Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 10 September 12 September >

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. No RS, as almost all comments are mentioning. Delete Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deolinda Rodrigues Manoel

Deolinda Rodrigues Manoel (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 article was deleted from Wikipedia in Spanish. Google search does not return reliable sources: [1], [2]. The article was writen by Achado (talk · contribs) who apparently have written the book which was the source of the article (The author is apparently unknown: [3] and has written books on Wikisource: s:pt:Filosofia, pensamentos de pré-conceitos e de pós-conceitos). But, the problem is that Brazilian National Library Foundation (which is reponsible for ISBN register in Brazil) does not find results on the author: [4]. Another source is a homepage which is not a reliable source. The author of the other source cannot be found: [5]. Anyway, it seems to be a non-notable person. Dularion (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what is your rationale for your vote? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ann Arbor Masonic News

The Ann Arbor Masonic News (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)

(Note: I am helping an ip user create this afd page. I have no opinion whether this should be deleted or not.)—Chris!c/t 23:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that it's no weaker than the vast majority of articles in the Journalism WP, and for good reason. Local level media outlets rarely mention one another. PeRshGo (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note... I don't think it is quite right to describe this a "local level media outlet" (or even "Journalism" for that matter)... If you actually look at the publication in question, we are talking about a monthly organizational newsletter for local level chapters within the organization. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said for the large number of papers published by political parties which appear on Wikipedia. PeRshGo (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. I would prefer not to comment, in part as I am not familiar with notability standards for publications. But I was invited at my Talk page to come !vote here by ALR and, to avoid other misunderstandings, I guess i should take a position. This AFD arose after I made a complaining type note at Talk:The Ann Arbor Masonic News about Masonic-focussed editors beseiging a different article (List of Masonic buildings). Pershgo responded with some decent argument, including questioning whether wikipedia would be better for removing this article about the long-running journal. It would not. As I said there, I do think the article can use better support, but it seems like good sources will not pop up from easy on-line searching. The sources about Masonic buildings are not on-line either, but they exist and are good/better than internet stuff easily accessible to some of the same participants. We're all amateur researchers; not all topics are easily addressed in a few keystrokes online. While this article will not be included in the next Wikipedia Version 2.0 edited for issue on CDs, it has a certain quality to it and the topic can yet prove to be fully valid by regular criteria. So, I say let it develop. Revisit in 5 years or so. --doncram (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just gave notice of this AFD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism.

The issues being discussed at the List of Masonic buildings article have nothing to do with this article, please do not try to "poison the well" by raising them here. Do you have any reason to believe that this article can be improved or supported through reliable sources? Or do you merely hope and assume that something exists to support the article? Have you looked for sources? (I have). Have you looked at the publication in question? (you can access it here)... I think you may be assuming that it is of a higher quality and caliber than it is.
I would urge all editors to deal with what is, rather than what we assume or hope for. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way the fact is this AFD is an example of WikiLawyering. docram got mad one day because you were going after List of Masonic buildings so he decided he was going to pick on some weak Masonic articles to prove a point. I got him to back down but so his point could no longer be made you put this article up for AFD. I suppose I could assume good faith but that would require the magical fortune of you both finding this little noncontroversial stub I made. This article will probably be deleted as most local articles can’t survive the trial by fire but no matter which way it goes none of this can be considered good faith, just another article in a long list of battlegrounds. PeRshGo (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do assume good faith... I came across the article because someone recently added a Wikiproject watch list function to the Freemasonry WikiProject page, and it came up as an article with a recent change. I prodded it after looking for references and sources to support the article and discovering that there weren't any. The fact that Doncram had also questioned whether it was notable had nothing to do with why I prodded it. I would have prodded it in any case. The fact is, the publication that is the subject of this article is not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree largely with Pershgo, though I think it is okay for me to browse in Masonic topic articles and note problems. I disbelieve Blueboar's assertion that the discussion of notability on the Talk page, with me and ALR commenting, had nothing to do with decisions by Blueboar to prod and/or AFD. Or, is Blueboar asserting that he did not read the Talk page when making such decisions, which would be worse? --doncram (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... If you don't want to assume good faith, I doubt anything I can say I will convince you. So I am not even going to try. Your opinion of my motivations does not change the fact that there are no sources that mention or refer to this publication, it does not change the fact that the only library that seems to archive this publication is directly attached to the same small group of lodges that publish the newsletter. It does not really matter what you think my motivations for supporting deletion are... The facts speak for themselves... the publication is not notable and the article should be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the article, not the dispute, it appears that this paper is devoted only to Masonic activities in one particular county, with some coverage of those in Michigan--one single state. . Individual branches of societies are almost never considered notable at Wikipedia except under the most exceptional circumstances. The newspaper published by one city's group of lodges would logically be a degree less notable yet. The intrinsic quality of the paper is irrelevant, unless it were to be so important as to win major prizes at a national level, & there is not the slightest evidence for any awards at any level. fwiw, many Masonic building are notable , but that's as buildings, not as the location of lodges. I can imagine Wikipedia extending its coverage very broadly, but I cannot imagine it ever including articles local newsletters such as this. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No sources. Delete Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Jensen

John G. Jensen (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)

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the contents of the article. Does not appear to pass WP:ARTIST or WP:PROFESSOR, and without sources cannot pass WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 22:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No RS. Delete Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seika Iwashita

Seika Iwashita (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)

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the contents of the article. Searched using both the English and Japanese, 岩下清香, spellings of her name with no success. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. If someone can identify a target to redirect to, a redirect would be a good option but I couldn't identify one. J04n(talk page) 22:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Control races

List of Star Control races (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 - no independent reliable sources indicating that these fictional species are notable, individually or collectively. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT for describing the races by their role in the storyline and WP:TRIVIA. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • They mention some of the races, not nearly the 39 mentioned in the article. Several races are completely unsourced. I could see mentioning races as a summary paragraph in their respective games, or in a possible Star Control (series) article, but there's just not enough to carry all of the content in the article. As of now it's a large article that relies on a few small sections that are referenced. Additionally races within the article are covered with an in-universe style. At best I could recommend a move to Star Control (series) and a major, major trim. --Teancum (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some reason why sourced information can't be placed in the articles for the games themselves? None of them appear to be so long as to warrant a spin-out article. Some don't even mention the races they contain at all. Standalone lists are still subject to policies and guidelines, including establishing the notability of their subjects. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually seen this article? What do you mean it isn't long enough to warrant a spin-out article? Look at the size of the thing! Consensus in the vast number of list articles of this nature I've been so far, is almost always keep. WP:LIST Dream Focus 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game's villains have been acclaimed, and are on Gamespot's in-house and reader's choice lists of the best villains in the history of video games. Those sorts of things are accepted as references for whatever reason. Alien design is also one of the more important reasons why Star Control II is considered a serious contender for the best game of all time. (Aliens don't talk in I, and in III they never shut up.) We need to ensure that this stuff is covered properly, otherwise the removal of this article just harms our coverage of Star Control II. Now that it has your attention, any ideas? Oh, and I'll toss in a redirect, since some of this stuff will be useful to later editors, and there's no reason to make them start from scratch. --Kizor 08:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shooterwalker has added in references. Notable third party independent media do talk about the article's subject, which is the races of this game series. Thus it is notable. The subject of the article, not every single entry within it, is what must be deemed notable. Dream Focus 16:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Irc chats and in-game content as sources? Give me a break. While Star Control is notable, notability is not inherented.--Cameron Scott (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you edit that article in line with policy and reliable sources, you are left with the first two paragraphs.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very interesting article. The coverage in independent reliable sources added by Shooterwalker is easilly sufficient to establish noteability. Per WP:GNG , we dont need to seperatly establish noteability for all the included races. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet absolutely none of it is used beyond the first two paragraphs - why do we need an article that is two paragraphs in length? And can't be any longer because you can't write that article without an in-universe tone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at the sources. I think we can all agree that material that originated from the game's production company does not qualify as an independent source as mandated by WP:RS. So sources 9-14 do not establish notability. Source 8 is apparently dead so I can't evaluate it. The rest of the sources are reviews of the games themselves. Some of them are compilations of readers' favorites, which I don't consider reliable for purposes of establishing notability. Others are from sites that appear to exercise editorial control over the reviews and so would serve to establish notability. However, the coverage of the actual alien races in the sources cannot in any way be considered "significant". For example, the McCandless review, relied on the most, offers literally no coverage of the alien races at all beyond a bare list of their names in the first paragraph. There is no coverage of the individual races. There is no coverage of their roles within the narrative other than what side some of them are on. There is no coverage of any real-world impact of or attention to the races. Nothing.
  • And even if we were to accept without question that this list of names constitutes significant coverage, it would only constitute coverage for the races in Star Control 3. It would not constitute coverage of all races in the Star Control games, or even a majority of them. The similar reviews for the other games are equally devoid of coverage of the races, none of them including coverage beyond their names. "It exists" does not mean "it's notable". An honest assessment of the sources upon which the claim of notability for this article is based leads inexorably to the conclusion that the races have not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources which are not related to the subject. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The names from other games in the series can be merged into this one. Or hey, they already are, so that saves us some time. Honestly now, there is mention of the races, it a notable aspect of the game, and no reason not to have it as a list article. Not every single thing on the list needs to be mentioned. Reliable sources mention the subject of the article, it clearly notable. What should be added to it can be discussed later on. Dream Focus 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamespot link in the article says
The sequel simply added an uncommonly good storyline and some very well-integrated role-playing elements, and these three components combined to make a game that's truly one of a kind. The game begins when you return to Earth after being marooned for decades on a distant planet, only to find that the human race has been enslaved by a hostile caterpillar-like race called the Ur-Quan. Separated from your species, your only hope is to try to free Earth and put an end to the Ur-Quan conflict. In so doing, you travel across the galaxy, upgrade your alien vessel from a skeletal husk into the most powerful starship around, recruit the assistance of a number of memorable alien races, and do battle against many others. The 18 different races in Star Control II were all distinctively different, and none of them fit the generic science-fiction stereotypes that have always been so common in games.

