Trichome

thcscience_admin
< 15 September 17 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. This is an indiscriminate list, plain and simple. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2010 Quit Kashmir Movement[edit]

Casualties of the 2010 Quit Kashmir Movement (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 in question was created to list the names of all the casualties of the 2010 Kashmir unrest. But this particular article is not of any encyclopedic value as creating a separate article to list the names of the people killed is against Wikipedia's policy for creation of new articles. Johnxxx9 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added a few of these names, bit by bit, to 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy, as they came up in various sources. I think that this article and its parent suffered greatly from very strong POV editing on either side, and much of the information I tried to devolve from the Koran-burning article into this one's parent (e.g. about buildings burned) has since been lost, together with the sources, but I should say that it looks like many of these deaths were notable, with coverage in major media of the area, major demonstrations about the deaths, and more protesters shot, and more buildings burned, etc. I would in fact say that in an absolute sense, these deaths are some of the most notable information I added to the Koran-burning article, and if we include that article about someone almost burning a Koran and throw out this one about >100 people killed in conflict over the sovereignty of a nation, we would be taking Wikipedia's cultural bias to an unsurpassed extreme. Please — do not dismiss these people as faceless unknowns simply because they aren't from America, and if we can't send UN peacekeepers to Kashmir, then Wikipedia should at least recruit some neutral parties to try to preserve the useful contributions of both sides to the Kashmir articles. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well we do have an article on Quit Kashmir Movement (2010). nobody is discussing deleting that. all useful info from here can be included in that article. This is just a list of non notable ( by WP standards) individuals who were killed in the course of this unrest and the list clearly fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. that is the reason the article on Casualties of the September 11 attacks does not include details of individuals--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Search for both names in the first row: [1] - results include apparently major newspapers such as Greater Kashmir and Tribune India.
Search for the first name in the last row: [2] - results include the Times of India, Agence India Press.
Now if you believe that Indian (and/or Kashmir...) newspapers aren't real newspapers, and Kashmir's people aren't real people, then maybe you can say this isn't notable. But if the people killed in these protests have 1/25 the value of the people killed in the Kent State shootings (Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Scheuer) then the article should stand, complete with the stand-alone list so that the full details can be provided without degrading the article. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wikireader41 has been inserting so-called anti-Islamofascist POV in many articles and indicates the same on their user profile page. So I have to question if he/she can be expected to give neutral comments about this article. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well memorial lists are prohibited by community consensus per the policy cited above. why do you think we don't have one for 9/11 victims ?? none of these victims are notable except for the fact they were killed in Kashmir in 2010. Same reason we don't have a List of victims of Second World War. None of the articles you have cited are lists BTW. If you think some of the victims are notable enough to have their own articles then by all means go ahead and start them.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEMORIAL does not prohibit the listing of people killed in a notable event. It prohibits starting a page for your dead husband, wife, son, or daughter after he or she smashed into a tree on the way home one night. A page of that type, for someone otherwise non-notable to Wikipedia, akin to a roadside memorial, is not allowed here. Which is harsh. But extending it to cut out all mention of people being killed in a major and fairly well publicized civil controversy, even as hundreds of protesters defy armed soldiers to attend their funerals? It was never supposed to go that far, never. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So according to your argument List of victims of Second World War, List of victims of September 11 attacks would be legitimate articles. Closing admin please note.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do note, as per searches above, that many of these victims are the subject of individual news coverage. Now it is true that if we had a complete, accurate list of all the victims of the second World War, I'd want us to maintain it as a useful resource — but that's beside the point. Here there are major news articles about the deaths of these specific named individuals. Many of the people on the list would pass WP:GNG in their own right. If forced to draw a line between "few named deaths" and "many unnamed deaths", we should draw it where the media stop reporting on people as individuals, and where the only reliable sources available are sources that are involved in trying to compile complete lists. Wnt (talk) 18:11, 22 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) 14:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wesley 300: pioneers, preachers and practitioners[edit]

John Wesley 300: pioneers, preachers and practitioners (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 publication, the references are all supporting material in the book, NOT the notability of the book itself which clearly fails WP:NBOOK. PROD was disputed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The book is clearly non-notable. Some of the information may be merged into Methodism#Caribbean. I also have doubts about the Woodie Blackman article. StAnselm (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:BOOK, which is why I PRODded this in the first place. I also have doubts about Woodie Blackman. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadads (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A review of WP:JUSTAVOTE may help in participating in deletion discussions. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cindamuse (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am highly suspicious of an attempt to delete an article only 2 days after that article was created. I suggest that the author of the page be given a reasonable chance to improve the article, (not everyone comes into Wikipaedia every day or every week - some people have real lives to lead). While the book may have limited notability for most of us, it is entirely possible that, given the topic of the book, it has regional notability in parts of the Caribbean. This knee-jerk attempt to delete a book article reeks of book-burning. BlueRobe (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please keep the hyperbole out of this. Not having an article about a book in no way equates with book-burning. The article was fully-formed, and even at that early stage it was clear that it fails WP:BOOK Get over yourself, for pity's sake. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure you appreciate the the meaning of "hyperbole". Or "metaphor". And calm down. BlueRobe (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of how this would meet notability for books. I can find no critical reviews, or coverage aboutt he book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- This is a slim book on the history of Methodism in the West Indies. My question is, 'What else is there on the subject'. However, I would be happier with an article on Methodism in the West Indies, which might rely on this book as one of its major sources. A number of references have eben added, but I suspect they are not concerned with the book, but are references for its content. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I do not understand your keep rationale. The references in the article do indeed verify the content of the book rather than covering book as they mostly predate the publication of the book. The book may cover a notable subject, and may be useful as a reference, but that doesn't make th book notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The book is not notable. WorldCat shows only 9 holdings, which is absurdly low, even for the most specialized interest. The article on the author needs some very serious pruning, and I am about to do it. It will be easier to judge notability after that--but he does have other books with more library holdings.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Delete but if I were an interested party I would request WP:USERFICATION before (preferably) or after the discussion close and then rewrite it with other sources, easily Googled, to be mainspaced under the title "Methodism in the West Indies", which as a topic would pass notability in a flash. The three "p"'s should be "P"'s of course. JJB 05:56, 24 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pata[edit]

Henry Pata (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. Although a source has been added since I first came across it, the article is still in a very poor state, and (unless we have started to indiscriminantly allow any article that includes the "f" word) makes no assertion of passing the general notability guideline. The source that has been added is sufficient to establish that the article is not a hoax, but little more. --WFC-- 22:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep new research establishes notability. GiantSnowman 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Without fully pro appearances, he fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep. Played in a top level South American league (if only it stated that in the first place). Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The club where he plays is a professional club (see Club_Deportivo_El_Nacional) playing in Ecuadorian Serie A, which is described as "the top level of professional football in Ecuador". Also, not surprisingly, cited in numerous news articles --Cyclopiatalk 23:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To argue keep based on ATHLETE would require independent verification of the league's professional status. It would be difficult to argue general notability of a player unless it can be proven that coverage is more than routine. Undeniably you have provided quite a few links, but it's depth of coverage that we're looking for. --WFC-- 00:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Federación_Ecuatoriana_de_Fútbol is a member of CONMEBOL ( http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/activeCountry.html?x=2&sub=2 ). And here on the FIFA website, it appears that "Primera A" (the league) is indeed under the F.E.F. The team website indicates that the team played the Copa Libertadores several times and the Copa Conmebol twice. --Cyclopiatalk 00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If Pata has played in the continental competitions, that would have a bearing on his notability. But there is no assertion of that. None of the links you have provided demonstrate that it is a professional league. Liechtenstein is a member of UEFA. More reasonable comparisons with Ecuador might include Bosnia, Canada, both Irish nations and Vietnam. --WFC-- 01:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I understand correctly your comparison, you mean that Liechtenstein premier league is not professional,even if it is member of UEFA. Why so? I'm honestly confused. --Cyclopiatalk 13:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • What's confusing about the fact that professionalism is not a requirement for UEFA membership? Do you seriously think that a country with a population of 35,000 could sustain a fully professional league? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd like to see a definition of "professional league" at this point. --Cyclopiatalk 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • In any case, this seems to imply that the Ecuadorian leagues are professional. I'll keep looking. --Cyclopiatalk 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to those who have questioned whether the subject has played in a fully professional league. Are you saying that this player has not played in Serie A de Ecuador, or are you saying that that league is not fully professional? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter. --WFC-- 00:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (although I should point out that unlike the majority of football editors, I do actually expect article subjects to demonstrate that they pass the WP:GNG. --WFC-- 00:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
      • My question wasn't actually addressed to you, as you didn't base your argument on the subject not having played in a fully professional league. I'd still like to hear from those who did make such an argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel able to answer on their behalf because I know from experience that all of the above editors tend to follow this list. But if you want specific editors to reply, you should probably invite them back to the discussion. --WFC-- 01:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It appears that this article should be at Henry Patta as that is the most commonly used name in reliable sources. He has played in Ecuador's top flight league (likely a fully-pro league, although I'm not 100% certain) and has been covered in Ecuadorean media. I'll start expanding the article a bit as time allows. Jogurney (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done some more research and his career to date has been less impressive than his brother. He's been a leading scorer in the second division, but hasn't been a fixture in the first division (although he's played two seasons and scored at least one goal during 2008 per RSSSF). I think the article probably will pass the GNG, but it might be closer than I initially thought. Jogurney (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has played in notable top-level league in South America and appears to meet GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep looking at gnews and in the links above there has been demonstration of independent coverage, independent of whether he has played in a professional league or not. I'm unsure whether it is rutine or not, but some of the articles seem to go into greater depth (however i am not sure of the respectability of various south-american newspapers). I'm glad the arguments here appeal to outside coverage and not a generic list. Sandman888 (talk) 09:04, 21 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) 00:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill T Miller[edit]

Bill T Miller (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)

Entirely unverified BLP, consisting mainly of unverified namedropping and unencyclopedic claims to fame. Google Books offers up one or two hits--but those are not available full text and they seem to be no more than mentions. Since no sources are provided (except for the obligatory MySpace page) and I can't find any, delete. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of verifiable notability established through significant coverage through reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are several websites that mention the subject, but a review shows that none are independent of the subject and primarily include closely affiliated websites and social networking sites. Cindamuse (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "BTM is currently editing a DVD of the last five decades of his thrills and doing live webcasts on BTMTELEVISION.com from his Headroom Recording Studios in Allston/Boston." Please. Not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:00, 21 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 and redirect to Successive approximation ADC. NW (Talk) 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analog-to-digital conversion with SAR[edit]

Analog-to-digital conversion with SAR (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)

