding articles about the powers - seems bizarre. For example, the manipulation of magnetic fields is listed above but we have an article magnetism. And is there really any doubt that Magneto, say, is hugely notable and that this is the essence of his power? What we have here is an indiscriminate slaughter based upon poor reasoning, destructive perfectionism and personal opinion. If we look at an independent work on the subject, such as The encyclopedia of superheroes on film and television then we see that it includes details of the characters' superpowers, as you would expect. This is therefore a legitimate basis for organising our articles on such notable characters. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing. Indiscriminate pogroms are disruptive to this activity because they drive away editors. And we have people saying clearly above that they want people to go work on TV Tropes instead. Such sentiments are improper because they clearly damage the project. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed they did, typed out in response to the question "What about userfying it?", after dutifully explaining why Wikipedia:Subpage prohibiting keeping this sort of content in your userspace. What do you find so grievously offensive about this statement? --erachima talk 10:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distinction was made to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. Mass AfDs in which the nominator is not careful that all the members are alike in all relevant aspects quite often fall apart as people argue that article X should stay but Y, Z, and W should be deleted, while others vote delete all or keep all without reading the individual articles.
    In this particular situation, it is legitimately arguable whether a list of characters with superhuman strength is an appropriate complement to the article superhuman strength, and that argument is distinct from the current one, so it needs to be listed separately. --erachima talk 19:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I was the original nominator of weather etc., and while I normally am shy of mass-nominating lists or articles for deletion, in this case it seems appropriate. The remaining lists need to be evaluated - whether they are suitable or not is questionable, and if they're deemed encyclopaedic, they need some clean-up. The lists in this nomination are pure cross-categorizations, and fail WP:NOTDIR. Claritas § 14:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this kind of batch nomination is not usually right but this is exactly the time it should be used. These lists are unfixable because they are unencyclopedic cross-categorizations, as per WP:NOTDIR. There is nowhere except Wikipedia where someone has compiled this passing factoids into a list, which makes this WP:OR, and a violation of a central policy. I would almost suggest adding something to another guideline to make this clear but it's almost unnecessary as per WP:BEANS. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Colonel Warden makes a convincing argument. Also, do these Wikipedia list not aid in navigation? All the characters listed have their own articles. And their powers are the notable characteristic that identifies them. Dream Focus 20:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A comment like that makes me included to remove all entries that don't have their own articles, which would probably eliminate roughly 80% of the lists. —Farix (t | c) 14:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which list are you referring to? The ones I look at have every single thing listed there a blue link, usually to the character's own article, and rarely to a page where they are grouped with others. Have you actually read the list you are trying to delete? Dream Focus 02:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about all of them? I've already gone through about half of the lists and removed entries that do not have stand-alone articles. This has cut many of lists down by half if not more. Just because there is a blue link doesn't mean that the entry has a corresponding article. And the fact that you made that assumption shows that you really didn't check out the lists.
Oh, how could I have missed that? You took characters which had links to articles which specifically mentioned them in them with the powers listed, and deleted those. [13] The first name I check on was Fujiomi, Taisuku, which linked to the series he was in, it having a paragraph for him mentioning his power [14] So why does he not deserve to be on the list? During an active AFD, you went through without proper discussion or consensus, and deleted more than half of the content of these articles. Whether a character has information in their own article, a character list, or just a paragraph in the main series article, I see no reason why it wouldn't be listed. But we can discuss that after this AFD closes, no sense arguing about it if there is a chance it'll be deleted anyway. Dream Focus 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And while going through the lists, I further realized just how trivial these cross-categorizations are. All of these "powers" are as common as riding a bike in the real world, and we don't have List of fictional character that can ride a bicycle or List of fictional character who can manipulate data. —Farix (t | c) 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The powers are what makes the characters notable, that what the series is about. If people started buying millions of comic books and cartoons that just had average people riding bicycles around all day, that'd be a notable defining characteristic and would be fine for its own list. And some fictional characters can manipulate data with their powers, so that'd be a valid list. Dream Focus 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep in Categorical Form I can see the sound logic in erachima's arguments. There are many characters who can fall under multiple categories and simply one. Considering throughout the course of history there have been very many fictional characters developed, maintenance of such lists would be insane, and having them fall under WP:RS while trying not to violate WP:OR in these lists would be very difficult. The lists have got to go but the Categories, if we shorten their names, can keep navigation easy for people who want to find correlations within their favorite characters. I believe it can survive as Categories, but to place them back into the many articles would be a great job. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all insufficient reliable sources independent of the subject, original research and verifiability problems are rife. No reliable sources -- I'll note that many superheroes have one power in one carnation, but in other story arcs do not. It's a mess, basically, better suited to a fansite (wikia etc...).Bali ultimate (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a serious manga reader, my opinion is that an article with sortable tables gathering superpowers of superheroes in fictional art is useful. That is what all the fiction genre is based upon anyway.
  • Suggestion We can merge all tables into 1 article, with collapsiple table/text features. Then it won't take much space, don't fork much, and all info will be available within 1 article. If some people agree I can do that by myself. Kasaalan (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, and put the ones who aren't already into their respective categories with caution. Remember that it has to be an integral part of their character, not something they did once in issue #3193 and was never mentioned again. Oh categories mostly don't exist. Even better. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These lists are pure Orginal research, they also should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR, and WP: V. Lets face it anyone can add any superhero/character they want. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all They all appear to be original research. I also don't think any of the lists themselves are notable, as none has received significant coverage in reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 04:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Certainly some, or even most, of these should be deleted, but I don't have time to evaluate them all individually. I do think that the nominator has made a good choice about how to distinguish inappropriate and potentially appropriate lists. That said, some of these may have potential and should be userfied if anyone wants to use them as a basis for further work as or as a help in finding sources for a topic. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism and a copyright violation to boot. Indeed, this is a copyright violation of copyrighted ("©2010 The University of Chicago® SSA") non-GFDL content, with just the names changed, clearly added as hoax vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Notes (professor)

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

I believe this is a hoax. "Cornell Notes" is a well known education technique; however, I cannot find any evidence of the professor by this name existing. Kansan (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the article seems to have been copied from http://www.ssa.uchicago.edu/faculty/wejohnso.shtml, with the name changed. Kansan (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invention (industry)

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

Appears to be a PoV fork of Invention Wtshymanski (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 1: See disambiguation for Invention: Invention (disambiguation)

Invention may refer to:

  • Invention, a form, a composition of matter, or a process that has an element of novelty

Invention (musical composition), a short composition (usually for a keyboard instrument) with two-part counterpoint

  • "Invention", a song by Pedro the Lion from the 1999 EP The Only Reason I Feel Secure
  • Invention (album), a collaboration by Phil Keaggy, Wes King, and Scott Dente
  • Invention (industry), an invention having a technical aspect and requiring more skill and ingenuity [italics by zutam]

Therefore: this article is compatible with the other articles on invention per WP policy, and is distinguished like the other articles in the disambiguation page.