It goes on to mention they had their own theme music, making them even more distinct. Can we all agree that the Gamespot review did give notable mention/coverage to the races of one of these games? Dream Focus 19:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it a notable aspect of the game, It's a notable part of the game if multiple independent reliable sources comment on it, without them, the only way you can come to that conclusion is original research. You have another sources to say there were races in the game and maybe a line about each but nothing to support the lavish in-universe rubbish that article currently consists of. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that Gamespot review is notable? What about the All Game]review, which had six paragraphs, one of them entirely about the races, and mentioning several of them. And its not original research, its common sense. They mention the races in every interview, and not just in passing, always as a favorable part of the game. Dream Focus 19:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They mention every race individually and with enough detail to construct an article with? Really? Can you point me towards that because I can't see it in any of the references currently used. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And right here is the crux of the problem, a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:Reliable sources. Sources mention them, so they're notable. No. Simply being mentioned in a source is not the threshold for notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is the threshold. "The aliens are really neat, they add to the fun" or whatever can't reasonably be construed as supporting a plot-heavy OR-laden list. The sources support mention of the races in the relevant game articles. They do not support a separate article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually looked at the sources? I decided to shy away from quoting entire paragraphs from them. But the sources literally spend entire paragraphs giving examples of how these races are fantastic, of which I just summarized with a general quote. But consider this quote:
Optional custom heading
The first alien you are likely to encounter is the cowardly Captain Fwiffo. Guarding Pluto all by himself, he sets the tone for the entire game with his opening line, "Attention big, mean, hostile alien vessel hovering overhead in an obvious attack posture," which he follows by blurting out the location of his home world and his race's secret codes.

Other races span a range of emotions from the comical Utwig, depressed over the loss of a gadget they bought from interstellar hucksters, to the disturbingly scary Orz and the tragic Burvixese and Androsynths who are exterminated before the game begins and are known only from rumor and ruins. But nothing compares to the horrible plight of the Ur-Quan, ostensibly the major villains in the game. By the time you learn about the millennia of enslavement and mind-control they've had to endure in the past, not to mention the self-inflicted excruciating torments they underwent to gain freedom, the Ur-Quan become more sympathetic than most of the friendly-but-fluttery allies populating your own fleet. This is a rare and praiseworthy design achievement.
  • It might be a little confusing for people who have never played the game. But in this game races = characters. You encounter "an Ur-Quan alien", but really there's a whole collective biography and backstory. You rarely encounter the lead character from a race or species. Instead, these characters actually speak with a collective voice. "We think you should leave now." It's why this is a list of races, and not just a list of characters. But there's no doubt that it's the characters in this game that critics are talking about when they call it one of the greatest of all time. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thank you, I have read the sources and we all seem bright enough to understand that "races=characters". What does your quoted paragraph tell us of, say, the Utwig? They are comical and depressed. Other sources are just as trivial: a half-sentence telling us that one race is caterpillar-like in appearance; another half-sentence telling us that another is crystalline; another that lists off a handful of race names in a single sentence. Not enough to hang an article on. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key is we're not here to establish the notability of Utwig alone. We're here to establish the notability of these characters as a whole. And there's no denying that this third party source addresses the subject of all these races directly in detail. It spends literally two paragraphs explaining why these characters are so compelling, in an article that is trying to explain why this is one of the greatest games of all time.
  • I'm not sure what more we would need to establish the notability of these races. But I wish you would show me a guideline that explains how, because I would be happy to help this article comply. I already added several sources and there's more where that came from. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, it has one paragraph that talks about the races. The first paragraph mentions a specific alien but does not identify his race. And again, the second is just "There's this race who's funny and this race who's scary and these tragic races and then the main race and they're very well done." Say this were a review of Foo: The Movie and it included a paragraph like "Along the way, Jerry meets a butcher, a baker and a candlestick maker. The butcher is funny, the baker is angry and the candlestick maker is depressed. They are all well-written characters and the actors do good jobs." Would this sustain List of Foo: The Movie characters that included multi-paragraph mini-biographies of every character within the film? No. It would support a cast/character list within the film's article. And that's what should be done with the races. Each race can be listed in the game article per WP:PSTS and the material from the various reviews and such on the list article can be used to write up one- or two-sentence descriptions. Currently Star Control includes no information on the races and the articles for 2 and 3 have bare lists. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you rather have separate articles for each race and character that gets mentioned? They use to have that, but then they all got merged here. Dream Focus 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dozens of articles were merged into this one. [8] It was also apparently sent to AFD once before, and was kept(see the talk page for discussions about that and previous mergers). I see an edit war going on in the article itself, with someone who wants to delete the entire article taking out large chunks of it, only to be reverted. Please stop doing that. If the article subject is deemed notable, then it will be kept. Every single article on the list article does not have to be proven notable in itself. Just as listing all the books a writer published doesn't just include the notable ones, or a list of all the movies and shows someone has been on doesn't exclude the short lived easily forgotten failures. Dream Focus 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's kept, with it's current sourcing and in-universe tone, the article will be about three paragraphs long after clean-up. You simply don't have the sources to support anything longer. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the reality is that the coverage given gives enough to summarize all of the races in general, not to branch out and explain each one. The WP:INUNIVERSE tone does not help the article either. Sourced material can easily be merged into Star Control (series) and this page can be transwikied to some sort of wikia if necessary. It just comes down to WP:GNG, and while a summary is adequately sourced and notable, the individual races aren't. --Teancum (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By saying that we've successfully sourced three paragraphs, you've basically admitted that there's a notable topic here. Not trying to be snide. In fact, I'll be magnanimous: this article desperately needs clean-up, because it IS the result of merging together a bunch of poorly written articles. I will roll up my sleeves and clean it up myself, even. But we have to stop talking passed each other with hard keep/delete stances. I hope that you'll side with some kind of temporary keep or merge (or maybe the creation of a new series article). I'll even promise that we can delete it if we can't fix it -- you'll have my !vote. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing of the sort. The summary of the characters is notable, but when you peel back anything that doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, it's a stub article. If you're going that direction with it, then Star Control (series) needs to be the focus. A series article should definitely come before a characters article, as the former can envelope the latter, but not the other way around. Again, I have no argument with a races section in a series article, but the races do not have enough independent notability to warrant their own article. --Teancum (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I would dispute that the sources provided establish notability because they are not significant coverage. A sentence here, a paragraph there, all from much larger sources about the game as a whole. If there were a couple of sources that were solidly about the races then the current sources would be useful to fill in some blanks but on their own they simply aren't significant. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said anything of the sort either, if you only can source three paragraphs of mixed content, you'd be better off simply using the sources and the material in other Starcraft articles - nothing there supports 'List of' because you can't actually source the list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way to convince each other it seems, nor any reason to keep arguing about it. This AFD will surely close is No consensus. Some of us believe the information there is enough to establish the notability of the topic, others do not. Dream Focus 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you can't source it, it's a frankly pointless 'victory' because it will be stubbed and then likely redirected because it will be a list without an actual list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you fail to get your way and have the article deleted, you shouldn't just go and mass delete most of it anyway. Hopefully you won't start some lame edit war. And there are sources which do justify having a list of the races, and if you have a list, you make it a complete one, not just showing some things. Dream Focus 15:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will be mass deleted because it's unsourced (fails WP:V), has WP:UNDUE problems, is in-universe. This is very standard reasons to remove content at wikipedia. If you want a complete list, find sources, what is hard for you to understand about this? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source is fine for the information in it, it thus passing WP:V. You only have to prove the article's subject is notable, not every thing within it. Dream Focus 06:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read what people are actually saying - you can source material about 'Races' (collective), you can source their use in the game (as a collective) but there are no sources for the individual commentary/analysis of the races, it's all based on playing the game and original research (for the analysis bits). This is the crux of the issue, there is no material for the list bit of the list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Cameron Scott. Wikipedia policy has not been complied with. There is sourcing for a small summary of the characters as whole. The races themselves are either poorly sourced or not sourced at all. Additionally the sources are passing mentions in things such as reviews and not WP:Significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the provided secondary sources justify keeping the races list as a separate article. With the exception of the "History and reception" section, 95% of the article is in-universe plot reiteration and the remainder is either synthesis ("in an entirely separate science fiction series a different race is described as coming from this planet") or speculation ("The Yorn resemble Star Trek tribbles and as such would not be capable of a technological society on their own"). The arguments made to keep are junk:
    1. Notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter if Star Control is notable;
    2. It doesn't matter how many articles were folded into this one if the entire subject warrants little more than a couple of paragraphs in the parent Star Control articles;
    3. One race appearing in a GameSpot top ten list is nowhere near sufficient to justify a standalone article;
    4. How "interesting" the article is is irrelevant;
    5. How many previous AfDs the content in question has had is irrelevant;
    6. That an AfD is full of boilerplate inclusionist junk is not a reason to close as No Consensus;
    7. WP:PRESERVE can be accomplished by a merge of the three paragraphs of notable content, and WP:ATD could be accomplished by transwiki. I'd be happy to assist with either of those myself.
  • Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been further improved with an additional dozen cites for out of universe information . Hopefully this AfD was already destined for a Keep close as Shooterwalker had easily established notability with the excellent sources he added. Per WP:Notability "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content." (my emphasis) Its true that some of the individual races are only mentioned in passing, but that only prevents us having dedicated articles on said races. What matters for this article is that the references have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources on the general topic of races in Star Craft and this is easily demonstrated.