If you look at the article history before I copyedited it, you can see that this article was created as an essay/school project. "Our interest focuses", "We will give", "We propose", etc. The text was copied wholesale from the french version, its unreferenced, and gives no assertion of nobility. This is not a real field, and shouldn't have its own article. Nolelover 22:00, 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 merge to Starscream (Transformers). Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starscream (other incarnations)[edit]

Starscream (other incarnations) (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. An unhealthy dose of original research as well. Lacking in credible sources. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article is currently being improved and has pleanty of sources. Mathewignash (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge it needs improvement if merged. It should be to Starscream (Transformers) but if this kept to it needs fancruft taken. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with relevant character lists per Schroeder's arguments. If certain character lists aren't available, then create them. Sarujo (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally baffled by this strange page. It's not an article and it's not even an independent non-article. Apparently it's a subpage of ... of ... a disambiguation page??? Hans Adler 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Starscream (Transformers), having this as a separate page is frankly ludicrous. They're the same character. It could actually be speedied under A10. Black Kite (t) (c), 00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Starscream (Transformers) and excise uncitable content in the process. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BANNAD SOCK PUPPET NOMINATION - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Book sources and fansites are of poor quality.[3]. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to original Starscream page. Although, Beast Wars II Starscream shouldn't be here, so that section can be removed entirely. TransTech and Shattered Glass Starscream don't deserve their own sections, being fan club and convention stuff. At most, each of those two should get one sentence. NotARealWord (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge would be good addition to Starscream page. 71.255.55.63 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article was nominated by a blocked sockpuppet user. --Alpha Quadrant talk 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant talk 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and don't redirect to Starscream (Transformers). Excessively crufty. SnottyWong talk 22:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable character with so much information that it was a valid content split from the main article. Too long to merge. If the notability of the main article is proven, then the side article to hold the spell off is fine. Many appearances in toylines, comics, cartoons, etc. over the years, in many notable series. Dream Focus 00:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just because there's a lot of information, doesn't mean that all of it belongs here. This page has examples of what kind of info doesn't belong. NotARealWord (talk) 06:48, 24 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 one has provided legitimate and independent coverage. To put it very simply, no notability, no article. Courcelles 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razorclaw[edit]

Razorclaw (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 Gobots prod. I'm taking this one all the way. Delete. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy-based reason to suggest deletion of this article?  Frank  |  talk  21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a contested PROD, sir. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying "dermatitis is a rash". It doesn't explain why you think the article doesn't belong.  Frank  |  talk  21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the nominators baffling refusal to give the reason for their nomination, the original PROD rationale was "No notability asserted, appears to be a few toys only". Hope that helps. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really helpful; the PROD was declined, so its original reasoning has already been rejected. That's why a deletion discussion is started. However, there still needs to be a policy-based reason to delete the article.  Frank  |  talk  22:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fairly usual when bringing a declined prod to afd to provide the reasoning. The nominator didn't, so I did. Helpfully, one might say. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has sources from magazines, and it's not even about a gobot. The nominator needs to relax, breath, and get a life outside random deletion nominations. Mathewignash (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple of mentions of a toy in obscure magazines does not make this subject notable. If the article was in an even remotely decent shape, I may be more prone to support retention, but it simply isn't. It's lists of trivia, masses of plot details and swathes of non-free images. Whether it's about a Gobot or not isn't really that important. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If fails WP:NOTABILITY AND WP:RS Dwanyewest (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep when people write books about characters it`s notable [4] mark nutley (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Licensed by: Hasbro"—not an independent source. Deor (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Could you tell me which of the four books and magazines used as sources in this article are licensed by Hasbro? Because none of them are! The article about the Beast Wars Sourcebook is citing the critic web site which talks about the book, not the book itself. Mathewignash (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A Razorclaw toy even got on a "Dirty Dozen" list by some parent group as being inappropriate for small children because it was too violent. Must keep the page if only to spite them! Mathewignash (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No reliable independent sources. Reyk YO! 22:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources include [5], [6], [7]. Thinking something is stupid is not a reason for deletion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bemused Keep?. This robot has "projectile-launching attack wings, firing battle quills" and "launching cannons." Since this is a toy for pre-schoolers, it has "missiles [that] fit in hands for hand-to-hand battle!" To introduce even younger children to this brand, Hasbro markets a Playskool version called Transformer Go-Bots targeting three-year-olds and their parents. (from the Dirty Dozen citation). Nobody's using this article to market the toy. A lot of effort seems to have been expended. I'd let this live for another day for now and get the problematic issues worked on. I'd like to see the folks involved with Wikiproject Transformers weigh in on this. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete. Hans Adler's arguments below have convinced me this is not notable and deserving of deletion. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Transformers wikiproject is dead or almost dead. I'd hardly expect any improvements from them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's funny since we recently had lively debate the last few weeks on improving the sources and formatting of the articles under the project, and even started work on his one, by removing the excess pictures, adding several notable references, and removing the "toys lists". Dead? No. Perhaps we are "undead"? Mathewignash (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article page has an amazing size and looks superficially like a Wikipedia article. But it isn't. I am not sure what it is – fan fiction? pure marketing? Example: "The stage was now set for the Predacons' appearance in the U.S. title, and appear they did, shortly after Optimus Prime perished in a virtual duel with Megatron. Megatron himself had begun to descend into paranoid insanity, and Shockwave summoned the Predacons back to Earth and had them pose as Autobots, planning to have them hunt Megatron as part of a scheme to once again seize command of the Decepticons from Megatron (the UK comic rewrote some of the dialogue in its reprint of this issue to make it appear to be the Predacons' second trip to Earth). The plan did not go smoothly, however, as Megatron defeated them all, even in their combined form of Predaking. [...]" Whatever it is, it doesn't belong here. My search for actual references that could establish notability hasn't turned up anything useful other than wikis (yes, more than one!) dedicated to this "Transformers" stuff which I have no doubt will be happy to accept this page if it isn't already present there.
In spite of its humungous size and the heaps of work that must have gone into the page, it doesn't even make an effort to prove notability. The sources mentioned on the page are as useless as what my independent search turned up. Why didn't anyone stop these kids earlier? Hans Adler 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An afterthought: Maybe some of this stuff can be described in a list of all of these, um, whatever they are. That's how we deal with Lego sets, for example. With some luck you can find sufficient reliable sources to justify a short paragraph and a photo for a few representative ones of these things. (Probably not more due to fair use restrictions, but I am not an expert.) Hans Adler 23:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hans Adler. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - More fanboy-cruft to sift though. Game guides, toy guides, fan forums and the like are not reliable sources sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Standard fictional biography, just like any character from Lost or CSI. The shows themselves are the source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't do biographies on fictional subjects, as this wouldn't present them from a real-world perspective. That several parts of the site still don't follow the Pokemon consensus (including such bastions of fancruft as our coverage of CSI, Lost and The Sporanos) is not an argument to exacerbate that problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely, and we only have articles on fictional subjects when there's something other than a fictional biography/in-universe trivia to present. J Milburn (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another unreferenced advertizing for another Chinese plastic toy. If an unsigned rant from an advocacy site [8] is the most "reliable source" of the bunch, it is unsourced. And it's still a cheapo plastic toy, probably with hazardous dies and fumes in it. East of Borschov 02:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination rationale is sound. Stop trying to disrupt running AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The Prod being removed is a reason to move to AfD, but it is not a rationale for why the article should be deleted. Obviously, the nominator hadn't even read the article, which makes it clear the sunject is not a Gobot. Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's disingenuous - a prod notice being removed means that one editor disagrees with deletion - therefore its prudent for the original prodder to bring it to AfD, with the same rationale, to get community consensus. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - The orignal PRODer did not nominate this article for deletion. Black Kite PRODed it, and then I added some references and removed the PROD, then some unrelated SOCKPUPPET nominated it for deletion along with about a dozen other pages, all of which he incorrectly identified as Gobots, before being discovered and blocked (for having a half dozen puppets!) Mathewignash (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I think it's time for you to start accepting that it simply makes no difference for this AfD whether this page is related to Quashluxers, Transformers, Quaintblubbers, Targomulzers, Gobots, shoes, human input devices, newspapers, palm trees, insects, or whatever else. The question is not whether this topic belongs to one television series or toy range that is unknown to virtually every adult who is not raising a child in the US, or the other.The question is whether the topic is notable, and we have criteria for verifying notability. Do you have an idea how many individual toy soldiers Elastolin produced in Germany c. 1920-1945? They were immensely popular, and of course there was advertising for them and they appear in collector's catalogues. There are several online communities for them even now that most children who originally played with them are pensioners. Do you think it would be reasonable to have a separate article for every one of them? I don't. And since notability is not temporary precisely the same rules apply to your favourite toys. (To clarify: I have nothing to do with Elastolin toys and only know about the topic through my research for Pigeon photographer, an article that depicts one of these toys.) Hans Adler 08:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • You should read before you post. The statement was made above about the original proder making it a nomination. So I responded that the nomination was not made by the original proder. It was made by a sock puppet who was making seemingly random nominations based on a movie quote he linked to me, a rant about "gobots" in a movie he liked. If you let this stand you might as well allow a random number generator or monkeys to make deletion nominations on Wikipedia then argue "well, a monkey nominated it, but other editors voted on it, so it has to stand." Mathewignash (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't interrupt an AfD on an article that obviously needs to be deleted just because there was something wrong with the nominator, or the prodder, or whatever. If some borderline lunatic admin tried that stunt, they would certainly get into trouble, and I guess I wouldn't be the only one trying to be the first to re-nominate the article. You have nothing to win with this line of argument, except perhaps a few more days for this page and an even greater incentive for a lot of editors to clean up the entire mess. How many more "Transformers" are there? Hundreds? Thousands? It's mind-boggling. Three to ten sounds like a reasonable range, but of course we will have to discuss each page's notability or lack thereof separately. Hans Adler 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • A removed prod in itself is of course no valid deletion rationale, but complete and utter irrelevance of a topic is, and if it is as obvious as in this case a detailed rationale is not necessary per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. If articles are immune to being proposed for deletion just because the nominator doesn't understand them, then I have a few pet topics to write about. I have no idea what "transformers" or "gobots" are, and I don't have to, to see that the article is written in in-universe style, doesn't offer a single encyclopedic fact that would be discernible from the article without extreme pain, and doesn't cite a single reliable source of the type that would contribute to notability. I can also search for "razorclaw" and "transformers" and verify that nothing remotely useful to establish notability comes up without having an idea what this is about. That's how Wikipedia works. If it was different, there would be no way of getting rid of separate articles about the various types of screws (separate articles for different lengths and diameters, of course) used in the fabrication of late-20th century Vietnamese hand looms. Or indeed of articles on "razorclaws". Hans Adler 13:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Predacons True, it is not notable. This does not mean we should DELETE THE HELL OUT OF IT instead of REDIRECTING TO THE EXISTING ARTICLES THAT MORE OR LESS COVER THE SUBJECT. --Divebomb (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any particular reason for choosing that article? There is predacons, predacon (Transformers) (to which predacon is a redirect), and also List of Predacons. None of them has any information suggesting that this, um, topic, is even notable. Hans Adler 20:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because that page covers the Generation One subgroup known as the Predacons, which this character is a part of. (BTW, we need to merge some of those pages.) --Divebomb (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would rather think we need to redirect them all to Transformers, as there is no evidence of notability of the topic. Hans Adler 08:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Noooooo. If anything, Predacons should be redirected to List of Decepticons, and Predacon (Transformers) to List of Predacons. --Divebomb (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Decepticons"? It's getting more and more absurd. Neither Decepticon nor List of Decepticons makes any claim of notability, either. Hans Adler 12:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually the Transformer named Predacon is NOT a Predacon. It's just his name. He's a Decepticon. Mathewignash (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Then the article needs to be rewritten. Because I fail to see how the primary antagonists of a 26-year-long franchise aren't notable. Unless, of course, Wikipedia has majorly cranked up the notability requirements while I wasn't looking. --Divebomb (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Certain editors have done EXACTLY that and have been deleting articles based on "lack of notability". We lost The Ark, The Nemesis, Energon, Beachcomber and couple dozen other articles already, and more are nominated for deletion like this one. Mathewignash (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I removed the excessive images and the toy lists today. Should improve the article. Mathewignash (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having read both the discussion so far and the article itself, I find myself no wiser. Why is being a 'Gobot' so damning? Does one need a degree (well, they give degrees in everything now...) to understand Transformers? "Actually the Transformer named Predacon is NOT a Predacon. It's just his name." That sank me. (Presumably he's not a Gobot.) Personally, I've never seen the point or attraction of Transformers, and nor has any kid associated with me so far. (Warhammer and HeroQuest are quite another matter...) However, they do seem to have an appeal, or the manufacturers wouldn't keep making the damn things. Why is there thought to be a need for a separate article on this lot, and why is it thought to be non-notable? (Two questions for the price of one - pick the one you prefer.) Please don't leave me so confused. Peridon (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer - As to the Predacon is not a Predacon thing, Hasbro owns the trademarks to certain words, and uses them periodically for different things to prove they are still being used, to protect them legally. They have used the word "Predacon" several times in the past. Back in 1986 it was "The Predacons" was the name of 5 "evil robots" who turned into animals, this page is about the leader of those five robots. They have have also used the word "Predacons" years later to describe a different group of "evil robots" in another TV series called "Beast Wars".... then years after that, probably to keep the name active on their trademark list, they made a character for the Transformers: Armada series whose name was "Predacon", but he wasn't a member of any Predacon "group", he was a Decepticon! This article is primarely about the first one, the notable one, the lead bad guy from a TV series, named Razorclaw, who was leader of the "Predacons". I know it sounds like a Monty Python sketch - do you mind if we call you Bruce? Anyways this isn't the only example... There is a group of characters is called "The Insections" in one series, but in another series there is an individual whose name is "Insecticon".... in one series there is a group of characters called "The Dinobots" and in another series there is a character is named "Dinobot". Hasbro's legal department keeping the names in use is at fault. Mathewignash (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I think... So, this 'character' is a (?)faction leader? Must look into these things. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, leader of the original Predacons from 1986. If he was to be deleted I'd recomend a direct to Predacons, since that page mentions him by name as the leader and gives a short couple sentences about him. Mathewignash (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources seem available, in article or online, that would confer independent notability, thus it fails GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment- Its been long established that transformers fansites, forums and some books [9] are unreliable sources of information. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - It's a good thing that the magazines and books cited by this article are reliable sources then. Mathewignash (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Character has had multiple incarnations across several series. The character has also been the focus of several stories itself. --Polaron | Talk 18:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but HOW does that contention address notability? Notability has to be established. The contention that there is complexity in the infoverse is interesting, but is it compelling? Is it encyclopedic? I'm convinced the fanboys may obfuscate enough to keep this around (kind of like every single Lego kit deserves an article), but I've been convinced by the arguments that this is something that deserves to be deleted and placed on the appropriate fan site. My opinion (which originally was Bemused Keep but is now this is not notable for an encyclopedia entry) now informs me that this is fanboyadulationcruftcruft. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be from the sources cited on the page - GameAxis Unwired - July 2007 - Page 99, Alvarez, J.E. (2001). The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s Revised & Expanded 2nd Edition. Schiffer Publishing Ltd.. p. 48. ISBN 0764313649. Figure King magazine issue 150 page 24, Toyfare Magazine April 1998 AND http://www.lionlamb.org/dirtydozen2004.htm | The Dirty Dozen - Violent Toys, Video Games and DVDs to Avoid in 2003-2004 Mathewignash (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the merits, Delete; there isn't enough here to show that this particular character is notable enough. A redirect or merge might be worthwhile, if a good target is found. On a procedural note, though, I have to say that this appears to be one of the laziest nominations I've seen; if you're going to delete an article, at least take the 2 minutes necessary to figure out whether it's a Go-Bot or a Transformer. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:18, 23 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) 00:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Agudelo[edit]