Answer 2: After publication in WP, this article was copied to an external site (see discussion). If the article is removed from WP, it may create a mistaken impression in public, that it is copyright protected and originated by the external site mentioned by Coren_bot.

Isn't this is akin to stealing something away from the public domain and unjustifiably claiming authorship? Shouldn't WP protect the publich by preventing this?

Answer 3: This contribution was deleted many times at WP - could it be possible that it is done by the same people at the external site which copied it from WP?

-Zutam (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Details of many deletions of this article - someone is terribly determined to hide/delete it:

  • I placed it as an addition to Invention. It was deleted several times, without any dialog or explanation
  • I created a new article Industrial invention. It was hid by redirect to Invention.
  • I now created this article; improved and with careful disambiguation vs. the other Invention varieties, just in the same format and as required per WP policy.

--Zutam (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe an interested party got annoyed by the facts disclosed in this article, for example the USPTO initiative to accelerate the examination

"==New trends in patenting==

  • Accelerated examination [10] - since September 2006, USPTO offers..."

This venue is not well known in US. Some oppose it and don't cooperate with USPTO on this issue. I believe it is a worthy initiative, which can help reduce the patent applications backlog. The first to receive a patent under this program was a Japanese firm; to date (July 2010) there is no huge response from the public. The present article presents useful facts to the public, with this and other features.

--Zutam (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS If it's been deleted many times, perhaps there's a reason.... This is the first time I've seen it, so I'm not "someone ... terribly determined to hide/delete it". Peridon (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed as speedy deleted per author request Davewild (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of Marketing

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

The methodology described here does not appear to be notable. I was unable to find any references to it on Google. The external links contain a payed service that bares the "methodologies" name - the service has no listings in Google news. The original author removed a PROD remarking that the methodology is not notable, but would be in the future. I made the suggestion that they ask an admin to userify the page until it becomes suitable for an article of it's own. ialsoagree (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging is an editorial decision and is left to editorial discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Staub

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

I think this entry should be deleted. Danielle or Beverley is actually too new to be included. Yes she was a "model" years ago and achieved some notoriety for her past transgressions but I think she is truly a flash in the pan at this stage. Reconsider her in five years if she lasts that long.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosiecat (talk • contribs) 02:32, July 15, 2010

  • Comment. This AfD nom is User: Moosiecat's first edit, which I think it's unusual and probably not recommended for a user's first edit to be an AfD. But whatever; the notability of the person could be called into question. This person was on a reality show. She wrote a book (actually, had it ghostwritten). Judging by this article's history, she's a lightning rod for criticism and controversy. There's more I could say that would be germane to the situation, but I'm not allowed to, so... figure it out yourselves. I will say that this article, if it continues to exist, will probably have to be protected as it is a magnet for WP:BLP violations of the semi-literate variety. Whether this person meets WP:BIO is certainly questionable. I myself am on the fence. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This page needs to merged with the "Real Housewives of New Jersey" page. There is no reason for this individual to have her own wikipedia page as she has had no strong defining moments that the other cast member have not also had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.125.195 (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The only cited sources are MySpace, her own website, and Amazon.com. That is not sufficient. Also, calling her a reality "star" seems to be a stretch. Kansan (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of moving the following comment from the Talk:Danielle Staub where it was mistakenly placed. Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article really doesn't meet the WP notability guidelines. The biggest claim to fame of this person at this point is a sex tape. There are adult related wikis and also adult "imdb" style sites that she can be listed on. While a lot of reality people may have their own wikis most of them probably also have careers that will be making them more notable. This person is done.Woods01 (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sex tape? What sex tape? There is no sex tape mentioned in the article. Her claim to fame is a regular role on a national TV program, and a book, and extensive coverage given to both. --GRuban (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, I assume you don't watch Real Housewives of New Jersey. A sex tape made news in the low-rent tabloids and presses and it was discussed in Season 2 episodes. Mike H. Fierce! 21:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh I saw Mike H he canvas for this tyep of thing offwiki on facebook. he is a very bad and shud be ban by wikipedia, thx. he is violation of the guidelines and bylaw of wikipedia thx.--69.114.214.58 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between "canvassing" and thinking your own vote is funny. kthx. Mike H. Fierce! 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's no consensus that the OR and other problems are so severe as to require deletion rather than editing.  Sandstein  06:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion faux pas