Here's a sample quote from allgame.com showing the signifcant coverage of races,theres plenty more quotes in the existing sources.

FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further improved" since when? Certainly not since my last comment. Adding "GameSpot says" to the end of every section doesn't magically make it out-of-universe. The assertion that one paragraph of a game review (which assigns exactly one adjective to each of these races) supports what the article currently contains is as dishonest as I've seen on here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No such assertion has been made. It should be clear to an intelligent person that the thrust of my point is that the collective coverage in the sources establish notability. The quoted paragraph is an example, and clearly presented as such. The quote may only use one adjective per race, but it uses several sentences to build up to the very significant claim that the handing of the Ur-Quan represents a praiseworthy and rare design achievement. Not often designers succeeds in making gamers feel sorry for their main enemy. In future please avoid making personel attacks such as implying an editor is dishonest, and be thankfull youre not getting a formal warning on your talk page! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmonic Institute

Gizmonic Institute (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)
Castle Forrester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deep 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete - each of these articles, which describe an element of fiction in an in-universe perspective, should be deleted. They do not meet the general notability guideline as there are no reliable sources that are significantly about the fictional locations. They fail WP:PLOT as being nothing but descriptions of the sites in terms of their function within the narrative of the series. Every element of a notable work of fiction is not itself notable. There is nothing sourced here and there is nothing to merge. No one who is unfamiliar with MST3K is going to be aware of these terms in the first place. PROD removed by an editor who announced his intention to stalk my edits and disrupt the project because of his dislike of the PROD process. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No RS. Consensus is for delete Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate-jobs.com

Graduate-jobs.com (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 website. All sources link back to the home website, and no third-party, independent sources. Basically just an article for promotion. Jmlk17 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Armbrust makes the concise comment for this close; fails notability criteria for tennis players Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viktorija Rajicic

AfDs for this article:
Viktorija Rajicic (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)

Fixing an AfD for User:Mayumashu. Reasoning given was "Guidelines for WP Notabiilty for tennis players have been revised and this player appears to fail them. I wish, as the same previous nominator, to now renominate this page for deletion." Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus overall points to delete Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FTPPro

FTPPro (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)

Creating page for 69.181.249.92, nomination is as follows: PROD removed by article creator. Fails WP:NOTE in that it doesn't have significant coverage. Both the CNET and Tucows listings are taken from the publisher's site, as CNET freely admits. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 18:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Googling "1st choice ftppro" retrieves hundreds of websites that have reviewed this program during the past 15 years. This should meet the requirement for "significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources". GoodTeacher7 (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Goggle returns thousands of hits, but nothing really qualify WP:RS. Google News Archives doesn't even show anything. Download sites did mention this software, but they are not really secondary sources.—Chris!c/t 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
btw: The debate process on this page will be an excellent example for my social studies students. GoodTeacher7 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes toggle.com a reliable source? It looks like a freely editable wiki, and those aren't acceptable. Hut 8.5 18:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added another reference to an independent review, from ntchosting.com. This article now contains more references than most of the programs listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTP_clients, so I believe that this program qualifies for inclusion in that list. GoodTeacher7 (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As much as I hate to axe a 15-year-old piece of software, there is simply no evidence that this program comes anywhere near to meeting the general notability guideline. The CNET and Tucows reviews are just a "publisher's description", the Toggle entry is just another Wiki, and the NTC Hosting source (which would unlikely be deemed a reliable source) erroneously refers to the program as being open source. Moreover, it is seemingly impossible to even find a full resolution screenshot of the program, which would be very odd of any notable software piece. Personally, I find the developer's website interesting relative to the industry as a whole, but the facts are what they are.   — C M B J   19:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any reliable sources referring to the software and I can only find 18 pages linking to it. Pburka (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To not include FTPPro in a list of FTP Clients is absolutely ludicrous. None of the 'Delete' voters have responded to the argument that FTPPro contains more notability than many of the entries in the FTP_clients article that have not been flagged for having "no indication of notability". The previous poster appears to be biased, since the "link:" prefix at google is inaccurate, and googling "1st choice ftppro" actually retrieves hundreds of webpages with links to ftppro.com and ftppro.org. I noticed that 69.181.249.92 has just flagged most of the entries in the FTP_clients article for having "no indication of notability". Seems like he's getting rather delete-happy (for someone who didn't even create a username for himself). Today he's marked about 100 articles (many of which have existed for years) for deletion. This completely defeats the purpose of allowing users to compare all the products that are available, and will insult many people in the programming community. The "Comparison of FTP client software" article was previously a very useful article. Now, it will only contain products that are endorsed by Wikipedia editors. Seems like bias to me. Christinebentenflas (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) — Christinebentenflas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good argument to use in a deletion discussion. You've already commented on my response to that argument, in a very personal attack manner . 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only surprise in that SPI is the uncovering of the sockmaster account, Ftppro (talk · contribs). Didn't see that one coming. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agh! I forgot to mention him. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have edited the article to indicate that this software has been covered by the following third party sources. These websites do not contain submit buttons, so the publisher could not have submitted the software themself:

http://www.brothersoft.com/1st-choice-ftppro-1210.html Includes screenshot created by brothersoft.com. http://www.archive.org/details/tucows_195116_1st_Choice_FTPPro Includes screenshot created by archive.org, and indicates that this software is in the Internet Archive for "long term preservation and access". http://fliiby.com/file/7209/rzv0elrobt.html Indicates the information was "provided by fliiby", not by the sofware publisher. http://www.softpile.com/apphistory/1st_choice_ftppro.html Version history created by Softpile.com, not by the software publisher. SisterMaryCatherine (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC) — SisterMaryCatherine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • I'm sorry, but these sites don't cut it. Pictures are generally not used as sources; we need the full hard text explaining what this is. And in something more reliable than your so-called "3rd party sources"; preferably the LA Times or something notable. These barely provide any information relevant to the article that would merit inclusion. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amado Nervo

Amado Nervo (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 actually clear why this poet is notable. The citation style is not clear and it it is not evident how much of this ifnormation is actually reliable as it is not sourced with in-line citations. No attempts have been made to accurately source this article or make required improvements. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I've nominated it for deletion is previous reviews and project work for BLPs show that it is unacceptable for articles to be tagged for BLP issues but then left for extended periods of time. If someone is notable enough for their own article that should be established at the time of creation not at a later date. We as editors should not have to tag things for deletion before someone argues in the defence that someone is notable. Additionally if the encyclopedia sources had page numbers etc. I wouldn't have seen it as an issue but omitting them gives the impression that whoever wrote the article couldn't be bothered to properly cite it or that such information didn't exist in the given citations. Apologies if it seems harsh, but I am trying to be realistic about this. Of course if the article can be fixed then that should be done... but AfD noms. are always the last resort when little attempt has been made in the first place to resolve the issues. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No harm; no foul. That said, the subject of this article died in 1919, eliminating BLP issues. Five minutes after looking at the article, I discovered that the subject was not only a poet, but also a highly respected journalist, educator, and the Mexican Ambassador to Argentina and Uruguay. Honestly, a quick search at the very least should probably have been done prior to nominating for deletion. Always make sure to check foreign Wikipedia sites as well, as these often provide great resources on international subjects. I will continue to work on the article, but for now, the article provides adequate information to establish notability and is sourced accordingly. Again, no harm; no foul, but I would recommend rescinding the nomination. Cindamuse (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • if anything at least the article is being bettered by the outcome of this AfD. It might as well run its course now. But let it be known to whoever closes this AfD, please pay attention to the comments being made. It looks like with a bit of work notability can be established after all. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 03:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOl ok... i'm kinda wearing egg on my face with this one. Is there a way I can retract my nom? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 03:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yer cracking me up. Just indicate that you are withdrawing the nomination and another editor will come along and close the nom. (I'm honestly learning a lot about this Nervo guy I never knew before.) Cindamuse (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Christ gives the perfect reasoning; no references; not notable Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australia's and Britain's Next Top Model contestants