Richard Agudelo (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 not established by reliable sources, with article lately being used for promotion, evidently by its subject. JNW (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a completely honest and open representation of Richard Agudelo and there is not one mistake in it. I would appreciate a proper unbiased review of the facts stated here. Many Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricagu (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be a notable artist, and article reads like a vanity piece. Not quite eligible for {{speedy}} deletion. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is blatant ad copy, with its subject edit warring and refusing to discuss why several reams of advertising aren't appropriate. The first comment here, added by the article's author/subject, does not address the issues raised. Şłџğģő 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ricagu has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Şłџğģő 22:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ricagu has had his 48-hour block restarted for sockpuppeting. Şłџğģő 20:11, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention[edit]

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

An IP user flagged up this article as possibly being promotional on my talk page.[10] Looking into it, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources (others might do better, I only found event listings), so I think that the suspicion of the IP was correct - this is promotional copy for a non-notable event. Fences&Windows 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The various mentions of this event in other articles may also be promotional. Fences&Windows 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also shows up by searching without a hyphen, yielding 41 results of what looks like the same promotional editing.75.4.193.237 (talk) 23:53, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jolie Hair and Beauty Academy[edit]

Jolie Hair and Beauty Academy (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)

Searched for RS, couldn't find any; not subject to A7 speedy because A7 not applicable to schools, including trade schools TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:31, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyride (Transformers)[edit]

Joyride (Transformers) (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)

Another obscure, non-notable Gobots character. Is wikipedia run for the benefit of fifth graders? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Keep - This page has no Gobots on it. The nominator is ignorant and should read the articles before posting nominations. Mathewignash (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a dead YouTube video and a dodgy websites are poor sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Joyride worked with a task force under Nightbeat and Getaway during the Age of Internment, in hopes of capturing and studying one of Megatron's cloned warriors, the Aerospace Extermination Squadron. I can't think of a better rationale other than, perhaps, that it is simply not notable. Hans Adler 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Standard fictional biography, just like any character from Lost or CSI. The shows themselves are the source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lost and CSI both have extensive coverage in reliable sources, this doesn't. Also, A big cookie to Hans Adler for literally making me laugh out loud. :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BANNAD SOCK PUPPET NOMINATION - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hans Adler presented a gem of a rationale. Lots of "age of internment" noise, no demostration of notability. Rubber ducks are cool, these things aren't. East of Borschov 08:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Autobots. --Divebomb (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure that page should exist, either. No reliable sources other than two patents for toy cars. A patent does not establish notability. Autobot is no more help, the only source possibly independent of the manufacturer being a strange website. Hans Adler 20:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the group article Powermasters. Without an appearance in any TV series, this character is not particularly notable. Another option would be to merge this with Ranger (Transformers). --Polaron | Talk 17:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Either would be reasonable, but keeping this is a non-starter. Two sources, both unreliable, and I can't find any other useful coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:36, 22 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groundshaker (Transformers)[edit]

Groundshaker (Transformers) (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 Gobots article. Fails GNG and all wikipedian standards. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedurial Keep - This page isn't about a gobot, and the nominator seems to be oblivious.Mathewignash (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's called a joke, humans have been known to do them from time to time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. Does it really matter whether it's a Gobot? J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Poor notability and sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- no real notability asserted or demonstrated, sourcing is very poor. The creator and defender of this article really needs to learn the importance of proper sourcing. Reyk YO! 22:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found a source [11]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently a comics-only character, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The same holds as for this Razorclaws(?) thing, except in this case not even the fans seem to consider it that notable. Or is it just more recent? Anyway, we don't need an article on red 2x4 Lego bricks, or on individual Lego sets, and we don't have such articles. It's a pity, actually, because I would like to read them all. But then it isn't, because they are simply not notable and we must draw the line somewhere. There are special wikis for this kind of thing. Either take it there, or at least cover many of these things together in a list, giving each a paragraph or so. That way it should be much easier to find a source or two that establishes notability. Hans Adler 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BANNAD SOCK PUPPET NOMINATION - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome to pretend I nominated it if it makes you feel better. Unless there's a big change, it'll end up deleted, there's not really any reason to drag it out. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The one source find above appears to demonstrate existance, not notability. Mathewignash - attempting to end the deletion process for two different procedural reasons is unlikely to be as effective as bringing forward good reasons why the article should be kept. --Korruski (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Redirect to Micromasters - Not really notable, but should be redirected to that page. --Divebomb (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure that page should exist, either. It has only one reference, and without seeing that it's hard to form an opinion. According to Amazon it's directed to children of age 9–12, and the reviews are not promising. Hans Adler 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the group article Micromasters. The character is not independently notable in any Transformers series that it appeared in. --Polaron | Talk 17:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He was the #2 protaganist in the Dreamwave Micromasters comic book series. Mathewignash (talk) 01:18, 21 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 this AfD was started by a banned user, the subject simply does not have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Three of the "keep" !votes are based on the (inadequate) sourcing, while RAN's was WP:WAX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warpath (Transformers)[edit]

Warpath (Transformers) (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)