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

This is just a mess of sneers and personal opinions, jammed together with quotes from fashionistas. Orange Mike | Talk 02:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are certainly serious verifiability and original research concerns. Almost every definition of the base terminology used in the article is sourced to Urban Dictionary. An original synthesis of multiple bad definitions from an unreliable source is highly suspect from the start. This is not to say that there aren't sources to be had. There are. Chapter 17 of Martin's and Lehu's Fashion for Dummies has a list of fashion faux pas, for example. But this article shows that there's plenty of scope for writing exceedingly badly upon the subject, either by using unreliable sources or by collecting a list of instances of things that people have called a fashion faux pas and hoping that proper analysis will magically arise once some mysterious critical mass has been reached. No wonder the article was redirected early in its history. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any possible article that could be written here as of the present. There is a possibility for a retrospective article about this, but I think that's a long shot. I don't think any amount of rewriting will remove the inherent PoV nature from this article, to say nothing of sourcing. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really not sure about this one (neutral). If some reliable sources are added--scratch that; if some reliable sources replace the sources that are there already, I could !vote weak keep. Right now, it looks like the article was written by Perez Hilton. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete. This article has been created for a university assignment on wiki creation. We are working to improve it with guidance from our professor. If you could please refrain from deleting it until September 2010, your assistance would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or concerns, you can reach me at cross01@uoguelph.ca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.100.238 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although admittedly the article is a bit of a mess at the moment, it's a good STARTING POINT for a potentially brilliant wikipedia article, and I can't see how deleting it could do anyone any good. There is no doubt about the notability of the subject, or indeed the existence of a variety of sources, and this article is currently being worked on, so we should really give it some more time, before just scrapping it. DubZog (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about reliable sources? The problem with something like this is that by its very nature it is opinion and thus PoV. If someone can find a few objective academic sources on which to base an article, or even some objective journalism, I will promptly stand down, but bear in mind this article will be a lightning rod for nonsense. Also, while I respect that there is an assignment involved, does anyone else think it is a bit strange to put it on wikipedia to facilitate the project for the professor? I suppose it means we get our own dedicated work team for this article, but I certainly hope they can pull it together. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are loads of fashion magazines out there... and fashion sections of major newspapers etc etc.... I'm sure opinion polls about fashion have been carried out.. to be honest, I even think that plenty of books about fashion have been written, many of which touch upon what's NOT accepted as well. So all in all, I do think reliable sources can exist. And mind you, although the nature of this TOPIC is opinion, this is no restriction for someone willing to write an encyclopedia article on it, because it's possible to distinguish more widespread opinion from that of a particular editor by referring to the sources above, and also, regional differences etc could "easily" be covered in the article. Mind you, I'm definitely not saying that the fact that we have people currently working on this article should neccessarily mean that we'll keep it, I just think the topic in general could be worthwhile writing an article on. Hopefully they'll be able to pull it off indeed. DubZog (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • EDIT: Just to clarify, I think the article could exist in the form "so-and-so say that this is looked upon badly", which seems to be the direction the article's moving in at the moment... this is in accordance with the general attitude of wikipedia on disputable issues: Don't say that's true and that's false, but rather say "these people think that's true because of this and that, whereas these people think the opposite is true because about that and this". DubZog (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • At minimum, we would need to expunge whatever in this comes from youtube and the urban dictionary. Whoever is doing the saying has to be an objective authority on the subject, preferably with something objective to back their assertions up. As a side note, I wish more people would weigh into this discussion. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination itself just seems to be a sneer. The topic is notable and one could write an article just about the acceptability of wearing socks with sandals or white shoes after Labor Day. See Ancient Geeks for an entertaining example of the numerous sources out there. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bacio Divino

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

Young winery that does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion specified in Wikipedia:Notability and WP:CORP, as well as WP:WINERY. Coverage in Wine Spectator, which reviews thousands of wineries as a primary purpose, is insufficient to establish notability. If a specific wine is notable, the associated winery does not automatically inherit notability sufficient for an article according to WP:NOTINHERITED.

Article was prodded and deleted, then restored after author appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Bacio Divino (closed). The deletion review rationale centered around Robert Parker ratings for specific wines. Again, see WP:NOTINHERITED. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from author: Hello - I'm working to try to meet your content standards and have reviewed the "notability" guidelines. Not sure that I understand in this case. I am happy to provide more examples of Bacio Divino's wines and their rankings in industry publications. Can you explain more, why compared with other wineries that are on Wikipedia, you are asking to delete here? Appreciate any help you can offer. Auher (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC) — Auher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but this winery has not achieved the "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" that are required for notability. Pretty much all wines get mentioned in Wine Spectator at one time or another, and that is all the recognition this winery has achieved. Auher, I appreciate your efforts, but no amount of rewriting (the article currently reads like an ad) is going to make this winery notable. The criteria here are tough; I once had to fight hard to retain an article about the winery which produces the best-selling red wine in the United States. The criteria have to be tough, because there are literally thousands of wineries; only the ones that receive significant recognition from the wider press (not just wine industry publications) are included here. --MelanieN (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although it would be nice if those sources were actually used in the article to create content instead of just being linked to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirah (programming language)

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

Largely promotional article by the language's creator. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only source in the article is to the author's blog. Sources mentioned on the article's talk page are largely blogs as well. Google web, book, news, and scholar searches on the title or the title and "Ruby" bring up nothing relevant. I hesitate to call the article spam but since the article was created by the language's creator and so little coverage is apparently out there, it appears to be a promotional article. RadioFan (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am the language's creator, but since initially creating it others have made larger contributions.
I mentioned in the article's talk page that the "Mirah" name is recent, and the previous name "Duby" does have more references online. Many (most?) of these are third-party blogs, I admit (here and here, for example), some are blog posts I wrote that were promoted to community articles on JavaWorld (here and here), some are articles initiated by conferences I have spoken at (here and here), and some are tech news outlets that have contacted me for more information (such as here, and another more general article from InfoQ is in the works.) If any of these would be considered reliable enough, I would be happy to reference them in the original article.

For what it's worth, I didn't open the article for self-promotion...I did it primarily because articles on similar languages existed (no, I'm not trying to use that as justification...but it was the presence of those articles that convinced me it would be ok to open this one) and because it seemed like there was enough interest from folks in programming language circles to warrant an article. I've also been invited to a half-dozen conferences in the past year to speak about Mirah/Duby (RubyConf 2009, JAX London, Øredev, Strange Loop, Emerging Languages Camp at OSCON, Qcon SF and London, and others)...I know that doesn't qualify as notability from reputable sources, but people do seem to want to know about the language.