List of Australia's and Britain's Next Top Model contestants (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)

There does not seem to be any good reason for having a single list for contestants of different shows on two continents. Pichpich (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of All

Eye of All (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)

Purely promotional article about a band with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:MUSIC. Previous prod declined because the article makes weak claims of notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging can be discussed on the talk page if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tax cut

Tax cut (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)

POV fork Dlabtot (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above. The article is just a complete mess and contains no content that is not in other articles. Dlabtot (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is a mess, no doubt, but the concept of cutting taxes does deserve its own article. There are immediate, short-term, and long-term economic and sociopolitical effects of a tax cut that are far too detailed to be explained elsewhere. For example, just think of the role that tax cuts play in the psychology of contemporary political campaigns.   — C M B J   17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite how this is a relevant or valid topic that isn't covered everywhere else, better. 71.23.124.102 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite how this is a relevant or valid topic that isn't covered everywhere else, better. 71.23.124.102 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite how this is a relevant or valid topic that isn't covered everywhere else, better. 71.23.124.102 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to identify the potentially valuable content that would be lost - that is, content that exists only in this article and not in Tax, Tax rate, Taxation in the United States, et al? Anyway if you are volunteering to try to fix the article, kudos to you. I encourage you to start immediately. Dlabtot (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is once again that because there is currently little valuable content in the article, we should delete it. AFD is a place to delete articles that violate our inclusion criteria, not a place to get rid of valid articles that require cleanup. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy—Chris!c/t 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not my argument. Which is why it's also not remotely like anything I said. Dlabtot (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you believe the article really discusses a subject distinct from Tax, and is in some fashion salvageable, I encourage you to actually make an effort to save it. Perhaps you could make some edit that actually improves the article. Instead of just asserting that such an edit is possible. Dlabtot (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the article has problems and telling othes to "go fix it" is not a good argument to make if your goal is to get this deleted. Note that Wikipedia has no deadline. Instead, you should try to explain why this topic is unworthy for inclusion.—Chris!c/t 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of crap might fly in China, but in the US we actually like to have sourceable content. What that means is that when you assert something, you have an independent 3rd party source to back up your claim. Yes, we don't just take people at their word anymore.Antiprogressive (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with deletion?—Chris!c/t 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything. Go read wp:notability, it's covered in there. Antiprogressive (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If getting rid of valid articles that require cleanup is not your position here, then why you keep on telling others to cleanup the article? . Also afd is for discussion of deletion (whether this is a valid topic to be included in this encyclopedia), not for discussion of article improvement.

  • delete It's useless. There's no objective basis for any claim the article makes. Better served reading about economic theory than the function of a tax cut. The article makes no sense. How can one generalize that "tax cuts" are Keynesian, specifically? Article is riddled with crappy contributions like that. Antiprogressive (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article "is riddled with crappy contributions", that doesn't mean it should be deleted as long as it is a valid subject. Instead, it should be improved. Deletion is actually more counter productive here because it hinders improvement.—Chris!c/t 20:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subtracting the fact that you're a moron, how can you show me that this article is productive at all? Also: Please quit with the sockpuppets.Antiprogressive (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me a moron is not going to get this deleted. Also what you just said violates Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. And what do you mean by "quit with the sockpuppets"? Are you accusing me of using sock?—Chris!c/t 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cry more. Yes, it would appear to be that way! Now, can you demonstrate how tax cuts are notable? Which ones, specifically? All of them? Can you list all of the "tax cuts" in history? Would such a list matter? Antiprogressive (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like a research paper into what some think are the effects of Tax Cuts. The only cited section is that regarding tax cuts in the US, and in general the whole article seems to take a position that Taxes are good, and cutting taxes only helps the rich. Utterly biased and doesn't appear to be fixable. Arzel (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, we don't delete (non-BLP, non-copvio) articles on notable subjects at AFD due to present bias or other deficiencies in the article, since such problems are considered to be correctable. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the vast majority of this article is uncited opinion. Remove the uncited opinion and you don't have much of an article anyway. All that is really needed is the first sentence. Arzel (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody can really deny that tax cut is a valid subject. Tons of other articles of valid subject are in a poor state. Should we delete them all then?—Chris!c/t 20:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless the goal of WP is to provide worthless information that is nothing more than the opinion of a few editors. WP is not the originator of new thought. Arzel (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tax cut is certainly not a "new thought". It has been used by governments worldwide to rally political support prior elections and has significant economic impact. I am quite surprised to hear that some here believe tax cut is a new concept.—Chris!c/t 00:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Arzel did not say, nor imply that '"Tax cut" is a "new thought"'. Nor could that be reasonably inferred from what he said. So you have refuted a strawman of your own invention. Dlabtot (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter what he really mean? The thing is nobody here who voted delete has been able to explain why this valid subject should be deleted.—Chris!c/t 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when engaging in a discussion, it does really matter what people say and what they mean. Ignoring what they said, or refuting points that they did not make or simply asserting that they are wrong, does not move the discussion forward. Dlabtot (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how nitpicking my argument instead of offering a valid reason for deletion "move the discussion forward."—Chris!c/t 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument asserts that it's 'clearly notable.' If evidence of this notability is so prevalent, surely it wouldn't be hard for you to produce? Antiprogressive (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here has yet cited one valid reason to keep this topic. All the submissions for keep just say "Clearly a valid topic!" If it's so clear, then please be kind and offer some support for your argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.124.102 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is the other way around, "nobody here has yet cited one valid reason to delete this topic." As I said already, tax cut is used by governments worldwide to rally political support prior elections and has significant economic impact. So, can someone here enlighten me how tax cut is not a valid encyclopedia topic?—Chris!c/t 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable on its right. It is political, not just economic like some other articles. Tax cuts are determined by the people through elected representation, non-democracies tend to raise taxes, because there are no elected representatives to oppose it, unless there is an all out revolt. "Economic theory" does not explain that. The article has loads of room for improvement in this dimension, and needs more contribution, instead of calling it "a mess". There are no deadlines too. Surprised to hear there's even a delete notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.36.103 (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citation? Or are you just Making Shit Up?Antiprogressive (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So afd voters have to cite what they said. That's new.—Chris!c/t 19:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making baseless claims is not evidence of notability. I suggest you read up on the subject matter. Antiprogressive (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The crap that I took yesterday was notable too, but it doesn't have a wikipedia entry. How can the problems in this article be surmounted? Why haven't you taken the initiative to do it yet?Antiprogressive (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but the crap you took yesterday was clearly not notable at all. And editors don't have to fix the article because Wikipedia has no deadline.—Chris!c/t 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing that you can see the subjectiveness of notability on a shit that I took, yet not on tax policy. How can the problems in this article be surmounted without recreating the tax policy page? How is a tax cut notable? Do all tax cuts count, or just the ones you pick? Antiprogressive (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Tax policy. Tax cuts are a notable topic, but we've already got an article on this subject with a better name. Since tax cuts are just the other side of the tax hike coin, it doesn't make sense to use this name. The nominator made this discussion more confusing than it had to be by failing to identify what article he or she felt this article was a fork of. If tax policy had been identified in the nomination, I suspect that consensus would have been reached quickly. Pburka (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations

Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations (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)

Disambig link farm, belongs at Wiktionary, to which it has already been transwikied. bd2412 T 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G6) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tataku

Tataku (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)

Collection of essentially dicdefs without articles, laid out like a disambig page; in other words, a disambig that doesn't disambiguate anything. bd2412 T 15:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beaty Towers

Beaty Towers (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 college residence hall. 28bytes (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Tom Petty wrote a song about this dorm (enough said). The 2 towers are very notable structures at the prestigious University of Florida as well. Jccort (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Petty says he did not. I'm inclined to believe him. 28bytes (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, there are dozens of them! Some of them probably do deserve articles - such as the ones listed at University of Florida Campus Historic District - but the article you cite mentions every last building in loving detail, complete with photo. But on second glance the situation isn't as bad as it looks; for example, many of those blue-linked dormitories are actually redirects to University of Florida student housing rather than full articles. That seems appropriate. So I am changing my !vote from "Delete" to Redirect to University of Florida student housing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It doesn't really matter that the Tom Petty connection is just an urban legend, what matters is that the legend has generated coverage of the buildings. Merging is an editorial decision that can be worked out on the relevant talk pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Consensus is not clear; therefore I'm relisting this conversation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The urban legend is already covered in the American Girl (song) article. Why is the dorm itself — as opposed to the urban legend — notable? 28bytes (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Pax. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The purported encyclopedic content includes mostly material like this: "Beaty East has 13 floors and Beaty West has 14 floors. The third building is the Beaty's Common. Beaty's commons contains the area desk which is open 24 hours and residents use this to pick up packages, get keys in case they get locked out, or check out equipment for the rec room. In addition there is a rec room which contains pool tables, ping pong tables and foosball. There is also a large screen TV in the TV room. In addition to the recreation rooms there is also a study room. Finally, attached to the commons is Beaty Market which is open till 4am everyday. It a small convient store which is open to anyone who wants a quick bite to eat," I know it can be removed, and will be if the article is kept, but it indicates how little substantial there is to write about. The material on the purported suicide is already in American Girl (song), with almost exactly the same wording. After deletion, if someone should search for Beaty Towers in Wikipedia looking for what might be notable about it, that will remain one of the search results. It takes much more than this to make a college dormitory notable, & the only safe thing I know is to look for architectural notability, which is absent here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The urban legend about the dorm might be notable, and is adequately covered at the article about the song. The dorm itself is not notable. --Kinu t/c 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge/redirect discussion may be continued on the article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peters Canyon Elementary School