Original research, go-bots spamcruft, non notable, fails GNG, fails pretty much all civilised standards. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This page isn't about a Gobot, and the nominator seems to be going around nominating articles based on some Gobot-hate spree. Mathewignash (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So anyone has the temerity to nominate an article to delete is must because of pure hatred of fiction. Nothing to with the fact the article, has a severe lack of reliable third person sources. The only source is WP:FANSITE, and questionable notability. Notability isn't inherent. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in this ONE particular case, he is going on some gobot hate spree. He's nominating a bunch of articles and calling them "gobots". Mathewignash (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep another primary character from the first 2-3 seasons of the TV show. Sources [12], [13]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only 'reliable source' that I have found is a book consisting entirely of Wikipedia articles. [14] This is not quite what usually goes by that term. Hans Adler 23:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Who nominated this page is totally irrelevant for the question whether this stuff belongs into an encyclopedia or not. Hans Adler 09:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Standard fictional biography, just like any character from Lost or CSI. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- the nominator is a sockpuppet of Torkmann, but this should not detract from the fact that the nomination is accurate. As Hans points out, the sourcing is hopelessly inadequate. Reyk YO! 03:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BANNAD SOCK PUPPET NOMINATION - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Nobody knew Donald was a sockpuppet when this AFD was started, and several people have made good-faith comments based on the merits of the article so a procedural close is now out of the question. Reyk YO! 08:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources improved - I just spent a couple minutes looking online for some sources for Warpath as a notable character and added them. Mathewignash (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blogs and marketing websites do not establish notability. It's hard to tell what kind of website IGN is, but it doesn't look like the kind that would prove notability. As there is still no evidence of notability, I see no reason to change my !vote. Hans Adler 21:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC) PS: I just saw that the IGN thing is a press release. They don't count anyway. A lot of publications publish almost every press release you send them. Hans Adler 21:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important secondary character who has had a couple of stories focused on itself. --Polaron | Talk 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean we are supposed to keep the article because it's about a fictional character that appeared in several primary sources? I don't think that's a valid argument. Hans Adler 20:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you expect from inclusionist fanboys the argument is always it it exists so therefore it's inherently notable. Wikipedia's policy on verfication clearly states

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:44, 22 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 Quarl (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Worst Summer Ever[edit]

Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Worst Summer Ever (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)

Book will be released next year; too far in the future, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Derild4921☼ 20:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Da'Fuck? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant hoax. There may not even be a 6th book in the series and even if there is there is no reason to assume that it will have this title or follow this plot. As soon as a new Wimpy Kid book comes out we get a slew of idiotic articles created with speculative titles and content concerning the next book. It always turns out to be pure bullshit. The real plots are never revealed in advance but people just make the stuff up. We must have deleted at least half a dozen pointless hoax articles about alleged titles and plots for the fifth book before the real title was revealed. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 100% a hoax. The 6th book is "A New Life". It comes out next year. SilverserenC 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reference for that? I suspect that you will find that "A New Life" is actually a just variant of "My New Life", which was one of the most persistent hoax titles suggested for book 5, and hence either yet another hoax or maybe a misunderstanding born of the confusion created by previous hoaxes. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no, it's just what I heard. But I am fairly certain that this article will not be the title. And, even if it is, there are no reliable sources available to prove it (or even unreliable ones), so we should delete regardless. SilverserenC 04:10, 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 speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of floods in Bangladesh[edit]

List of floods in Bangladesh (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 was hesitant to nominate this page for deletion as I'm sure a good list of floods in Bangladesh could be created. However, I think that the current article has no useable content and there does not seem to be anyone currently interested in creating such a list. The article was previously proposed for deletion about a year ago. At the time, I saw that the article had no actual content, but instead just consisted of links to non-existent sections within the article. The article creator hadn't edited it in over a year and there were no other substantive edits. I nominated the article for speedy deletion as having no content, but User:DGG declined the speedy nomination and the prod. However, he had mistakenly thought the links in the article went to actual content, rather than being to non-existent sections of the article (see here). When I pointed out that it actually had no real content, DGG changed one of the links to go to an article on flooding in Bangladesh in 1999. However, I think that just made the article more confusing, as there is now one good link mixed in with over 100 links that look blue but go nowhere. I informed Wikiproject Bangladesh of this list here about a year ago, but my post got no replies and no one has edited the article since. As there are only two floods in Category:Floods in Bangladesh and not enough content at Floods in Bangladesh to split out into a separate list, I don't think this article could be made into anything useable until someone knowledgeable on the subject decides to do work on it. Since I don't think the content in the current version will be useful once someone does get around to creating such a list, and as keeping the article around would wrongly suggest we have a list of floods in Bangladesh when we really don't yet, I think the current article should just be deleted. Calathan (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Per criteria A3, as the article has no content besides links to non-existant sections. Yoenit (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Meets speedy criteria, nothing but links elsewhere. Two years was ample time to make it into something useful. GregorB (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Yoenit is right - this meets A3 and has had long enough. Nolelover 22:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a useless and incomplete list, with no real content. – sampi (talk•contrib•email) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, per A3. The topic is important, and some day someone will take some time to write it. Right now, it's a blank page, and there is no point in keeping it. --Ragib (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A3 per above—Chris!c/t 03:02, 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 redirect to Lindsay Lohan discography. Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lindsay Lohan songs[edit]

List of Lindsay Lohan songs (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)

Already covered by Lindsay Lohan discography. Contains rumor and un-officially released songs as well. Issues with reliable sources. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom note: Discovered during NPP, Proded (and contested). Bringing to AfD as next step Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take a look at the Sources. I believe that Livejournal is not a reliable source. Most of the content is already present at the above referenced main source. Hasteur (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous keep was from a, now indeffed, sock puppet. Closing admin take into consideration. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 13:39, 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 redirect to Fra_Diavolo_(1933_film)#Earsy-kneesy-nosey. Content already merged Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earsy-kneesy-nosey[edit]

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

Article is about a game/joke in a Laurel and Hardy film. I'm a big fan of the duo with hundreds of edits in their articles but I can't see how this game is notable so I have sent it to afd. The joke was a one off and not used in any other films. It just isn't important in the L&H world. The article was created by an established editor who declined a prod a couple of years ago. I have looked for cites but there are just a few trivial mentions, this can't change. Szzuk (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Merge and Redirect Per precedent for other such, as a now sourced plot device noted for its use by Stan Laurel in Fra Diavolo (1933 film), let's merge this to that film and set a redirect. As the article's author has shown, this comic device used by Stan Laurel is now part of the enduring albeit minor record of early film and comedy history. Is it earth-shattering in importance? No. But the comic device did not die in 1933 and still is of interest even after 75+ years.[15] The project is best served by placing the information where it has its historical context. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I have merged. Szzuk (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just gave the merged section some tweaks for tense and context.[16]. Nice job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and it reads better after your tweaks. Szzuk (talk) 22:30, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Nettles[edit]

Bonnie Nettles (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:Notability. According to the article she seems to have been the tragic love interest of the notorious Marshall Applewhite of the Heavens Gate cult. However there does not seem to be much known about her besides that. The information in the article could be included in his article, or in the article on the group. Wolfview (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I checked out some of those and they seem to be saying what's in the article already, which is her importance to Applewhite. I don't see anything about her being notable on her own. Wolfview (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Significant discussion is given in multiple of the WP:RS secondary sources listed above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added two references, though I have to go to class right now. I'll get back to working on it later, but it seems quite clear to me that the subject is notable, as being the reason for the creation of the cult in the first place. SilverserenC 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between being "important" and being "notable" (In WPspeak). President Obama's liver is extremely important, but WP is probably not going to have an article on it. Also what information is going to be in this article that will not also be in Applewhite's?Wolfview (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't compare a person to someone's liver, even if that liver belongs to the President. If you look at Applewhite's article, you'd see that there really isn't all that much about Nettles in it...at all. There's really only a few sentences and then the article continues to discuss things that Applewhite did, as that article is about him. The extended information about Nettles in this article (and the other information that can be added to it) would not fit being merged into the article about Applewhite, as it would give undue weight to information not about the subject. The notability of Nettles is established from a myriad of sources, you can't deny that. SilverserenC 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've rewritten the entire article and formatted it. SilverserenC 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The article is much better. I still favor delete because she is only notable in relation to Applewhite and the group. The information in this article would have to be repeated in both of the other articles. Why make readers read the same information multiple times? Also if the others had not commited mass suicide 12 years later no one would be talking about Nettles. She wasn't notable during her life. Wolfview (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the recent rewrite. The article as it stands now appears to show the requisite amount of coverage to meet WP:BIO. If consensus is against keeping this, at the very least it should be merged into the group's article. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While her early death means that she was not directly involved in the events that made the cult of which she was a co-founder notorious, she was nonetheless instrumental in its creation. It's a frivolous comparison, but I think of the Marx Brothers; Gummo left show business before the brothers became movie stars, but he's still notable... Robertissimo (talk) 06:42, 23 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) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey_Meziane[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tracey_Meziane (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 indication of notability. Could find nothing in Gnews or database search on the subject. Appears, based on simple google search, to be at least partially autobiographical.

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Na. Someshwar[edit]

Na. Someshwar (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)

Television personality who fails WP:N. Unsourced, advertising. Article is partially copied from this [17] article. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:31, 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 discussion closed as article already deleted under WP:CSD G3.[18] (non-admin closure)—Chris!c/t 03:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mung & Truffles[edit]

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

I can't find any results on Google, no references or citations. I assume that this article is a hoax. JJ98 (Talk) 17:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. That would be a highly elaborate hoax. There are some YouTube clips that look like the real deal to me. GregorB (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh, those are still pictures from Chowder. Don't be gullible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete hoax, a kids' show set to premiere this fall would have some reliable sources by now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 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. I'm sympathetic to the view that discussions concerning redirecting/merging should generally stay on talk pages but in addition to the nomination, we have two delete !voters with WP:NOTDIC concerns. However, the nominator has pointed out that the material may be "encyclopedic" (I hate that word) by recommending targets that it can be merged to. Therefore, this page will likely exist as either an article or a redirect and there's no consensus for the delete button to be hit at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muad'Dib[edit]

Muad'Dib (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)

Redirect to List of Dune terminology#M, which adequately defines the term and its uses in the series. This "article" merely overblows the concept and this "topic" on its own does not and never will satisfy WP:Notability. Most of this information is also covered in some way as part of other articles anyway. — TAnthonyTalk 17:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote the List of Dune terminology entry:

Muad'Dib – "The adapted kangaroo mouse of Arrakis, a creature associated in the Fremen earth-spirit mythology with a design visible on the planet's second moon. This creature is admired by Fremen for its ability to survive in the open desert." In Dune, Paul Atreides takes "Muad'Dib" as his Fremen name, which takes on greater significance when he is perceived as a messiah.