I also appreciate the desire to avoid self-promoting articles. I have not created an article on myself for this exact reason, and I agree that such articles are at the very least in bad taste and should be discouraged or removed. However, I didn't expect that creating this article would draw in more users or bring additional fame, notoriety, or success to Mirah. My only thought was that Mirah has some interesting features (from a programming-language point of view), and seemed to be gaining acceptance as part of the historical pantheon of programming languages. Based on that, I figured some small article would be good to have in Wikipedia. What additional information would help avoid deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headius (talk • contribs) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed my bad links above...sorry for the newbishness. Headius (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I saw no malice in your creating and editing this article about what is essentially your invention. I described the article as "largely promotional" and brought it here for further discussion in case I was missing something in my searches for coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. If it were pure promotion I would have tagged it for speedy deletion as spam but I dont think thats the case here. Perhaps its the name change that makes finding those reliable sources difficult. Coverage in blogs is great but they generally dont cut it as reliable sources for purposes of determining notability here. If any of the conferences could be demonstrated as notable (i.e. they have articles here and they themselves have been covered in 3rd party sources such as newspapers or trade magazines), the proceedings from those conferences could be referenced. Unfortunately today all we have is a single reference to your blog so while this might one day be notable, that day doesn't appear to be today based on the article and its references. --RadioFan (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, then I think we may have a path forward. At least some of the conferences at which I've presented Duby/Mirah have had coverage, and the upcoming OSCON, where I'll present it again, already has coverage on Wikipedia and in trade media. A link to my Mirah-related talks at OSCON 2010 are here and here. These are both future talks, but my bag is already packed for the trip. I should be able to find similar notability for the other conferences I've spoken at. Are we on the right track? Headius (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have presented several talks on Mirah(Duby), I see 9 references on SpeakerRate. Here is a video of Ryan Brown describing Mirah(Duby). I also have production app, written entirely in Mirah, here in a sample app. I reference Mirah(Duby) on our blog, and I see developers talking about mirah and duby on our google group. Upcoming talks here and here on Mirah.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwoodell (talk • contribs) 10:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The OReily conference would be a reliable source here but both users Headius and Johnwoodell appear to have a conflict of interest here and should avoid editing this article as they are the authors of the paper in question to be presented a the conference. So far we have a number of blogs as references and a you tube video. The only possible reliable sources have some WP:COI mucking the picture up a bit. It's very difficult to determine the notability of this subject as a result. Aren't there any reliable sources you gentlemen haven't authored? Has the language been covered in one of the many Linux, Java or other computing magazines? That would make things much easier here.--RadioFan (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does something like this article on O'Reilly Community count? It's another interview with me, but I think that will be hard to avoid. I also know press folks at "normal" news outlets that probably would be interested in writing an article on Mirah, but I'm reluctant to request such a thing since the project is still evolving. So it's notable, but not "finished" enough yet that we'd want to e.g. make a big public splash about it. Perhaps a tricky situation. Headius (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm also a bit confused why Johnwoodell would have a conflict of interest. He is interested in the language, but you would expect that from most people editing the article. He has not directly contributed to the project (I don't think he even has commit rights) and would certainly be qualified as a "user" or "community member". Does anyone who presents or publishes anything on a subject have a conflct of interest when editing articles on that subject? Honestly trying to understand, not trying to argue... Headius (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is an author on one of the references that is being used to demonstrate notability. Outside of the O'Reily interview linked above only sources that have been discussed so far have been authored by you or Johnwoodell. Its difficult to show notabilty this way. Earlier someone mentioned coverage in trade news sources. If citable examples of this could be provided, this would be much easier. We are trying too meet WP:N's requirement of significant coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per sources above. The fact that RS have been authored by an editor who has a COI doesn't make them "less" secondary, RS sources. Conference proceedings and the O'Reilly Community article are enough for notability of a technical subject. --Cyclopiatalk 14:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TeSSH

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

Notability prod contested with the rationale, TeSSH has the same notability as other software listed in the Comparison of SSH clients pages such as AbsoluteTelnet, eSSH Client, lsh, etc. This search is evidence that it is simply not true. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am new to Wiki to I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly. The www.tessh.com web site is brand new and still in development, thus it does not have high Google ranking yet. The previous site at www.zuggsoft.com is the previous site and can be searched for TeSSH references. Doing the same Google search as your example above on most of the other software clients listed on Comparison of SSH clients show similar poor results, so perhaps all of those pages should be removed too? Mpotter27 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps they should. Often, articles fall through the cracks and are discovered only when a competitor tries to insert an article of its own. That happens all the time. As for references, we're looking for something third-party, the kind of website where the developpers of TeSSH cannot get even an iota changed without involving an attorney in the process. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken care of one of the articles linked to from Comparison of SSH clients, which is currently the topic of another AfD here. Interestingly, a lot of links from that page are external to developpers' websites and not internal to Wikipedia articles. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless WP:NOTABILITY can be satisfied through independent and reliable sources. Furthermore, mention of this should be removed from that software comparison (as there are no sources to support the claims made there). --Karnesky (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine removing the TeSSH page and simply making a link from the Comparison of SSH clients as long as the Wiki policy is consistently enforced on other pages listed there. I note that many pages are marked with Notability issues, but have not been marked for fast deletion like my article was. As far as removing the information about TeSSH on the comparison page, I am the verifiable author of TeSSH and owner of Zugg Software so I would be the most knowledgeable source. TeSSH is a re-branding of CMUD software for business use and there are plenty of 3rd-party references to CMUD out there. The authors of the other software listed on the comparison page are often the ones who added their listing to the comparison. I certainly cannot edit their information or mark their pages for deletion myself without being accused of competitor vandalism. I will stand by the decision of the community but am simply looking for consistent enforcement of Wiki policies.16:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:WAX. This debate is not about the other software, it is about TeSSH. Other software can and will be challenged as needed & articles improved or deleted. Time and effort are what make consistent policy enforcement & Blanchardb has already nominated another article for deletion. I have cleaned up the software comparison page. The discussion of the content of that comparison page is a little bit tangential to the decision of whether the article on TeSSH should be deleted, but I will indulge it because there have been some proposals to delete the TeSSH article and leave the entry on a list or comparison. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory. It is reasonable to require notability (as tested by an article's existence and survivor) for list membership. The list is then also a useful directory of wikipedia articles on a given topic. Furthermore, we cannot rely solely on primary sources for any page, including list/comparison articles. TeSSH is not being singled out & I have already removed other deleted articles from that software comparison. --Karnesky (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jersey Looker

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

The what? I smell a hoax, and so does Google: [24] Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you it is not a hoax. I have heard of Jersey Lookers since I was a young man in the 70's.