Peters Canyon Elementary School (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 real assertion of notability. It is an elementary school, like thousands of other schools. Not notable Purplebackpack89 07:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Schools receiving this outcome are generally kept"??? If that was so, it would be stated in the Wikipedia guidelines. However, in the case of this school, there are no major secondary sources about its awards, which displays a lack of public interest in the subject. It should be deleted per WP:ORG.--Lester 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's covered in the (failed) schools notability guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Indicators_of_probable_notability. I doubt I'm going to convince you on this, but my opinion is that WP:N is met by having achieved the highest honor possible for a school in the US. It's the equivalent of a runner winning a gold medal at the Olympics- even if the local press doesn't write about it, the runner still meets WP:N. tedder (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I just found (and added) the "major secondary sources about its awards". tedder (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The school has received multiple state and national awards, backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Tustin Unified School District per usual practice. Nice try, Tedder. But of the ten references provided, the first is not even about the school (mentions it in passing). The second and third are about the California Distinguished School award, a status so common that half the schools in San Diego have earned it at one time or another. The fourth through eighth are about the Blue Ribbon School award, which is so non-notable that three schools in the Tustin Unified School District and four in Orange County won it that same year, according to the references provided. According to this [9] reference, 34 schools in California get the Blue Ribbon School award every year. (Hardly the equivalent of an Olympic gold medal!) Finally, the ninth and tenth references are trivial stories about a student-run garden at the school. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie, I'm sure you know numbers aren't great to use as an indicator of notability. Certainly California wins many Blue Ribbon schools, as it has a huge population (12% of the US). But if you really want to run the numbers argument, there were 86 gold medals at the most recent Winter Olympics, and 302 gold medals at the recent Summer Olympics. That sounds like the equivalent of an Olympic gold medal to me. tedder (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll agree to disagree about that. Any award which is won by hundreds of schools a year [10] doesn't seem to me like it singles that school out as particularly notable. We'd be overrun with articles about run-of-the-mill schools if we accepted the Blue Ribbon award as an automatic "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Individual editors have raised arguments to delete, merge, or redirect, but they have not received support and have been refuted by other editors. On the other side, there is a quite a firm consensus to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire

AfDs for this article:
Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire (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 almost five year old major WP:FAN article that has several issues. WP:NOTE and WP:EVENT, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:PLOT to name a few. Click23 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aakheer

Aakheer (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 assertion of notability, lack of coverage in reliable publications. Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Geo-Team

Natural Geo-Team (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 organization is not notable, but I am not sure enough to give it speedy deletion. I just don't see any proof provided by the creator, nor do I see any sources online. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even though there are a few keep votes, the logic forwarded does not adhere to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Consensus - in terms of logic forwarded - is delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour Jabalameli

Mansour Jabalameli (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 seems to be a pretty obvious case of being non-notable, but it does make a claim to being a "directory of some educational systems" - it is entirely possible that any reliable sources on him are in Persian, maybe? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Nice CV, but completely unknown and non-notable. Article claims he was awarded by International bodies, without stating what those supposed awards are. If they were international awards, there would be some international coverage in the media. However, with no reliable sources available, the article cannot be verified or maintained.--Lester 12:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Biography pages and directory listings from where the subject works (or has worked) does not make the subject notable. Other sources in this article do not even address the subject. As such, fails WP:GNG. The article lacks reliable sourcing, and I can't find any, that would help satisfy WP:PEOPLE. Akerans (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the provided links shows any notability, and I can't find any myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks reliable sources and notability, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There must be many references about his background in Persian or other languages. As well it is mentioned that he is certfied by such entities. Therefore he must have received certifications as mentioned in his website as well as other Persian weblogs. His website is hosted by Microsoft and any wrong information could have caused the website to be down. I believe based on the Wikipedia deletion policy, there is no wrong issue with this page. So I suggest this page to be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.227.26.167 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) — 77.227.26.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: The page has enough references. A person must not be super important to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is portal to share information on standard bases. There is no evelaution strategy for people in Wikipedia. There is no such base and standard to rate someone as useful, famous or normal. As far as references show, this page could be developed through contributions. As the history of this page shows, it has been created recently, so everyone must contribute to correct the page. Deletion without references is not logical. Besides, Persian and Arabic websites must go under search for more references. As wikipedia mentions; deletion happens when a page is unsuitable, unhelpful, or does not meet the required criteria. For a new page it is quite a very good startup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmantorin (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The reasons to delete this page are not strong. I cannot see a CV on this page and nor it should be a CV. Many of people are awarded or certified and their information is not public. Some of the references directly proved what it has been explained about him. I also recommend contributing and starting searching more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John-google (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC) — John-google (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Hmm, so we have Keep !votes from a registered editor who created the article, an IP who worked on it, and a new user who has only just registered an account. None of them knows how to sign their comments, none appears to understand notability, and all write in a very similar style of English. And both of the registered editors mistakenly added a {{hangon}} to the article. Nah, that's not suspicious at all! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The debate has been semi-protected to prevent further blatant vote-stacking. ~ mazca talk 21:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - do we really want to semi-protect this? The article creator will not be able to comment here... perhaps better to play whack-a-mole and tag each edit as it comes along? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm of the opinion that (a) he's already commented once, and (b) he's made it abundantly clear how he intends to continue commenting - via a succession of sockpuppets. Personally I consider it the easiest and least confrontational way of dealing with it, but I'm open to anyone overturning it if they wish. ~ mazca talk 08:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had several requests from new accounts to unlock the debate. I'm honestly dubious as to whether they're actually different people, but I guess we'll see. ~ mazca talk 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability. Claims unsupported by references. Niky cz (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although the page has been created by an amateur, but the page has been attacked by Wikipedia professionals in its early moments of posting. I think this page needs more time to be well-framed under the wikipedia standards, therefore deletion is against the policies of Wikipedia unless a false reference would have been portrayed. A solutions is to offer more time85.137.107.129 (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC) — 85.137.107.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Deletion would be against policy only if the subject's notability had been shown according to the requirements of WP:N. If you think such notability has been demonstrated, please explain how - references from reliable independent sources talking about the the subject are what we need, and the 7 days that this discussion will run for should be plenty of time to find them should they exist. (And please note that the people contributing here are not "Wikipedia professionals" - we are all amateur volunteers, just like you) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the requirements of WP Notability and I found it suggests for pages to have viable references but not all of the framework must be in place. I also analyzed many of pages in WP and found it correct. This page has 4 direct references in which one of them is his personal website, two of them confirms his academic positions and one of them which is a list in wikipedia also listed him in a group of technical engineers. The references has been contributed by around two different users, which calls for more references, could the page survive. But not everyone on this planet know about this discussion and the deadline. Well I can see that some have mentioned that this page does not satisfy the notability guidelines and some have mentioned it general by a very simple link to the WP:Notability. The discussion must point the notability issues in a very specific manner, not referring one to the loads of pages of guideline in general. In fact, I believe the page creators tried to make it notable by the future hope of contributions from the page visitors.85.137.107.129 (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. if you check the WP:GNG section of WP:N, you will see it says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." All I can see is references that confirm his academic and professional qualifications, and those do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (Please also note that I have removed one reference - a Wikipedia article can not be used as a reference, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source as per WP:RS) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I meant to add that if nobody can demonstrate sufficient notability by the end of this discussion, a copy of the article can be "userfied" (ie copied to a registered user's own space) so that it can be worked on further before being submitted as an article again - a registered editor who wished to take it would need to ask an administrator. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thanks everybody for the discussion. Though the references are not so much, but the page can survive. Keeping and promoting the page with more references, just like thousands of pages in Wikipedia that have been created from a starting point, is the best decision.83.39.25.70 (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC) — 83.39.25.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Luc Hensill. Consensus that there should not be a standalone article. Since content was merged to another article the history must remain for attribution purposes. T. Canens (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomahawk Blues Band

AfDs for this article:
Tomahawk Blues Band (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)