I feel like that says it all. Do we really need a whole article about that? Seriously? — TAnthonyTalk 22:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's not clear, Paul Atreides and Muad'Dib are the same character, so the analysis of the messianic nature of Muad'Dib is analysis about Paul. Why two articles? The alternative uses of Muad'Dib are ancillary and do not merit their own article, rather they can be (and for the most part already are) incorptated into Paul Atreides.— TAnthonyTalk 04:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Muad'Dib is a term with multiple applications within Frank Herbert's Dune universe. Dune is not only about ecology, but also about power of religion. Some say that the ambiguous vocabulary was intended to generate discussion; it is completely up to each individual reader to interpret.
    1. . The stub is supported by references. Not bad for a stub.
    2. . Similar Dune term Kwisatz Haderach, is not considered for deletion. Many other items in list of terminology have main articles (a, b00, b01, b10, ... list goes on). I would agree though that some terms have much deeper meaning and notability than others.
    3. . The stub has following foreign language siblings: Español Français Norsk (bokmål) Polski Português Русский Maybe English Wikipedia also could use one. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying the article is unsourced, it could have 50 citations but the actual material doesn't meet the requirements for an article to exist. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists regarding your Kwisatz Haderach point, that's not really a strong argument. That topic is actually somewhat flimsy and should probably be merged into Bene Gesserit. And the sister articles are no doubt just copies of this one, doesn't mean a thing.— TAnthonyTalk 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have also still not explained here or on the article talk page how you think this stub could/should be expanded into an actual article. What would the additional content be? Analysis of Herbert's themes about religion in the series should go into Dune (novel) or Dune (franchise), analysis of Paul as a messiah would be a great addition to the in-universe article Paul Atreides. "Muad'Dib" in an of itself is not a topic.— TAnthonyTalk 22:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a stub, it's redundant, and to the extent that it is not, it's closer to being a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. As this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, it doesn't belong. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and it's sure as heck not a Dune dictionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like a good beginning of an article, not like a dictionary definition to me. DVD 03:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination makes no argument for deletion. The article's sources demonstrate the notability of the topic and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am completely stumped how this can be viewed as an article worthy of existence. "Muad'Dib" is a fictional mouse and a character's name in a novel. This is indeed an overblown dictionary entry, and I'd love someone to explain here how they think this could really be expanded into an article.— TAnthonyTalk 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is already an article. We have no minimum size requirement but it seems quite feasible to expand it further and deletion would disrupt this, contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is how would it be expanded? What else is there to say? This "topic" is covered in its entirety elsewhere.— TAnthonyTalk 23:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it isn't. The entry in your List of Dune terminology is significantly smaller, not so well-sourced and lacks many significant details. The overall size of the list article is 34K which is getting too big and so should not be increased further. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • What significant details? The list entry leads the reader to Paul Atreides, and the plot stuff is already, or can be, detailed there. The etymology is actually OR, because it represents editors making the connection between real-life Arabic words and Herbert's fiction, essentially drawing conclusions. And STILL no one has tried to explain why we need this article when we already have Paul Atreides. I believe that article explains that he took the name of a mouse which was also the name of a constellation. All fictional, by the way.— TAnthonyTalk 20:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is no OR because others have previously recorded the connection between real-world Arabic and the language of the book. For example, one of the sources cited in the article states, "The nickname that Paul chooses in the story is Muad'dib, and is said to be the name of the desert mouse who comes at night in the moon light. Although the English pronounciation of this word calls for a long "i", there is an almost exact word in Arabic like it (Mu'adib), which means "private tutor" or "teacher". It used to be that the Caliphs, the rulers of the Muslim world, would hire a Mu'adib to teach their children. The practice seemed to be common for other strata of society as well.". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • That source is some kind of term paper that doesn't meet the requirements for a source, but I've used it because it pretty much states the obvious. I've left the etymology because Herbert himself references "instructor-of-boys" and so the definition of "Mu'addib" is interesting and a likely source. But I've brought this discussion off topic ... why do we need this article again??— TAnthonyTalk 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this nomination. In order to redirect as proposed by nominator, the page need not be deleted. As point 4 of WP:BEFORE notes: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case". In any case, do not delete the page but either keep or redirect.  --Lambiam 09:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly redirected but was challenged by a single editor, and a call for discussion on the talk page attracted no other comments. As far as I know, a redirect is an acceptable result for an AfD.— TAnthonyTalk 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is a reason to speedily close the discussion — "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course." Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no content dispute that I am trying to subvert; I don't think this article needs to exist as its own topic, but obviously a redirect of some kind is necessary. All the sources in the world analyzing Herbert's religious themes do not change the fact that Paul Atreides and Muad'Dib are the same character. Notability for "Muad'Dib" is notability for Paul. I don't think this article should exist when the potentially lengthy analysis of the messianic plotline can be incorporated into Paul Atreides, it's more logical home. And whatever details about the mouse and the moon and the constellation that aren't there can be added.— TAnthonyTalk 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anthony, let's observe File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg. Your central points were explicitly refuted by multiple angles. Wikipedia is about collaboration, do you think it is possible to reach some kind of consensus? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no argument for deletion other than it being a stub or a dictionary entry. We have plenty of those here and the article in question itself does have secondary sources indicating some measure of notability. --Polaron | Talk 17:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced, ties-in to real world language, multiple instances inside the Dune universe that need to be disambiguated (Paul, the mouse, the shadow on the moon, the constellation)Hasteur (talk) 16:33, 22 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 Discussion closed as article already deleted under WP:CSD A7 non-admin closure Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley wolak[edit]

Bradley wolak (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 an undisguised self-promoting puff piece. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ancient Greeks in Macedonia[edit]

List of ancient Greeks in Macedonia (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 is nothing but an exhaustive list of two hundred names (cities and individuals), with no references and sources, and it's rather confusing: does it include people of mainland (southern) Greece who lived in Macedonia, does it refer to Greeks including Macedonians as opposed to other Macedonians tribes who were of Illyrian or Thracian origin, does it imply that the Greeks were foreigners to Macedonia and the Macedonians were not Greeks? This list is unsourced, bares no importance and actually drives readers to ambiguous conclusions. Note that the article was created under a different title (List of other Greeks in ancient Macedonia), which was changed later and gave a whole new meaning in the article. It cannot be merged with the List of ancient Macedonians, since it doesn't list native Macedonians. It could be split in several articles like "List of ancient Atheneans in Macedonia" or "List of ancient Epirotans in Macedonia", but they seem redundant too. - Sthenel (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteSince the two countries were right next to each other a person from one being in the other is not remarkable. You might as well have a list of New Yorkers in New Jersey. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that we don't talk about the modern Republic of Macedonia, but Macedonia (ancient kingdom), part of the ancient Greek world. - Sthenel (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the ancient Greeks themselves didn't think Macedons were Greek... 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, see here. A Macedonian (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has Macedons claiming to be Greek, and Romans calling Macedons Greek, not Greek contemporaries of Philip or earlier calling Macedons Greek. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not good enough for you? Ok, see here then. And please let's stop this here, this is not a forum. A Macedonian (talk) 06:30, 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 redirect to Runes of Magic. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runes of Might[edit]

Runes of Might (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 was originally tagged with Speedy Deletion A7 as non-notable. However, I think there's enough doubt cast by the author's suggestions that it's a regional version of Runes of Magic that it shouldn't be speedied without discussion. I'm really not sure whether it should have its own article, whether some of its content should be merged with Runes of Magic, or whether it really should be deleted - so I've brought it over here for a Deletion Discussion and to seek knowledgeable input. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Runes of Magic The argument seems to be that because this is a variant it will eventually be clearly separated from the original version. However, that's putting the cart before the horse in terms of it needing an article, there is no guarantee that will be the case. According to the publisher: "We’re game publishers. We don’t develop our own games, instead we host games, localize them, remove socially unacceptable content like gambling and sex and make the games more region friendly." Not only is a separate article not needed right now, it seems likely that will always be the case. It can always be mentioned (but not given undue weight) within the Runes of Magic article. Someoneanother 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there, First of all, i would like to thank you for your consideration and opening a discussion page on the article. I understand the given reasons for deletion and copy-right issues, I might be wrong with the way i created the page and i might need to rewrite the whole article with my own words, if the article is not deleted in the future. The reason why i think Runes of Might needs its own article is that even though Runes of Magic and Runes of Might are the same game, Runes of Might differs in some way. The game follows strict rules on language and graphics, because of the region its played in and the players it has. The company had to change couple of things within the game for example; anything with Christianity like crosses, quests including eating pork, drinking alcohol, or gambling are all either removed or changed. The game is played in Middle East where it has to meet the region's restrictions. Because the religious views come first and magic is haram, the name of the game is changed from Runes of Magic to Runes of Might. Even the story is changed from the creation of myth to ongoing fiction world. Anything (the quests plus the storyline) including or mentioning the name of God is removed to respect the expectations of the players in Middle East, especially The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, there are only six classes in Runes of Might and the last two are soon to be released. The name of the two classes, the priest and the mage, is changed due to the fact that they have conflicts with the religion. The game is also played in PVE (person versus environment) only, and the PVP version is expected to be released soon. The game can be played both in Arabic and English. It's Arabic supported and translated. All in all, what I'm trying to say is that the game itself is exactly like its original version however differs at the same time. I know it's situation is critical, and very hard to convince the admins/editors about the reasons behind. However, even though if it's found that a new article is not needed for the game, I understand and respect your business but expect a permission to edit Runes of Magic page to add a new paragraph on Runes of Might. There are two more versions of the game played under the name of Runes of Magic. Runes of Might is not the only one with a different server. Thanks in advance, Dilara. Violadelesseps (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A seperate article is justifiable if Might has received significant attention from secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect ... and mention in it in the other article if they're basically the same game with few or no differences. SharkD  Talk  04:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this is the version of the game that is played by the Arabic-speaking world, then that includes a lot of people, so I think it should at least have a section in the Runes of Magic article. But of course, it depends on what sources there are out there - English language ones would be ideal, but sources in Arabic are certainly acceptable - and I think it is the sources available that should decide whether to merge some content, or to keep a separate article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:11, 20 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) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tole-rant[edit]

Tole-rant (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 neologism appears to have been created by a single website. While the goal of the website may be noble, it is not clear that the site is yet notable. Even if the site becomes notable, this article is a coatrack, purportedly describing a new word while actually reporting about the new website. Claims that the term has gaines currency based on its entry in the Urban Dictionary are specious, as the definition given at UD matches the definition given at the website. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable, most sources are not RS and the only RS (Guardian) just mentions it in passing. Roscelese (talk) 21:56, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Rain (London)[edit]

Hard Rain (London) (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 WP:BAND, should have been speedily deleted but cult status claim defeated A7 nomination. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:44, 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 no consensus. WP:EFFORT is not a valid reason to keep, but there are indeed reliable sources to prove some of the material in the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Days: True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys[edit]