Is Google your only source of reference? Try Bing.. [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.147.94 (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try [26] and you will see a quite a few Stardust1k (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It is as real as the term Honda... I will find some historic proof as I am not into wasting my time and yours... You should consider the samba as a reliable source, probably the most comprehensive collection of VW knowledge on the planet. 209.105.147.94 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW what defines importance of the arte fact? It is a cultural icon to the historic VW world and therefore an artifact of significant importance. Apparently none of you drive or live the VW dream... 209.105.147.94 (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The information could be mentioned in the article on VW vans. WP is written to give basic information to people who don't know much about a topic, as are encyclopedias generally, not for insiders. Wolfview (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a term that has some currency in the car-customizing community; but in the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, the topic fails WP:N. (Note: I've removed some copyvio content from the article.) Deor (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you win... I can see it being merged as a sub category into Volkswagen Type 2. I will endeavor to fully comprehend the intricacies of the Wiki guidlines. I too am having a dificult time locating the historical references that I need and maybe jumped the gun. Had I thought a little longer on the contents of the article I would have concluded that indeed it is a sub category. Stardust1k (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the philosophical part that was removed was used with the original authors permission, and in itself was poetic and applicable. Stardust1k (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright material can't be used unless the procedures detailed at WP:DCP are followed. And encyclopedias don't really deal much in the "poetic" anyway. Deor (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article refers to a specific car, there is a dearth of reference to it that would establish notability; it should be immediately evident from a google search if there is. Of course, if anyone can find some non-trivial professional journalistic coverage of this thing, I will stand corrected. If it refers to a type of car, the exact same contention still applies. The fact that this is ambigious only intensifies my feeling that we should delete this. Additionally, if we were to try to add some entry about it in some other article, by the looks of things we would have trouble finding a suitable reference. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Harrison

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

A promotional article about the president of a media company. It's only editor is apparently an employee of the company, and therefore has a COI with the article. COI tags were placed by this editor and removed by the employee.

The majority of the references on the subject are from the company website, thereby failing WP:RELIABLE. Manway (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the thoughtful points belowabove in earnest, this entry has now been cleaned up according to appropriate guidelines, by a third-party source. Please close this case and allow the community to continue to better this entry and others. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitneutralpls (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. The problem is, the article still doesn't explain why Mr Harrison is notable. His past employers are of no relevance and his achievements are marginal - in terms of what he has contributed to his field. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Minyanville. The reference spam in the article, after careful examination consists of directory listings, and articles he has written. As such, I don't see enough to establish a stand-alone article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fixed and user blocked. . can someone check I restored the best version Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Task Force (PTF)

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

An untidy, poorly (in fact not at all) formatted page. It seems to border on an advertisement in some places and a lesson in how to work the paddy fields in others. It goes into way too much detail and seems largely non-notable. Oh, and no references. Half Price (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a complete mess. It seems notable and real enough to me, but there is extremely little content in this article worth including in anything; most of it is irrelevant. Also, the page should exist at Paddy Task Force if it exists at all, which I personally think it should - but someone who knows something about it and is going to write an encyclopaedia article on it should take care of that. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:Kvkpanniyur has created this article by first replacing the content about a coconut mite by the present content and then moving the older title Eriophyes guerreronis to the present title "Paddy Task Force (PTF)". The present article is a real mess. So it is better to move back to the older title and keep the content about the coconut mite. Salih (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's really weird. They actually did it TWICE - the first time was reverted. I agree with you, restore the original name and the original content. Anything that need to be said about the PTF can be said at Indian Council of Agricultural Research. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Lott

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

I am under the impression that this does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE standards. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article author here. Noah Lott has wrestled professionally for numerous wrestling promotions, including WWE. Generally, he's at least as notable as several other people in the relevant category. What specific requirements or standards does the article not meet? Lightforce (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, he wrestled in two WWE matches that took place prior to a televised taping. He is not in the WWE roster. Outside of a single profile in a Michigan newspaper (a local boy makes good piece), there is no major media coverage of him as a wrestler. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know a lot about him. Mandsford 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Sweeney, Musician

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

"Contested" prod. Appears to be non-notable singer-songwriter. Apparently has made a few guess appearances in some band's recordings (Land of Kush which itself doesn't have an article). Sources refer to her in passing in the album reviews. Certainly nowhere near enough to pass threshold. The creator has only made edits to this article (and to add her in List of musicians) so possible promotion piece. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per this search that only shows her myspace page and no 3rd party sources.

Battleaxe9872 Talk 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the page does not establish notability and a quick googling reveals no notability. The article could establish notability for their band per WP:BAND point 5, if the label is considered major, but the musician is not independantly notable. The title is also wrong, and should be Molly Sweeney (Musician); if the article is kept, it should be moved there. Most probably this is a vanity article. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did the move as suggested by Falcon above, just in case the article survives. But I don't think it should because Ms. Sweeney has not yet gained enough notice for her achievements in order to be the subject of an encyclopedic article. WP:PROMO is probably the real issue here. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Spawn

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

Webcomic which fails WP:WEB - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested. Claritas § 20:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Strasburg

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

I can't find any indication that this soldier meets WP:BIO. The source cited - [29] is an obituary, and is all I can find through Google. With only one piece of significant coverage, he's thus of doubtable notability. Claritas § 20:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I've found and added links to two articles about him, both from U.S. military papers. Don't know if they're enough to satisfy notability guidelines. JNW (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure. There may be independence issues with the first source, because it was written by his former employers, and I'm not sure whether military newspapers meet WP:RS. I'm open to either line of argument now though, and if there's any more significant coverage, I'll withdraw my nomination. Claritas § 20:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He may be notable, however, I would not be surprised if this was deleted. Old Al (Talk) 01:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of this reaches to the level of actual notability. He was a U.S. WW2 vet who stayed in Germany after the war and talked to local schoolkids; he got a paragraph or two in the local papers when he died. Even in his adopted hometown he wasn't notable. I might have liked to talk to the guy, but this clearly fails WP:BIO. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does it not say somewhere that Wikipedia is not an obituary service? It should. While he was probably quite an honourable and decent fellow with lots of war stories, the article certainly doesn't establish notability. I cannot find anything on his decorations or rank save that he was at one point a private (much like the rest of us soldiers). Perhaps if he was the holder of a medal of honor or something, we could keep this. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 inclusion criteria is detailed independant sources. keep votes based ona rguments about it existing and it publishes interviews are not based on any accepted inclusion criteria and have less weight then the votes arguing deletion asgainst GNG. This can be undeleted if further detailed press coverage does emerge. Spartaz Humbug! 07:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzine

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

Only sources in article are unreliable blogs and own website. Strong hint of self-promotion as it was created by User:Richard Elfman, the editor of the company. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, two of the references are from articles published in the Muskegon Chronicle and syndicated in the Grand Rapids Press, both publications are noted in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskegon_Chronicle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Rapids_Press. Secondly, Buzzine has been around since 1996 and forty noteworthy articles in Wikipedia currently use Buzzine articles as a reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=buzzine+reference. Thirdly, I am new to Wikipedia and am just learning the ropes. This is a pretty much a "stub" article and not meant as self-promotion. Some of my film work could be considered controversial and I know I'm not everyone's cup of tea, but recently there was an effort to remove the article about me, someone even tried to remove my photo for copyright reasons, even though there were no copyright issues. I hope this effort to remove the Buzzine article isn't part of an effort to squelch me personally.Richard Elfman (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it's personal; I can't find very many sources that discuss Buzzine in depth either, so this is normal process here. The best sources I can find are these, but they don't really go into any detail (if I've missed any, please post them). We could redirect Buzzine to Richard Elfman and add the content describing Buzzine to your biography. So people searching for "Buzzine" would then be guided straight to the corresponding paragraph in your bio, describing the site. Note that such decisions can always be revisited later on; if the New York Times or LA Times, say, were to write a paragraph or two about Buzzine tomorrow, then that might make a sufficient case for a standalone article. --JN466 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JN466-- I won't take it personally, and appreciate your counsel in the matter. The irony is that I am being approached by journalists from both the N.Y Times and L.A. Times for employment at Buzzine. We'll will be expanding shortly and I look forward to enlisting more top top writers. There most likely will be some press when we formally announce the expansion, so maybe someone will use some of it in Wikipedia. In terms of references, I found about 15 entire Google pages listing Buzzine articles, but no articles specifically on Buzzine except for press interviews that I had done. So if you re-direct Buzzine to my bio until more press, I understand the reasoning. (Maybe I'll make someone from the NY or LA Times write an article about Buzzine before hiring them... just joking!!).Richard Elfman (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzine is a reputable, respected and long-standing culture and entertainment entity. If you Google Buzzine you will find 15 Google pages of Buzzine articles. Doesn't it matter that Buzzine articles are used as sources in over forty noteworthy Wikipedia articles?Richard Elfman71.129.54.107 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've tidied the article up a bit and will keep an eye on it. I don't see the harm in our having it, and some benefit, as it does get used as a source by editors here (Buzzine's got original interviews with some top people; Angelina Jolie is the one currently featured.) --JN466 10:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nothing against the magazine or author, but the references in the article come from blogs and the magazine's web site, neither of which are considered reliable sources. Richard, I understand that WP policies do not always make sense, but no, Buzzine's value as a reliable source doesn't make Buzzine itself notable. What we really need are some references from magazines or newspapers or books that cover the magazine in some depth. The source do not have to be online, but they do need to be verifiable. Sometimes blogs are acceptable, but the blog should be closely associated with a reliable source, I'll check back later and see if that argument can be made for the ones used in this article. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuujinn, I don't see any blog posts. The citations include two articles on mlive.com, which is the website of Booth Newspapers. As far as I can make out, they appeared in the Muskegon Chronicle, which is a daily newspaper. There is also an article from the San Francisco Bay Guardian. Citing a magazine's (or BLP subject's) own website is common practice and expressly allowed by policy, subject to the conditions in WP:SELFPUB being met (which I think they are in this case). --JN466 12:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further scrutiny, I think I was wrong -- they are posts on Bill Iddings' blog, rather than copies of his articles. However, he is a staff writer, and the blog is hosted on the newspaper publisher's website; we allow those per WP:NEWSBLOG. --JN466 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the magazine's web site can be used as a source, but I do not think it can be used to establish notability, which is the issue here. You make a good case for the blogs being acceptable, but do you feel that the coverage in the blogs is more than passing mention (which is what it looks like to me after a quick look)? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is definitely marginal. I am prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt here, because a site that gets original interviews with the likes of Angelina Jolie seems up and coming to me, and even a basic article on such a site adds value to Wikipedia in my view; but I have no real complaint on policy grounds if you see it the other way. --JN466 16:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a rescue template since we have very marginal sources, and we'd like help finding more. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Searching through the dozens of Google news results, I found one [30] which quotes from Buzzine, seeing it as notable enough to quote from. Plus if its considered a reliable source, then common sense says its notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. The page for the suggested guidelines say to use them with common sense and the occasional exception. Dream Focus 02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources are weak. Author has a COI. Delete the article and wait until more sources appear. Then, someone without a COI can decide to write the article. SnottyWong express 23:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just stating that I have already substantially rewritten the article since it was nominated, based on available sources, and that I do not have a COI here. ;) --JN466 09:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have also now added basic data about the magazine's location and advertising policy from its entry in the book, Gale Directory of Publications & Broadcast Media 142. --JN466 09:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buzzine also has entries in
      • Benn's media. Benn Business Information Services. 1 January 2006. ISBN 9780863825767. Retrieved 23 July 2010.
      • Elizabeth C. Axford (2004). Song sheets to software: a guide to print music, software, and web sites for musicians. Scarecrow Press. pp. 198–. ISBN 9780810850279. Retrieved 23 July 2010. (unfortunately, I can't see the entry in google books) --JN466 10:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple independent WP:RS. I have looked at the new references and they are unconvincing or simple directories. Verbal chat 11:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Buzzine is about to sign some expansion deals shortly, that should garner some "press," which, I suppose, will make this discussion moot. Interesting to note, since the inception of this discussion, four more notable Wikipedia articles have used Buzzine as a source.[1] Buzzine has a massive Internet presence, is quoted nationally (U.S.) and internationally, and seems to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (web): "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..." In the meantime, as more and more notable Wikipedia articles list Buzzine as a source, my question is: Do you want to impart some/any knowledge to your readers as per what that oft-used Wikipedia source (Buzzine) is, or leave them in the dark?Richard Elfman71.129.54.107 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) (I'm still a newbie and can't figure out how to sign name with those damned squiggle things!)[reply]
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=buzzine+references&limit=50&offset=0
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuval Silks