Previous AfD ended as no concensus. This band fails WP:BAND. All the references come from a primary source. User:Raoniz, on his talk page, appears to show a COI by identifying as the son of the band's lead singer. Saskiart (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article which has much the same problems as this one, and will likely be at AFD itself before long.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be right... Bigger digger (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Tomahawk Blues Band is a jazz legend in Belgium and in the whole world. Wikipedia: Notability (music). Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network: a 50 minutes video copy from the movie "A Trip with Tomahawk Blues Band" was broadcasted by most of the TV Broadcast in the world in 1969 like : RTBF (national broadcasting organisation of the government of Wallonia-Brussels), Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (publicly-funded broadcaster of radio and television in Flanders (northern part of Belgium)), ... "A trip with Tomahawk Blues Band" by Marc Lobet was the first movie of the Pop Shop produced by the RTBF, they followed with Genesis (band) , Savoy Brown, East of Eden (band), ... "A trip with Tomahawk Blues Band" by Marc Lobet is on his way to be digitalized by the RTBF.
  • Wit-lof from Belgium: Publisher: BRT or VRT, Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (Flemish Radio and Television Network), publicly-funded broadcaster of radio and television in Flanders (northern part of Belgium) (BE), 1990, p. 86: Tomahawk Blues Band, isbn = 90-5096-069-3
    Wikipedia: Notability (music). Criteria for composers and lyricists: 2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time: Tomahawk writed and perform (one month in 1969) the Background music of "L'Aurore rouge et noire" by Fernando Arrabal for the Producer: the "Théâtre de Poche" who is a notable theater in Brussels-Capital (Théatre de Poche in French Wikipedia).
  • Aspasia: Archives & Museum literature asbl Center for Research and Documentation literary and drama of the French Community of Belgium: L'Aurore rouge et noire
    Greetings. Raoniz (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Raoniz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Saskiart (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just for clarification: The comment above me was made by the author of the article, who is also the son of the "Tomahaw Blues Band"'s leader. Saskiart (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leave the socks, the consensus is for Delete Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Yekinni

Diana Yekinni (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 fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG & WP:BLP - article has no reliable verifiable sources Amsaim (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the Klass with Mylene Klass

Top of the Klass with Mylene Klass (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)

"Hilarious" joke article. Two non-linked "references" which don't exist, nor do any third-party mentions. Gr1st (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect there to be at least one mention, even in passing, somewhere in the British media, of a prime time Saturday-night BBC One TV show. Can anybody find one? Gr1st (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These folk also seem to agree it's a hoax, by the way. Gr1st (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going three ways in this one -- if it's a hoax orchestrated by the National Lottery, Klass and/or the BBC, then keep, ID-ing it as a hoax and catagorising under "Category:Hoaxes in the United Kingdom". If someone does find a tangible source testifying its existence, then also keep. If it's a rogue Wikipedia editor with clever writing and Photoshop skills, then Delete. -- azumanga (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax. Zero hits on Google News archive, Books or Scholar for "Top of the Klass" national lottery and about 250 on Google Web, characteristic of appearing in Wikipedia mirrors only. References are dud. Image was produced in Photoshop. What more can one say? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. There's no mention of this show in the LexisNexis news archive, which includes both the newspapers cited as supposed sources. The article would be amusing if not for the false claims about a real person. EALacey (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Yahoo group associated with UKGameshows.com issues a weekly listing of game show transmissions, and the group archives include the listings for the weeks in question, showing that the national lottery gameshow for all four weeks of Top Of The Klass' claimed run was Who Dares Wins. The show is also absent from the site itself - even if it lacked an article through some oversight, one would expect the show to be reviewed, or at the very least its cancellation to have been noted, in the weekly news column. [13] It isn't. Conclusion: no such show. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The show existed but the information is not fully accurate. I worked on this series, and six episodes of Top of the Klass were made by Endemol for BBC Scotland. A number of the eposodes were shown but only in the Scottish region. My understanding was that Scottish viewers still got the live results from London, but saw Top of the Klass rather than Who Dares Wins. The description of the show is essentially correct: Myleene singing, constestants writing on blackboards and a final round where they had to 'light up' apples on Myleene's desk. All rather tacky and I believe based on a Dutch format... Dominicshentill (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gsearching suggests hoax - virtually nothing there and absolutely nothing reliable. If it really existed (and someone actually put it on screen!), perhaps we should let it sink back into what would appear to be well-deserved oblivion. Mylene Klass's article here doesn't appear to mention it, which I can well understand. Peridon (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete and total hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New zealand in 2020

New zealand in 2020 (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 evidence of meeting any notability requirements. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rise above the silver and gold

Rise above the silver and gold (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 notability per WP:MOVIE. Low budget, independent film, direct to video. Written, directed, produced, starred, music, and distributed by Stanley V. Henson, Jr. Self-published, autobiographical story. Promoted by self-published press releases, of which, two are used as external links. The two references are IMDb profiles for the movie and individual model/actress. Meets zero criteria according to WP:MOVIE to establish notability. Cindamuse (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Cindamuse (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:MOVIE. Derild4921☼ 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Author of the article claims that the film was shown in AMC theatres, implying a national theatrical release. However, this notation indicates that the film was screened at Henson's local AMC Potomac Mills Theatre in Woodbridge, Virginia, one night on January 7, 2007. Cindamuse (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or if asked by its author, Userfy out of politeness. I went through the article, expanded it, corrected it for format and style, and generally made it much prettier. Good practice.[14] That said... all I could find online about this film was press release after press release. While not doubting its existance, no one has written anyting about this other than th production company or its publicists. Untill this ever gets a true wide release, wins some awards, or receives some coverage, it's just is not notable per film criteria. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The initial author of the article blanked the page requesting a speedy delete, in addition to the AfD. The article has been edited by several authors, therefore, I reverted the request. Cindamuse (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What's the point? Fine... I'll delete it. This is an emerging artist who has managed to accomplish something. I understand Wikipedia's need to maintain creditability but, the comments made to justify credibility are cruel and made with fake names and pseudonyms to disguise their identity. The film, "She hate me" by Spike Lee was screened in one theatre in New York. "Rise above the silver and gold", starred Georgianna Robertson who first appeared in Robert Altman's film, "Ready to Wear". Henson has only produced two projects independently which he owns all the rights and has managed in that short time span to direct Bill Cosby, Dick Gregory, Georgianna Robertson, Clifton Powell and Joe Theisman. Contrary to the research done by the editors the film appeared in several AMC Theatres independently (not just the one theatre listed on Brave New Theatres) before being independently released to DVD. Sistaliz09 (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.It's really not worth it... so I deleted it... now I can't delete it? Haterism Yeesh...Sistaliz09 (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "haterism". Really not. When one writes an article for Wikipedia, hitting that first "save" button acts as acknowledgement that you "irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL"... which pretty much means that by hitting "save", you've agreed the content now belongs to Wikipeda, and it is then evaluated by non-paid volunteer editors just like you or me... folks who have a life away from these pages and stop in to try improving things... some a lot... some a little. And as you may have noticed... it was I who expanded and cleaned up your article to make it more suitable to Wikipedia's preferred format. But the difficulty here is that in order to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, films have to somehow meet the criteria set forth in WP:Notability (films). If you ask that the article be be "userfied" to you, it will be placed in a user sub-page for you... something like User:Sistaliz09/workspace/Rise Above the Silver and Gold... where you can continue work on it and ask for input from others. And when the film gets wider release, wins some awards, or gets written up in reliable sources it may well be welcomed back to mainspace. And by the way... some few of us do not edit anonymously. Regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kindness is free and its paybacks can be exemplary. This new user definitely does not understand how things work here and took the deletion nominations far too personal. Sadly, it happens. If the editor comes back and declares no intent to sue, she may get a reduced block and a return of editing privilages... or, if still angry, may come back in another guise. We'll just have to wait and see. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Almost speedy-deletable as G10, pages that disparage the subject. A very small amount is sourced, but the overwhelming amount is not, and therefore amounts to Original Research. If any of this were to be added to another article, it would not be admissible either, except to the extent there were actual good references. I am not evaluating whether or not the criticisms are correct--we do not do that. It would be a violation of NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide

Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide (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)

Reads like an ad and is a hostile fork of sodium chlorite, sole editor is named after a related commercial product. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(the following is copied from the talk page)

The creator and (so far) only editor of this article is named DiOxiCare, which is coincidentally a commercial product (http://www.frontierpharm.com/dioxicare-system.php). The article reads like an ad, and doesn't link to anything, not even Sodium chlorite or Chlorine dioxide. I'm going to go look up how to sponsor a page for deletion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Flaherty (talk • contribs)

(The following is copied from the Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide Discussion Page)

The subject of Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide needs to be discussed because of the widespread confusion of its meaning. I would welcome any comment on my critique of Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide.

The essay was carefully written and the subject investigated first.

The initial criticisms made, however, were not thoughtful and were unconvincing. In no case was the science or chemistry mentioned or discussed. None of the all too brief comments were made by dentists, biologists, chemists or those in the dentistry fields. I would have at least expected the manufacturers of stabilized chlorine dioxide to have a say!