Danger Days: True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys (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 - Little to nothing is known about the album. The band memebers have not been confirmed, and the situation involving the presumed drummer (who recently quit the band), is unclear. No drummer is listed in the article as of now. There is no artwork, track listing, and the November release date is subject to change. The title was announced just yesterday, and there is very little to warrant a new article this soon. And, I might add, the band themselves have not confirmed anything yet according to NME Magazine here. Friginator (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title has now been confirmed on the band's YouTube page, but the article title is still slightly off. It should read Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys, but the two "the"s are missing as of right now. Friginator (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – Delete – If the title was actually confirmed I would suggest just a simple redirect for the time being until notability is established. All of the sources[19][20] describe this title as rumored and/or unconfirmed, and Wikipedia is not the place for such speculation. Online retailers are horrible sources of information. There may be enough information to write a reasonably detailed recording history section on the upcoming album by My Chemical Romance, whatever the title ends up being, but unless someone takes the time to do so this article should not exist. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Revising statement: The band has now released an album teaser that confirms this title [21]. There is still not enough information for a full-fledged article yet, but it would be nice to keep the namespace for anyone searching for this album. So now I vote redirecting to My Chemical Romance. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is slightly different, making the article title incorrect. According to the YouTube comment (which is what we have to go by at this point), The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys is the name. Friginator (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The article does meet the notability guidelines. Reprise Records, the band's label, has confirmed the name to MTV (see here). – Zntrip 07:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a lot more than a confirmed title to meet the notability guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but there is a very high probability that this album will be released in the near future. It's name has been confirmed by the band, the band confirmed the album is complete, a marketing campaign is in the works, and a November release date has been reported by multiple independent sources. Also the band itself meets the notability guidelines. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." By these standards the album is notable. The nominator's main reason for nomination was basically that there isn't enough information about the album. But it seems a bit ridiculous to me to delete an article that will grow to substantial size within a few weeks. We could delete it now and remake the article in a couple weeks, but what's the point? The evidence for imminent release of the album and of the notability of the article are both overwhelming. – Zntrip 06:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines you are quoting make it quite clear that this article should not exist yet. Specifically in the quote you provided it states that the album must have significant coverage through reliable sources, it must already have been released, and even then it says the album only may be notable. Two paragraphs down the guideline outlines how to handle future albums: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." "It's best not to create a page on the album until you've got something more to say. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere; it's not going to hurt you to wait". It should also be noted that the release date was provided by an online retailer. Just for kicks, Google "August 31" "Screaming Bloody Murder" "Sum 41". You will find a number of sources that claimed Sum 41's new album Screaming Bloody Murder will be released on August 31, a release date that was traced back to Amazon.com. However by this date the album was still in production, and has yet to see an official release date or confirmation from the label. It looks like most of the larger media outlets like Rolling Stone and Spin were wise and have since retracted the statements, but others from medium sized publications like Exclaim!, Chart and AltPress are still around, and I am not entirely sure what Tower Records is selling to people. Fezmar9 (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring some of the basic facts that I had previously listed: 1) the artist has confirmed via their official Web site that the album is complete; 2) multiple sources have listed November 22 as the release date, such as the print edition of Rolling Stone; 3) a marketing campaign is already under way; and 4) the name of the album has been officially confirmed by the band and record label. This is sufficient evidence to conclude that a release is likely to be imminent. There is also enough to establish that the article is notable. What I quoted does not preclude the creation of an article until the album has been released. The article also satisfies the conditions you have listed. The last sentence you quoted does not apply at all since this article is not solely the product of idle speculation and does not have the title My Chemical Romance's next album. – Zntrip 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ignoring some of your "basic facts" because there needs to be a lot more before this article needs to exist. I'm fully aware of everything you listed, it's just not enough. There either needs to be enough officially confirmed basic information for a start class article (at least a confirmed title, release date, track listing and cover) or enough information for a reasonably detailed article. For example, ten months before the official release of Radiohead's In Rainbows the article (here) contained a detailed multi-paragraph page with a lot of information. It had too much information to have on Radiohead's article, thus a separate article was warranted even before a title and release date were known. I fully acknowledge that this album, will meet the given guidelines at some point, but that point is not right now. If the information that's currently in this article were merged with My Chemical Romance, literally nothing would be lost. Also, as of yesterday (here) that last line directly applied to this article, as 90% of it consisted of unsourced song titles. And by removing this speculation there is even less to be said of this album. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though the Album has not been officially released of yet, the album still exists, and has for a long time. There have already been trailers of the album ([22]) which also appears on the official band homepage. On top of that, there are multiple confirmed tour dates, named "Danger Days, world contamination tour" ([23]) which directly relates to the name of the album "Danger Days, the true lives of the fabulous killjoys" thus verifying its validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.209.203 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep — The album is close enough to release that deleting and rewriting in a month would be a waste of time and resources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.28.53 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The album title and tracklisting has been released, as well as with a release date. Why waste time making it again? Jakisbak (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Everything has been confirmed by the band, but while we're not here predicting the future, it's actually not a requirement that the band themselves releases the information if it still comes from a credible source. Given that the band has subsequently done so, don't you now think it was in fact a credible source? --121.214.3.206 (talk) 22:37, 23 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. Col. Warden has provided multiple sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic. For the most part, the "delete" !votes are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT: merely calling it "unencyclopedic trivia" does not make it so, as long as it is substantiated in reliable sources. No policy/guideline says that topics deemed subjectively by Wikipedians to be trivia are inherently non-notable; WP:TRIVIA refers to "Trivia" sections in articles and does not apply here. I understand that a lot of people are wondering, What does facial hair have anything to do with a president? I know I would too. But the simple undisputable fact is that the sources are there. The other ridiculous titles provided by the "delete" !voters are simply examples of WP:WAX and straw man argument; the difference between those and this article is that this article has significant coverage in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure[edit]