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

I've declined the speedy on this one, because I feel it asserts enough importance to pass A7. However, all references are press releases. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Coverage
I agree with you completely on coverage in English dailies like The Hindu and The Indian Express. In Kerala people don't go to shopping by reading English newspapers. They read Malayalam dailies like Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhumi, which have news on these business ventures. Most of the advertisements go to Malayalam dailies and magazines. So most English newspapers have less news items on these jewelries and sarees showrooms.
These are the upcoming retiling companies in South India. Its reach in English media may be less but not in bilingual languages. The showrooms and the cash flow of these business groups will put shame on Tata Groups’ retail arm, Trent and Pantaloons.
124.124.211.93 (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: If these companies are "upcoming" then it means now is not the right time for a Wikipedia article. If they "will" put to shame some other company, then there "will" be a Wikipedia article, but not now. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kerala dailies have less news on business. So even yoy exclude banks, so have less news articles publised in Malyalam dailes. Textile and jewelry companies are same like Tata and Ambani. Only change is that these people sell garments and textiles. It may have less prominence beacuse Kerala is not a business society but a remitance society. So you can find less news on business in newspapers and websites.

Jomy Jos Pullokaran 14:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This is what, in Wikipedia, we call systemic bias. Unfortunately, because of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, we have no choice but to remain biased when it comes to evaluating the notability of topics from outside the Occidental world where references about businesses are a dime a dozen. The best that can be done to correct the bias is bending the guidelines on reliable sources, and even that can only go so far. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article came in Dhanam, Kerala's No 1 business magazine. It talks about various Kerala based groups. You can see Emmanuval Silks in Page No 47. The magazine has refered Emmanuval Silks as one of the top family run business groups.

http://www.ezinemart.com/dhanam/15062009/pdf/pagetemp.pdf - Page No 47

Jomy Jos Pullokaran 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Referencing could be improved, but there is no consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gholamreza Rouhani

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

Not a notable person. There's no resource, and no reference. Behnam (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's a brief profile of him in the newspaper Aftab [31] published over two decades after he died, which in itself suggests he was not simply a non-notable who was forgotten after his death. He's also discussed briefly in English in an academic book Women and the family in Iran [32]. There's several different possible transcriptions of the name (e.g. the one used in the book is "Gholam Reza Ruhani"). cab (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added some references to the article.Farhikht (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Farhikht. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reference No. 2 could not be considered as a reliable source. Reference No. 1 just mentioned his name among many other poets. Reference No. 3 list his name also in a collection of names. Reference No.4 could be considered as the only reliable source speaking about him shortly. My information about Persian literature approves his presence as an encyclopedic character for researchers as a sample of classic humorous poets. I suggest Farhikht to perform a better research and find some more references if he wants to keep the article.--Transcelan (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Kubassek

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

Non-notable. Claims he is "well known" are not supported by reliable third-party sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at your search link, after further excluding results from webwire.com and other press releases, there wasn't anything left that wasn't PR cruft.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - A terrible article but I reckon the subject gets over the inclusion bar. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Suffers from refspam in a desperate attempt to prove notability (22 in a 5 kb article). These refs go to his own website, IMDb, or are minor. There's a lot of news hits but most of these are from webwire.com. All in all, this is a promotional article that has no place here. Was created by SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything I say would be redundant after previous two comments. The subject of this bio is a key personality in a multi level marketing outfit who has a vested interest in self promotion. Wikipedia was not created as a promotional vehicle for confidence men. Googling 'carbon copy pro' is all the basis I need for that statement. user:unknown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.248.61 (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if changed! Jay Kubassek is one of the brains behind the pyramid scams Liberty League International, Carbon Copy Pro, Wealth Masters International and MyLeadSystemPRO. This has made him well known around the world. --Cavernia (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per user:unknown. Racepacket (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was incubate.. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melody EP

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

WP:CRYSTAL, no significant coverage, some kind of digital promo release Hekerui (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's a commercial digital release, coming out in a couple of weeks. I thought it best to give it a few weeks to see if coverage appeared, but now we're forced to AFD. Given that the artist is notable, merging and redirecting to the artist's article seems like the worst case scenario if we don't get enough to support a standalone article. If we have to do anything now, I would suggest incubation until a few weeks time when the merits of an article can be better judged.--Michig (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, userfy or incubate. We can't have an article referenced to a press release and a Facebook page. Its creation was premature but it is claimed to be on a notable label and it may stand a chance in future, hence I am not simply suggesting delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 16:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – sgeureka t•c 09:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Clarke (One Life to Live character)

Elijah Clarke (One Life to Live character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Fictional character, totally in-universe, no evidence of real-world notability." - brought here from a denied prod Hekerui (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Union

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

No sources support the existence of this organization. Due to the generic nature of the name, ghits turn up ambiguous results. Notability isn't established through depth of coverage in third party reliable sources. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Found this reference: http://plasim.blogspot.com/2007/06/world-union-executive-body.html

Also I like to comment that the existence of an organisation is not directly related to the virtual world of internet.

ther is plenty of things that are neither in the internet nor on paper--79.14.66.102 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC) — 79.14.66.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No references found to substantiate notability. Could be redirected to Mirra Alfassa. Also, I am baffled why this minor organization has the "World Government" portal on its page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kwesachu Mixtape Vol.1

Kwesachu Mixtape Vol.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mixtape with no secondary sources to establish notability. Repeatedly contested redir, but WP:NALBUMS indicates simply that that the subject is non-notable and does not suggest even redir. Delete. I42 (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a typo (now corrected): the guidline I intended to cite was WP:NALBUMS, not WP:ALBUMS. I42 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GE – Good Ending

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

A search for reliable third-party sources only comes up with websites distributing illegal scanlations. Beyond the plot descriptions, the article fails WP:V, WP:NOTE, and WP:BK. The magazine or publisher of the series does not contribute anything towards the notability of the work. Nor does the author of the work appear to have any notability either. While the series does seem popular in scanlations, popularity is not the same as notability. Appears that it has not been licensed outside of Japan. —Farix (t | c) 12:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Userfy on me. No evidence of notability found. No licensor found in English, French, Spanish, Italian & German. No entry in the Anime News Network users edited encyclopedia. The scanlation is up to date & have some fandom support. For that reason i'm willing to have this article userfied in my user space. Prospect for licensing outside Japan is good. --KrebMarkt 15:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cage of Eden