We learn in philosophy that it is difficult to prove a negative. The words, advertising, marketing and strategy of the purveyors of stabilized chlorine dioxide are underhanded and misleading, or outright false. How does one easily untangle this knot of sophistry. I challenge anyone to follow the titles and references of the literature given by these manufacturers.

I have no problem with the salt, sodium chlorite. The difficulty starts with how the term is described and used in scientific journals and advertising. If someone says they can cure cancer with sodium chlorite, I have no fault with the sodium chlorite.

The user name under which this article was submitted will no longer be used.

Howard Alliger, Howard841 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Howard841[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure I understand the comments above that this article reads like an advertisement. If anything, the article reads like a diatribe against the nomenclature "Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide". The author has gone to great pains to discuss why the nomenclature might be misleading. However, since he has pointed out (correctly or not -- I'm no chemist) that Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide is really sodium chlorite, I recommend a redirect to that page, with perhaps some editing of the target page to indicate the dual nomenclature and the use of sodium chlorite in mouthwash and toothpaste, not just as a bleaching agent in the paper manufacturing industry. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I said it read like an ad because it was repeating the marketing spiel of a product whose name matches that of the editor. Please click on the link I posted so you can see for yourself. Unless the author adequately explains their relationship with this product, we must presume a significant conflict of interest. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the link you provided, and yes, there is similarity between the text in that link and the text in this Wikipedia article. However, I don't believe either sets of text are "overtly promotional". And even though the original author's name matches the name of the company, that (while problematic in itself for violating WP:ORGNAME) does not automatically imply that this article is promotional (please assume good faith). I presume this user is simply quite knowledgeable about this compound and has chosen to share his or her knowledge. The article does not promote DioxiCare's product, nor even mention it by name or by reference. And it disparages the use of the term "stabilized chlorine dioxide" as misleading. I really can't see the argument that this article is promotional in any way, shape or form. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator should direct his remarks to the science, chemistry and history of stabilized chorine dioxide and not to the person writing the article or any relationship he might have. I am acting in good faith as a scientist and chemist and in no way talk about my own products.

Howard841 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Howard Alliger, Howard841[reply]

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

The result was strong keep. Closing early because of overwhelming snow strong keeps. No deletion votes other than nominator, and strong keep votes outnumber keep votes. (non-admin close) —CodeHydro 12:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UVB-76

UVB-76 (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 problems of shortwave radio station; 6 of 12 references are newsletters/postings of various radio groups; 2 more are cached copies of an unreferenced and archived Geocities page that is not attributable to anyone; in any case, all of these are Self-Published Works by people who would not be evident as experts in their field, nor writing about themselves. Remaining sources include links to purported recordings of the station, a picture of the station (which do not themselves give an indication of notability), and a book whose mention of the station seems to only be a generalized mention. Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UVB-76 article is available in twelve languages. Are we to consider deleting them all? A-Day (c)(t) 00:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag myself. I don't believe there's any OR left in the article at this point, with most of it being referenced. SilverserenC 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is just a humorous, not to be taken seriously, comment of mine, but maybe the people that are trying (and have been trying for a while) to get this article deleted or certain information removed are Russian spies who don't want info about this station getting out more than it is, because it actually is a "dead hand" station. :P SilverserenC 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Problems with sourcing does not make this station any less notable. --Kristian 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The sourcing issues most likely arise from the fact that its broadcasting from a military district and that it isn't a radio station as such, its a restricted use service that no one ones much about apart from having to do with the military. Peachey88 (T · C) 04:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- much improved, seems to have no problem with verifiability or notability. -- The Anome (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Strong Keep. --BBF3 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter at this point anyways, since there aren't any outstanding delete votes. 128.194.29.89 (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was apparently logged out for some reason. Stupid internet. :/ SilverserenC 04:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Previous arguments summarize my points. I have nothing more to add, but do concur with above comments, and recognize that this discussion is not a "vote" taken for keeping the article. TeamZissou (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This story and accompanying station have been in the news lately. I feel given its recent coverage on wire.co.uk qualifies it to stay.
  • Strong Keep Nice try, Vladimir Putin.
  • Strong Keep.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.57.12 (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T-Five

T-Five (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)

There's not much to be found on this article other than twitter, myspace and facebook :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK 1.2 and 2.3 and WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Han shot first

AfDs for this article:
Han shot first (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)

Fancruft and pop culture list. The extent to which this is meaningful can be covered in the article on the first Star Wars film and its Special Edition changes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Meyer

Liz Meyer (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)

Tagged with {{notability}} for two years and not addressed. Some content is speculative and attempts to weight possible future accomplishments as though they were current accomplishments. Orange Mike | Talk 03:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Daly Clark

Nicholas Daly Clark (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)

First prod removed by creator, who also created Vicariously, the web series by Clark, and hasn't touched any non-Clark related articles. No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of an individual. Clark certainly exists, but walk-on roles and a web series aren't sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR. tedder (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risoterapia creativa

Risoterapia creativa (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)

Forgive me if I'm incorrect on anything, but my Spanish isn't amazing, and this article is in Spanish. From what I can gather, it's about a type of therapy. Seems like WP:OR to me. No references, only some external links. Searches for it often come up with matches for "Risoterapia", but considering this means "laughter therapy", I'm not surprised. Searches for the full name in quotes gives results such as the Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, and blog pages. — GorillaWarfare talk 23:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My Spanish is by no means phenomenal, but I feel like Risoterapia creativa is almost like a business name or something. It seems unlikely that someone would enter Risoterapia creativa into the search box. Risoterapia, perhaps, but I'm not sure about this second one. I could be entirely wrong though. I hope this doesn't come off that I'm arguing against redirecting, as I'm certainly not opposed to it, but I'm just curious if it would be a valid choice. — GorillaWarfare talk 00:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Awakening

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

Neologism with few uses found outside of the title of a book [20] and the name of an internet forum [21]. Can't locate substantial evidence that the term is popularly used outside of these contexts, and as these contexts are proper names, they should be held to a standard of notability for which they are classified (book, forum). Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jeremjay24 14:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article is sub-standard. Actually the article is a work in progreess and i will work to complete and enhance it. --Nizarsh (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One specific note that the term (Islamic Awakening) is quit popular in Arabic (Read as: الصحوة الاسلامية), however, it is sometimes referenced as : Islamic Revival and possible other terms. The benifit is to document the movement in English, where i personally have'nt seen it documented. --Nizarsh (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your argument for the importance of documenting the movement in the English language wiki, but perhaps it can be included in a broader article until it meets the criteria for a content fork? Please see Islamic Movement for a list of specific to movements where some of the info might be able to be applied. In researching this further I've found that the "Islamic Awakening", as shown in the examples I listed above, is applied as a catch-all term for a variety of moderate to extreme movements beginning in the late 20th century until now. I can't find any single unified definition of the term or a context in which it is used with an explicit single meaning in English. Would you support a content merge if there was an acceptable place to move the sourced information?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe we could reach a catch-all term. That is actually what im trying to do. But, then we could break it down for modesty ...etc. After reaching to the unifying term, we could look at content merging. --Nizarsh (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, while I think we all appreciate the inclusion of the Arabic name and sources, I'm wondering if there is an issue with presenting the information from those sources as translations to English without scholarly sources. I'm brining this up because the native language here is English and a small minority of editors on this wiki have a firm enough grasp on Arabic to be of use in policing the article for POV and vandalism. I feel there might be issues with WP:OR or WP:NPOV because the English language editors are at a loss to check the sources for themselves. Are there any accepted English translations for your Arabic sources?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No reliable source to establish notability of this term. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could see your point. But there ara many articles in wiki that provide a term in different languages with pronounciation in each language. Why it is a challenge here? Moreover, only by tying both english and arabic names that the term becomes crystal clear to arabic and english readers, and not to confuse it with other terms. --Nizarsh (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no signs of WP:Notability or WP:V. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth, I Love You

Elizabeth, I Love You (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 song, not even a feasible redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Donner Party

The Donner Party (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)

Can't find RS for this article Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sender (1998)

The Sender (1998) (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. The only reference about this movie is IMDB, and I was unable to find more. It appears that even with Michael Madsen and Dyan Cannon as part of the cast this movie never managed to achieve any notoriety. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amvona

AfDs for this article:
Amvona (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)

Technology company that asserts notability via some large numbers, but fails to demonstrate any significant coverage. The references seem to be made up entirely of trivial mentions and citations, none sufficient to pass WP:ORG. Article seems quite different to the version deleted in a previous AfD, but doesn't demonstrate notability any better. ~ mazca talk 00:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zach McNees

Zach McNees (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)

Autobiography, after being told that he should not continue writing an article on himself, he ignored it and continued adding content. No evidence that he is notable beyond a single online article; many of the boasting comments are unsourced and I can't find anything reliable to support them. Terrillja talk 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Serbian Air Force and Air Defence. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment of the Serbian Air Force and Air Defense

Equipment of the Serbian Air Force and Air Defense (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)

Unnecessary article, all relevant information on this page is already in the main artcle: Serbian Air Force and Air Defence. Buttons (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well thats just the thing... everything is already there, so there's essentially nothing to merge that already isn't there. Buttons (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not that I understand the subject, but the guideline for keeping songs seems unambiguous, and sio does the consensus. I considered the arguments at the prior AfD also, & in particular the detailed closing there. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Marie

AfDs for this article:
Goodbye Marie (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)

Permanent stub. As a terribly low-charting song (#17 and #47 for the two versions), it's not been talked about in any way by any reliable sources. The existing sources are mere directory listings: one that does nothing more than verify that Dennis Linde wrote it, and one that does no more than verify that it charted.