List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure (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 subject of the list combines two subjects which have only a trivial relation. The fact that some presidents had facial hair during their presidency has no influence on anything, and isn't discussed seriously in any source/ The only sources given are an unreliable website, and one "witty" book. If anyone would have studied whether presidents with facial hair would have been more likely to start a war, seduce an intern, or otherwise do anything relevant and notable, the subject might have been notable. As it stands, it is a trivial item collected by one author in a book. Fram (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a topic of some interest. I have heard it discussed a few times over the years. Wolfview (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IKNOWIT and WP:INTERESTING are not valid reasons. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't see how those references invalidate the above arguments. If having facial hair was relevant to an individual president, then it should be added to that president's article. I'd consider changing my vote if sources could be found that indicated for every listed President the historical relevance it had. Otherwise, I still think this is unencyclopedic. Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal opinion of the topic is irrelevant per WP:UNENCYC. The references supplied demonstrate that independent, professional authors consider the matter worthy of note and that they have found publishers for this material. Per WP:N, this demonstrates the notability of the topic and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the references indicate that a good article could be written about the impact of Abraham Lincoln upon 19th century grooming, or even about the so-called Golden Age of Facial Hair, none of them support having a stand-alone list of which presidents wore a beard, mustache, "friendly mutton chops", sideburns, etc. A quick google search shows that there have been many published, reliable and verifiable sources about presidential trivia, some of which no doubt include a list like this, but one of the primary guidelines for writing is in WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." Whether something is or isn't encyclopedic is, of course, a matter of opinion. Whether something is "suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" that is free and that anyone can edit is a relevant question under WP:IINFO. Mandsford 14:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand the point of WP:TRIVIA, which is that we should not have sections in articles which contain miscellania - unrelated factoids which did not fit into other sections. The point you confuse this with is that made by WP:IDL, which is an argument to avoid. This information about Presidents is not trivial in any sense because the information is tightly focussed and the details are notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that. Less alphabet-soup would help - it would be better to discuss this article on its merits, while applying close readings of policies and guidelines if needed, than to quote abbreviations without making it clear how this article is an instance of them. TheGrappler (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. As a general rule I don't think that pointing out policy gets us anywhere. Zell Faze (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem here is that people are defining it as "trivial" based on "I find it banal and uninteresting" coupled with "I do not think this is important, in the grand scheme of things". But many things are subjectively banal, boring and not particularly important - but not necessarily unencyclopedic. Source-work is the issue, not subjective opinion. Your contention about boxer briefs is absurd - other writers haven't written about the boxer briefs, so we have nothing to summarize or cite. The reason we don't have an article on List of US presidents who wore boxer briefs during their tenure is not because it is subjectively banal, boring and not particularly important; it's because there are no sources no cite or summarize. TheGrappler (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep - I'm confused at all the deletion arguments here, this list shouldn't be contentious in its own right since (a) the criteria for entry are clear and the number of entries finite, (b) the idea of facial hair on presidents is itself notable - not just that it's noteworthy on the articles of individual presidents whether or not they have facial hair, but that a standalone article can be justified, (c) per WP:CLT this is far better dealt with as a list than a category or navigational template since it isn't sufficiently defining a characteristic (NB this is not the same as non-notable, notability is largely a source issue) for a navbox and requires annotation (e.g. beard? sidebeard?) not possible for a category. This may surprise some folk here, but actually there is scholarly study of hair-styling and appearance! Politicians don't look the way they do at random (although some stuff is beyond choice: witness frequent study of whether being taller makes you disproportionately likely to win elections). Consequently it's not fair to call this stuff genuinely "trivial" - though people are quite welcome to deem it "subjectively banal" or "on the grand scale of history, not particularly important". TheGrappler (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unimportant aside: I think that this article is partly suffering as a result of a horrendous title! The advantage of this title, I suspect, is that it is so unambiguous, but to be fair "List of United States presidents with facial hair" would have been specific enough for a reasonably intelligent reader to have grasped the idea. TheGrappler (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are you kidding? A man's facial hair is a statement. Maybe even a reflection of the timeframe. Although I feel the table has some shortcomings, so I have adapted it to suit Wikipedia. Although I feel this is going to be "a close shave". --JHvW (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not even a close shave. This is at the negligible end of trivial. Occuli (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the whole I find this discussion quite interesting, probably for all the wrong reasons. First of all, there seems to be an awful lot of quoting from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These were made to make Wikipedia more reliable and more consistent. But within WP it is frowned upon to enforce these rules without adding to the content. And let's be clear, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (it has a policy of no original research, more or less trial by Internet), it frowns on the quotation of books (that cannot be viewed on Internet) but allows a good many things that people with a little sense would find reprehensible. Wikipedia is in principle a repository for facts and trivia that can be found on Internet, making it an interesting but dubious source of knowledge. Now lets look at this list. The contributor who posted the list originally, is now banned. The list was probably started as a joke. The contributor will no doubt be amused that it has already survived one round of voting. But does this list have merits? Yes it does. But the list is too small to be significant. That is why I have added some significant facts (which can be seen in the article). What conclusions can we draw? Well it seems to be a fact that presidents with sideburns are more often depicted on metal currency. If you look at Mount Rushmore it seems that presidents with facial hair seem to be a significant portion of important presidents. If you include sideburns (this is a matter of opinion on hairstyle, but we are not allowed points of view, so we have to rely on sources that can be quoted, and it seems that the sources have definitly got something to say about facial hair) presidents with facial hair seem to be significantly important. We live in a time where our lives seem to be governed by lists and statistics. Lists can help us sort through the scruf (thanks to the contributor who pointed this out to me) and get to the nub of things. Is this list trivial? Probably, but it can be the starting point of something interesting. How much space does it occupy? It has been pointed out that the title itself would make most people refrain from accessing it, how much more do you want from a list? And somebody has said they would change their vote if facial hair was pointed out to be relevant. It probably is, in the context of time. It has been argued that Jack Kennedy won the elections because he was better looking than his opponent. How about facial hair (given the context of time and place)? The contributor who started this list should be applauded and the list kept because it is what Wikipedia is about, starting something, other contributors adding, working together to see if anything is to come out of it. The fact that it has an underlying current of humour does not make it less valuable. There are lessons to be learned from this list, so again I say keep it, if only in the Department of Fun. --JHvW (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank god Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, because if it did then people like you would look at the "evidence" and conclude that presidents with facial hair are more "significant" than those with none. Has it ever occurred to you that facial hair on men is pretty common? Perhaps it was even more common back in the times of the presidents who are depicted on Mt. Rushmore? You can't look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that men with facial hair have a 50% chance of becoming the president of the United States. I don't want to be insulting or uncivil, but I don't think I've ever seen a more moronic conclusion, or one that violates WP:OR more egregiously. I've removed that content from the article. SnottyWong chat 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Interesting that you know difficult words like egregiously but are not familiar with the concepts of irony and sarcasm. --JHvW (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that your !vote above and your addition of the Mt. Rushmore picture to the article were an attempt at irony and/or sarcastic humor? Please confirm, so that we can discount your keep !vote above, have you blocked for intentional vandalism and violations of WP:POINT, and have you topic banned from making any further attempts to be humorous. SnottyWong gossip 17:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do you know the difference between facetious and faecesious? --JHvW (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The anti-bearders are ruining wikipedia. As for the delete suggestion, "It could easily be Googled should one desire to know the answer", the same could be said of much content here on wikipedia.--Milowent • talkblp-r 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And do you have any actual reason for your keep opinion? Fram (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its a notable subject. Its not something many wikipedia editors may have a personal memory of now, but this was a big topic of public discussion in the late 19th century and even until 10 years ago, it all flows from Lincoln's success with a beard in 1860([24]). See:[25] (Knight-Ridder syndicate story, 1996, "Facial hair unacceptable for presidential politics"), [26] (Dallas Morning News, 2000 story, "Presidential hair a no no?"), [27] (1996 USA Today story, "Best presidential criterion: Hair"), [28] (1984, Miami Herald, discussion of last presidents with facial hair), [29] (1991 Richmond Times, "VICTORY IS UNDER THE CANDIDATE'S NOSE"), [30] (2004, Business Wire, "America Looks for a Clean-Shaven Face in the Presidential Race"), [31], (1969 Hartford Courant, "Five Bearded Presidents In The Courant Portfolio"), [32] (1986 AP syndicated article on presidential beards), [33] (1948 AP article discussing list of bearded presidents and Dewey), [34] (1944 NY Times article, "Saga of the mustache"), [35] (book section), [36] (book discussion). This is a perfect example of a topic article that sounds crazy at first glance, and someone will nominate for deletion, but an editor with knowledge of the subject can explain why its actually important. I hope I have done so, and you can consider withdrawing the nomination. If so, I will expand the "list" with a discussion of why presidential beards have been a notable subject.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of your links are about presidential candidates, not (or only tangentially) about presidents during their tenure, which this list is about. If a list is as narrowly described as this one, the sources should also be as narrow, and not about something related but different (like all the Dewey references in them). Fram (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misdescribing the import of the articles, which demonstrate that being a president (and obviously a candidate prior to that) with facial hair has been a notable subject in American history. This kind of deletion discussion is why experts get driven off the project.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic list of trivial information, although men with beards are better looking and smarter than the clean shaven. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do you not mean Keep? If given the choice between two equal candidates (on program) would you not prefer to vote for the one that is (and I quote) better looking and smarter than the clean shaven? --JHvW (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, I said delete and meant it. Given what I know about history of elections, given a choice, I'd most likely vote for the taller of the two, IIRC, that's the most significant factor statistically (but it's been a looong time since I've looked at the issue). My thinking is that this list is trivial information. Now, if you took all of these sources and wrote an article about facial hair and how it has been viewed relative to US elections, you'd have something I could get my handsome hairy self to endorse. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for making this point. It is a point I have tried to make earlier but it has made some of the participants in this discussion very angry. As I am not eligible to vote in the United States elections I do not consider it a priority to do a significant analysis of facial hair on incumbent presidents. But I am sure that it looks good on you as you seem proud of it (and probably rightly so). --JHvW (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, 5 minutes after I posted this remark, someone posted the statistic I believe you were referring to. --JHvW (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see straw man. You offer no evidence to suggest that these other topics are as notable as the matter of presidential hair and so the comparison lacks any logical meaning. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not my fault if you can't see the common principle: They are all formed from random combinations of topics that are themselves notable, they are all bound to have been discussed in this very combination in one source or another (in specific contexts), and they all don't make any sense at all for stand-alone articles. Formally: The list is about a random intersection of features. An article about facial hair of US presidents would not be notable either because of the random intersection of no less than three topics (facial hair + head of state/government + US; even two topics would be bad enough). The sources that have been presented do not represent significant coverage any more than the sources that do exist without any doubt on the following topics justify sex life of Bill Clinton or war crime accusations against George W. Bush. If you want to discuss facial hair of US presidents find a context where it fits, don't just invent a silly article title for such a bit of trivia. Hans Adler 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles that exist make sense, the articles I mentioned don't. That was the point of my argument. You seem to believe that whenever someone wants to add a tidbit to Wikipedia they are entitled to do this under the first topic that comes to their mind, however far-fetched and unencyclopedic it is – and that consequently deletion discussions are always about the content of articles. They are not. They are basically about article titles. Some newspapers probably have written about facts from Bill Clinton's sex life that are not or only tangentially related to the Lewinsky affair. Within reason they can be mentioned in Clinton sex scandal. But you can't write an article that attempts to list everybody Bill Clinton ever had sex with, and other details of that nature. Similarly, the war crime accusations against Bush came close to being notable, but didn't quite make it. Consequently they didn't get their own article. So they are merely mentioned in efforts to impeach George W. Bush and any similar articles. (Or should be; I haven't verified they are present.)
If you insist on adding a tidbit to Wikipedia it's your job to find an article where it fits, and if none exists to come up with a new article about an encyclopedic, GNG-passing topic. If you can't think of a suitable topic, ask someone else for help. But it's not OK to come up with some nonsense title for an article and then insist that that's a reasonable topic when it quite obviously isn't. When the best source for a topic unrelated to media literacy is an "activity" in a book on media literacy [37], and everything else is specific examples, then there is obviously something wrong.
In short: If your first impulse is to create a stupid, narrow article, resist it and think of a suitable generalisation that is notable. Then write an article about that and put your pet information there. Hans Adler 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your position thus seems to be that this material would be best presented as part of a larger article on a wider topic. That is a reasonable option but it is irrelevant to the question of deletion. Per our editing policy, we would enlarge upon the topic by renaming the article to increase its scope and/or merge it into a larger article(s) such as President of the United States or Facial hair. Such actions would use ordinary editing functions, not the delete function. Our licensing terms require that we keep the history of the original contributions when we rework them. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misunderstood me. The topic is not notable. It fails WP:GNG. There is no need for even a complete encyclopedia to discuss this topic. However, we are discussing many topics that are not notable simply because it makes sense for filling in details, or enhancing the reader's understanding, in an article on a somewhat related notable topic. I was giving you and other editors who are prone to writing about non-notable topics advice on how to sneak them into Wikipedia with a lower risk that your work is deleted and a significantly lower risk of polarised discussions such as this one. But this advice does not affect my argument why this article must be deleted. Hans Adler 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that word means what you think it means. I suggest reading WP:Notability again. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication that this is a serious topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia so fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG does not use the word serious nor does it suggest in any way that topics have to be po-faced. But are you suggesting that these presidents were not serious - that they grew their hair as a joke or what? Please explain how this is not a serious topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am saying no such thing, I am saying that no one is taking seriously the subject of presidents with facial hair, none of the links you posted above shows that the subject has been covered significantly by others more in passing when discussing hair in general. Codf1977 (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your observation seems quite counterfactual. The first source that I presented above has a section heading of The Hairy President and discusses this topic at length. This is not a passing reference and we have many other sources of a similar detailed kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my !vote, that ref not withstanding, the subject lacks significant coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can't blame wikipedia editors for not being alive in the 1860s-1930s but I guess no one remembers Grace Bedell, who was fairly famous in her day for convincing Lincoln to grow his beard (when she was 11 years old). Whether presidents had beards or not was considered a significant and notable topic for discussion for a long time in American history, its just out of lack of knowledge that one would simply conclude the topic is not notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Those trying to delete this seem to be arguing that the article shouldn't exist because they don't like it, and personally don't think its worthy of being in Wikipedia. Not how things work. There are plenty of sources talking about the facial hair of presidents. Dream Focus 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You obviously don't understand the meaning of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG. There are also plenty of car accidents of tennis players, see "tennis player" "car accident". That doesn't mean it's a notable topic. Hans Adler 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:GNG defines what is meant by "significant coverage": It "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source.". Sources which address the subject in detail and as more than a trivial mention have been cited. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic trivia. Having facial hair is not really a defining or notable characteristic of a president, and while it may be interesting that presidential facial hair has largely disappeared in the 20th & 21st centuries, that can be said of upper-class rich men in general. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it used to be considered a very notable characteristic. E.g., as I added to the article, political commentators have actually claimed that Thomas Dewey lost in 1944 and 1948, in part, because of his facial hair. I also added a link to a recent research paper that discusses presidential facial hair and has the hypothesis that "after women got the right to vote facial hair became a political liability for men."--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. trivia. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to you, Professor Tarc, but the hundreds of articles on presidential facial hair that are easily found (some of which I have now added to the article) make it notable. There's no question that there's an element of humor in much of the commentary on the issue, but the fact is that whether a president or presidential candidate has had facial hair has been the subject of huge amounts of press for the better part of 150 years. Just because it hasn't been a big deal for the last 20 years doesn't mean its not notable, it just explains why it was nominated for deletion, i.e., ignorance of the history.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your incorrect statements about the reason for the nomination to yourself. Nearly everything you have listed, discussed, given as example, ... is about facial hair during elections, while this list is about facial hair during their tenure. Feel free to create an article about the topic you are defending here as a self declared expert, but please don't mix things related to but separate from this article with the actual subject of it. Fram (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Nearly everything you have listed, discussed, given as example, ... is about facial hair during elections, while this list is about facial hair during their tenure." LOL, are you kidding me? Your nom sucks, but you're cool, its all good.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the topic has received indpedent coverage regardless whether it is considered "trivia" or not. Either we abide by policy or let emotions run their course. Sandman888 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheGrappler's rationale (and in addendum to one of his comments, see Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I have bookmarked that page so that I will notice when the inevitable fourth AfD of that other abomination comes. As I said before, the way to deal with such trivia is not to build for every bit of them a separate pseudo-article; the trick consists in finding an encyclopedic topic in which it can be covered. The present list and that other thing together could be the core for an article that discusses all studies that have been made of the various traits and features of US presidents through the centuries. Hans Adler 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if you were to make such an article ("... that discusses all studies that... "), it would be split into parts due to WP:SIZE... and we'd end up right where we started. Thank you for your WP:IDONTLIKEIT sarcasm about the "abomination", but not really, because WP:SARCASM is amazingly ineffective around here. Have you noticed? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to develop that other page to such dimensions that it must be split, then do it, don't just talk about it. That was implicit in my point. Subpages of articles about a notable topic are automatically seen in a much more favourable light than bizarre articles that come out of nowhere. (I am not sure that would be enough in this case, since the topic is so unencyclopedic that it only belongs in an encyclopedia as an example for something, and you seem to have in mind a complete exhaustion of the example space.) As a simplified example, in an aspiring encyclopedia that so far consists of 5 articles, say – house, mountain, flower, ship, writing – resist the urge to create an article list of reasons why one should not pick one's ear with a sharp instrument. Start an article ear instead. If it gets unwieldy, put some material into subarticles, possibly creating proper ear maintenance as one of them. And if that again gets unwieldy, split again and create something like list of dangerous practices related to hearing. Hans Adler 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is common that the early drafts of articles are unsatisfactory. Our editing policy explains what is to be done in such cases. It does not advise complete demolition but, instead, recommends that we improve the articles, retaining and reworking the material. The top-down method that you propose is neither our editing policy nor a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • (1) you might like to read the 3 prior Heights of... AfDs, before calling it an abomination. (2) The article you are looking for is Ear pick. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep "It's unencyclopedic trivia" does not a well-reasoned argument make. There are multiple reliable sources that discuss the topic of Presidential facial hair, in general as well as in relation to a specific president. Definitely a notable topic. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 21:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And "OMG it's reliably sourced!" is never an adequate response to concerns of trivia. Sourcing alone does not make a topic notable or article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be uncivil, but did you even read what I said above? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it and disagree. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure many people read it. Some of us happen to think that WP:TRIVIA applies here, we discuss things because we do not always agree. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people here clearly haven't read WP:TRIVIA as it is quite irrelevant to this matter. The article in question does not contain a trivia section and, even if it did, it would not be a reason to delete the article as that guideline just advises reorganising the information to present it better. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disgree that it is irrelevant, since the article is itself a list of trivial information. I am, however, heartened to see that some improvements have been made, and hope that the article will evolve into something more substantial, thanks to your and Milowent's efforts. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still haven't read WP:TRIVIA, have you? Here's a quote "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations.". At AFD, we are not concerned with style, only with deletion, which is the exclusion of information. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We disagree, but I see no reason to argue with you about this given how the afd is proceeding. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first link you provide is not a policy or guideline but reminds us that personal opinions are irrelevant here. What we require is argument based upon policy and the evidence of independent third-parties. The second link you provide is WP:TRIVIA which is quite irrelevant, as explained above. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when someone makes a massive effort to rebutt everything and not improve the article you do wonder. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
while y'all have been fapping in here, i did expand the article some and add sources. Yet the fact that books, news stories for 150 years, and research papers discuss the issue seem to be irrelevant to the "trivia" crowd. Thus, the Colonel does what he can here.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milowent is indeed doing great work on the article and this recent addition from the NYT is especially impressive. I touch my forelock in respect. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've struck my delete !vote, with some actual text and references, I feel it's worth keeping. (Nuujinn strokes beard and nods head) --Nuujinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Col. Warden. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think there is a notable topic in here somewhere, but wouldn't this be better as a prose article rather than a list? The majority of the coverage seems to be about the importance of facial hair in relation to Presidents, candidates and elections, as opposed to Presidents who had facial hair during their tenure. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this really shouldn't be a list article, it should be something like United States presidents with facial hair, and the list can be kept only as a subsection. The silly gallery can be replaced with portraits of the hirsute chief executives.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep. It seems like a silly list to me, but I'm persuaded by the Keep arguments, in particular Milowent's several sources that make it very clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Milowent and others. There is a great deal of sourcing here, and it indicates that the subject is notable. Yeah, it's trivial stuff in the broad scheme of life, but it's awfully well-documented trivia. I concur, though, that a prose article would be better than the list. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:18, 23 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 merge to List of rivers of Pakistan. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major rivers of Pakistan[edit]