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

A search for reliable third-party sources only comes up with websites distributing illegal scanlations. Beyond the plot descriptions, the article fails WP:V, WP:NOTE, and WP:BK. The magazine or publisher of the series does not contribute anything towards the notability of the work. Nor does the author of the work appear to have any notability either. While the series does seem popular in scanlations, popularity is not the same as notability. —Farix (t | c) 12:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fail both GNG & WP:BK. No evidence of notability found only link to illegal scanlation websites, blogs & direct download. No licensor in English, French, Spanish, Italian & German. No ANN users editable encyclopedia entry. --KrebMarkt (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Translates kinda funny. But you know those crazy Japanese. Always writing articles without signifying their encyclopediatic value. This is a classic case.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25E3%2582%25A8%25E3%2583%2587%25E3%2583%25B3%25E3%2581%25AE%25E6%25AA%25BB Battleaxe9872 Talk 01:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. can me renomed in a couple of months if no sources athena nd will probably not survive afd2 if not improved Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MikMod

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

Contested PROD. My rationale was: "I was not able to find reliable secondary sources for this software. Unlikely to meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. Propose deletion per WP:V and WP:N". Contested with edit comment: "why should it be deleted ? The number of edits already show that people are interested in it !!!!!", which I don't believe addresses the issues. Marasmusine (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about Tracker software around 4 years ago. That's was the time when I also wrote the first draft of this article, when I realized that this software

was not mentioned in wiki. I see plenty of "not so important" articles around in wikipedia, like a collection of all metro stations in New York. While I am not

interested in them, there are other people who are interested in them. OK ! Memory space is cheap, better tag them with a relevance number, like it is done

for the quality rating of an article. Deleting them leaves users only frustrated, like me. I checked and saw many articles about trackers disappeard, this

makes me sad, seeing I cannot refresh my fading memories of the past articles I anymore. Concerning WP:V, well true this article is far from perfect;

but why not tag is as "Needs more references/sources" and leave it alive as I already mentioned that the number of edits shows that people are interested in it

and probably will improve it in the next couple of years.

Please don't turn to be too professional. It starts to annoy me. I created an article stub 1 month ago about the "Plamsa Dispersion Function" which is very important in Plasma Physics. It was only 1 small sentence. I prepared some high quality plots and formulas but when I wanted to upload them I realized that this article was already deleted within 1 week because it did not provide enough informations.

Yeah, great, I abandoned to work on it again.

This here is just an personal opinion, I appreciate your work a lot. Thanks for it. Probably you have a far greater picture about wikipedia in mind than I do. No offense. This is just an opinion from someone who contributes to wikipedia more than once a month. (Sheliak (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I can understand how its fustrating to see a topic you're invested in being discussed for removal. But we don't aim to have articles on every piece of software that exists, and the line we draw is notability. Perhaps a tracker-specific encyclopedia should be started (at Wikia, say) that can detail this software without WP's quality restrictions. (I'll propose that to some of the other tracker-related editors) Marasmusine (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The large number of sites where this software can be obtained from, the long time it has existed for, and the diversity of the versions indicate that it's a rather wide-spread and long-lived piece of software, that lots of people care about. A few better sources would help, yet I don't see how deleting the article at this stage could do anyone any good. Citing it with "needs citations" and giving it a bit MORE TIME seems like the sensible option. DubZog (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clans (BattleTech)#Clan Steel Viper . Would be merge but material is largely unsourced. Any information can of course be added to the target page subject to normal WP constraints. – Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Clan Steel Viper

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

Disputed prod. No sources other than a general link to the clan listing. Editor removed suggesting merge but there have been merge discussions at Talk:Clans_(BattleTech)#Merge_remaining_clans since December 2008 with nothing done. Suggest deletion instead of merging and then removing it all as unsourced anyways. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clans (BattleTech)#Clan Smoke Jaguar. and merge Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Smoke Jaguar

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

Disputed prod. No sources, let alone independent ones. Editor removed suggesting merge but a merge notice has been there since December 2008 with nothing happening. Suggest deletion instead of merging and then removing it all as unsourced anyways. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clans (BattleTech)#Clan Nova Cat. and merge Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Nova Cat

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

Disputed prod. Again, no independent sources indicating notability. Editor removed suggesting but a merge notice has been there since December 2008 with nothing happening. Suggest deletion instead of merging and then removing it all as unsourced anyways. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it can not be saved, then please put a redirect there, leaving the history intact. That way it can be exported later, and then imported to the proper wiki. I already contacted someone about doing that. Dream Focus 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could ask any admin for a temporary review. I've done a few to move some articles to wikia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Fight Song

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

This is one of the articles where I contested the speedy deletion nomination. This record label is well written but I'm not sure is any of the sources are reliable enough, particularly this one. Minimac (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga Disco Heaven

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

"Fan-made" album with no official release or chart exposure. A Google search reveals no significant write up in reliable sources, chart presence, or any hint of being offically released. Fails WP:NALBUMS.

At first I though this might be a hoax because it is clearly in contradiction to the established Lady Gaga discography, yet I can find this page and others which suggest it is an unofficial fan-made compilation, available for download via torrents etc. Astronaut (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, per WP:NOR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of supernova weapons in science fiction

AfDs for this article:
List of supernova weapons in science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This listcruft is a needless overcategorization. It is too specific to be useful, and serves no navigational purpose. It also hinges on original research in that it seems to call any destruction of a star a supernova (a nova is a very different thing to a supernova). Reyk YO! 01:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could not find meaningful coverage to establish notability of subject of the list, thus it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE (also WP:NOTDIR). It is unsourced as well, and many of the blue links do not have sources themselves for the fictional element in question.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are presumptively (i.e. blue-linked) notable elements of undoubtedly notable works, but I don't see that the thread brining them together is established by coverage in reliable sources rather than original research. That being the case this is not an appropriate topic for a list. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think the topic of supernova weapons in science fiction is notable, but if it would be the article would need to be rewritten from the ground up since what is given here is nothing but trivia, and much of it appears to be original research. I would also oppose a merge as this type of writing isn't appropriate in any article. ThemFromSpace 04:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_17&oldid=1142641348"