The fact that three artists cut it is not enough to pass the music notability guidelines; as it stands, the article is VERY unlikely to grow beyond a stub. But since it doesn't "belong" to just one artist, a merge is out of the question, which leaves us with one option: deletion. The associated artists' articles already say everything that can possibly be said about this song, so deleting it will not sacrifice any info. The only argument presented in the last AFD was that it should be kept only because three artists cut it, with no real policy being cited even after two relists.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep First off, I frown any time I see a renomination from a previous keep vote...even more so when it's by the same nominator. Secondly, policy was cited in the previous AfD, per WP:NSONGS. As it states, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song has done two of those things. It was ranked at #17 on the Billboard Country Chart. Later, it was covered in Kenny's #1 ranking album. And even after that, when it was finally released as a single, it ranked yet again at #47. I think that's impressive enough to keep the article. SilverserenC 17:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While certainly true that there is not a mountain of scholarly articles about this song, it is completely wrong to suggest it can be covered in the bio articles of the famous people associated with the song. The point of the article is it shows the bridge between these different artists. Obviously the Goldsboro article isn't going to say Rogers later covered this song. It would be deliberately anti-user-friendly to delete such a plainly helpful article like this one, which the NSONGS guideline makes clear. The song is obviously notable in the colloquial sense. 2005 (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator complained that there was no policy discussion in the KEEP decision from the first nomination. That's untrue because there was plenty of discussion there about notability for a charting single. Meanwhile, the nominator has said that the article should be deleted because it will permanently be a stub. WP:NOEFFORT states that an article could be deleted for this reason, but it also states that some stub-class articles can be kept simply because there isn't much else to write about. There is a similar decision to be made at WP:BEFORE criterion #2. Those are two judgment calls that might kill a lot of articles, but this song charted and therefore has some notability under WP:NSONGS and related guidelines. And by the way, the chart guidelines do not contain the phrase "terribly low-charting" as a criterion for making a decision on notability. If you don't think #17 is high enough, explain why. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Speed Limit Weekend

No Speed Limit Weekend (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)

Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Blaster Rehearsals

Ghetto Blaster Rehearsals (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)

Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was I see you insist on your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS politics. Heh. Moved the article to my userspace, will do a deletion review in a few months. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu Fire Bureau

Pichilemu Fire Bureau (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 per WP:ORG also a similar debate on EMS services was discussed here. Peter.C • talk 01:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Another one of these Vendetta AfDs. Note to nominator: this is not a hospital, so no ambulance. That belongs to Pichilemu Hospital, article which I'm not gonna create for the foreseeable AfD it would risk. Organization is significative to History of Pichilemu, part of the series of these articles. Diego Grez (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While not the same the principals are the same. Also why do you say it's a vendetta? Peter.C • talk 01:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this and this came just because of what? --Diego Grez (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I voted on the deletion of it and I went to check to see if any more of the articles were also non notable. By no means is this a vendetta of any sort. Peter.C • talk 01:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter.C: You do think Fire Bureaux are not notable, fail WP:ORG, right? Pittsburgh Fire Bureau is in the US, the article has no references. Would you nominate it for deletion? --Diego Grez (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Pittsburgh serves about 2,462,571 people. While YES it could be written better it has external links and passes notability but it needs a re-write by an experienced user in the fire portal. Peter.C • talk 02:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See? You have proven you are biased towards US-content. Pichilemu is a small town? Yes. Pichilemu has very few inhabitants? Yes, around 15.000 as of 2010. Pichilemu has the same right to have articles on different topics like Pittsburgh? Yes. Smaller organization such as the Pichilemu Fire Bureau merit an article just like Pittsburgh's does. --Diego Grez (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not biased. If you were to show me a article of a fire department in Chile which services a city that is in the same state of disrepair as the Pittsburgh article I would say the same thing. The reason why your town's fire department fails notability is (to take a quote from the EMS talk page) "The oversimplified version is that if nobody outside your hometown has written about your org, then you don't get a stand-alone article about your org. (You might get a sentence, paragraph, or section in a related article, however; for example, the ambulance corps for a town could be described in the article about the town.)" Peter.C • talk 02:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a Wikipedia policy, and the Fire Bureau of Pichilemu obviously does not fail notability, as you might see by googling Bomberos de Pichilemu, something that I'm sure you haven't cared to do. --Diego Grez (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If their are so many sources available that can be used on the article why have you not utilized them? Peter.C • talk 02:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because I tried to create the most articles possible about Pichilemu, and then plan to expand them? --Diego Grez (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't bite off more then you could chew then this would not be happening. Peter.C • talk 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My town's fire department doesn't have an article on it, and my town is almost 10x bigger... I honestly don't think that every town's fire department needs an article on it, unless it's big like New York, etc. Pilif12p :  Yo  14:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. obvious total agreement DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Five (late-night talk show franchises)

The Big Five (late-night talk show franchises) (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 significant coverage of the term in reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nominator Withdrew. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu post office building

Pichilemu post office building (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:GNG. Passing mention, it was obviously destroyed in an earthquake. However, it is only passingly mentioned in all sources as being a 'destroyed building' (one of many) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable. It was one of many buildings toppled in a disaster. We can't have articles on every destroyed buildings whenever a disaster happened.—Chris!c/t 00:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep Possible Systemic bias on this AFD. Pichilemu is in South America, that's the main reason it can't be notable in the United States or in a English language encyclopedia. But I tell you, why the fuck not? The building was one of the oldest in the town, constructed by one of their founders, and that merits an article. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of old building in Eygpt and China. Should they have article? Being old =/= being notables—Chris!c/t 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination itself and your vote seem rather WP:POINT-y to me. Just because I AFD'd an article you were working on, the first thing you do is a vendetta. Nice. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to call it what you want. Also one !vote is not going to matter if this is really notable. Note that I didn't start this afd.—Chris!c/t 00:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the local history scene like in Chile?©Geni 01:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I misunderstand your question, English is not my mother tongue. :) I've tried to synthetize most of early history of Pichilemu, Chile in in this article, that does mention who and when was this building created. If you don't care to read it: Daniel Ortúzar was the owner of hacienda San Antonio de Petrel, that originated the Pichilemu city. He created the former neighborhood of Daniel Ortúzar Avenue, with houses to his occupants/tenants, the so recalled post office, an hotel. Later Agustín Ross created a casino, a park... all of this area eventually became a National Monument of Chile in 2004. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I mean was is Chile like the UK where local history societies and the like have published so much stuff over the years that it is posible to write a verifiable article on any given building if you really want to?©Geni 01:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! No. Books about buildings in Chile are unlikely to be ever published/written. I'm not so sure if José Arraño Acevedo's book Pichilemu y sus alrededores turísticos does a short mention about this building, but it would not help much. I'm a bit sad this article and Pichilemu Fire Bureau are risked to go to the cemetery just because I nominated a WP:NOTNEWS article and it went so far like a vendetta. Diego Grez (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the article with information from this book. My dad had it on his library, and allowed me to improve it much more. --Diego Grez (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. in addition to the lack of evidence for notability , there's the clear promotionalism, and, I think. a very probable copyvio DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Brown

Mason Brown (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)

Despite a lot of words, there doesn't really seem to be anything in this article which explains what makes this person notable. Sourcing is problematic as well, especially for a BLP. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yehua Dennis Wei

Yehua Dennis Wei (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)

Can't find sources for this person Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete User:David Eppstein's finding shows that this person exists and did some research. But I still can't make myself think this person is notable.—Chris!c/t 01:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The citations are sufficient to show him as an expert in his field. The Scopus cites are compatible with GScholar, with 47 articles. And neither G Scholar nor Scopus will include most of the citations from Chinese sources. Quite apart from that, he has clearly written a notable book, as shown by the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Melos

Tera Melos (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)

Prod removed. No WP:RS to establish notability of a band or to WP:GNG meet other common critera. tedder (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mystique Summers Madison

Mystique Summers Madison (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 reality show contestant. Appeared in three episodes of RuPaul's Drag Race Season 2. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT and WP:BLP1E. PROD removed by anon IP with, of course, no explanation. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nackman

AfDs for this article:
Alex Nackman (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'm just not seeing sufficient notability for this singer songwriter. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Relay Chat admin

Internet Relay Chat admin (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 meet the requirements of wp:notability. there are no third party, reliable sources in this article. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Relay Chat channel operator

Internet Relay Chat channel operator (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 meet the requirements of wp:notability. there are no third party, reliable sources in this article. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_September_11&oldid=1142639698"