Major rivers of Pakistan (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)

We have List of rivers of Pakistan to provide better navigation of the topic...also there is no proper criteria of what is a 'major' river and what is a 'minor' river... Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename it to "Rivers in Pakistan" :The article doesn't site any reference and external links, by supplying references and external links and renaming it to the said name there is no need for it deletion.The other article "List of rivers in Pakistan" is based on the "List" and doesn't provide any combined and detailed information of the rivers of Pakistan. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have to improve the article...Why do not we merge it with 'Geography of Pakistan' (as Wolfview said below) with a new section like 'Rivers' or 'River system' or 'Hydrology' or 'Limnology' or whatever. We can redirect the 'Rivers of/in Pakistan' to that new section. Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 20:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because, actually, the fact of the rivers now being within the borders of the modern nation of Pakistan (as important as they must be to the people of that nation) does not make them a group about which an article should be written. A list of rivers and articles on each river is enough, and then an article on the geography of Pakistan. Wolfview (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of rivers of Pakistan, where it would be good material to make the list more substantial. --Cyclopiatalk 00:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of rivers of Pakistan, per above suggestions. Mar4d (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 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 merge to new literacies . I'm going to be a little bold, and suggest that the proposed merge would satisfy everyone. No evidence has been presented that this is a standard term in itself. I do not think it's reasonable to multiply articles on the same concept because different words are used in the titles of different sources about them. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web-based new literacies[edit]

Web-based new literacies (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 is a neologism and content fork of New literacies and fails WP:N as a separate topic. Per the article as it is right now "Web-based new literacies is a term coined in 2008 by Mahmoud Abdallah, assistant lecturer of Curriculum and TESOL Methodology at Assiut University College of Education, Egypt (rm gratuitous EL), while he was doing his PhD study at the Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, UK." I initially redirected the article to New literacies per this brief discussion which was created after a merge tag was placed on the article (which was removed without discussion by the creator). After the creator reverted my redirect, I asked that the creator to engage at that discussion via an edit summary. No luck. Upon further review of the article, it does not seem worth a redirect even. Novaseminary (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete. Review of the references make it look like this is a neologism being promoted largely by a single academic. And the text is refreshingly honest with the fact ---

    In addition to being multiple, new literacies are always changing because everyday innovations come to the fore requiring certain literacies, and therefore, today’s literacies will become obsolete after sometime. This makes the concept wide and vague, and hence, if we use ‘new literacies’ without linking it to a specific reference, it might refer to all innovations and technologies. Therefore, when the Web is the main technology in focus, ‘Web-based new literacies’ would be the proper term to use.---

    that this may be a non-notable neologism that describes a very unspecific subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This concept and phrase was obviously not invented in 2008 as it is easy to find earlier sources such as Global literacies and the World-Wide Web. The notability of the topic is thus demonstrated and the task before us is to improve the article in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The concept is covered in New literacies, Computer literacy, and Digital literacy, to name a few. How is this particular term or idea notable independent of those existing articles? I suspect the term "Web-based new literacies" appears nowhere in the book listed in the previous !vote. In fact, the phrase (using "literacy" or "literacies") comes back with zero Google scholar or Google book hits. I don't object to including whatever, if anything, from this article that may be useful in an existing article, but whatever nuance is unique to this formulation of the concept is not itself notable. Novaseminary (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These essential feature of this topic is that it is web-based. The other concepts are more general and so would include other new forms of literacy such as texting, word processors, desktop publishing &c. They are obviously inter-related but you have failed to demonstrate the slightest reason to delete any of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would not be heartbroken if some of those other articles were deleted, but I only nominated the one for deletion. Why can't this topic be covered in the existing articles? How is this not a WP:CFORK? How does this topic meet WP:GNG or any other guideline. The book you have listed cannot be enough (and doesn't even necessarily support this being anything other than a branch of a broader topic). Novaseminary (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added another source and can easily keep adding more as there is an extensive literature. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your position seems too literal. Wikipedia neither a dictionary nor a search engine and so exact phrasing is not required when looking for sources. The essence of the topic is novel forms of literacy which are web-based and there are many ways of expressing this in English. Technological literacy is an even wider concept which would encompass the ability to drive or use a telephone. Such related topics form a natural web or hierarchy which we may develop in parallel. Deletion is not helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So why not support my proposal to rename the article the more general "Internet literacy" or "Online literacy" and move it away from the WP:NEOLOGISM problem? Your edits are moving in that direction anyway. By expanding the definition in the lead to include "forms of literacy based upon the ... internet" you have moved the article far beyond the title which is focused exclusively on the Web. Novaseminary (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is our editing policy to pick up the ball and run with it in such cases. The issue here is your proposal to delete the article. If you do not actually want to delete the article then please withdraw your nomination. Further discussion of these various topics might then take place at our leisure at the relevant talk pages for those articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment I still want to delete this article as it does not pass WP:N. But the article you seem intent on turning this article into is fine by me, properly named. So in an effort to reach consensus, I would change my !vote to merge/redirect if you were to create, or support the creation of, a new article Internet literacy. Then we could debate whether the existing article title is an appropriate redirect, a subject about which I do not have a strong opinion. Novaseminary (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this does become the consensus (and while I slightly prefer deletion, I am just fine with this), I suggest new literacies is the best redirect target. Novaseminary (talk) 23:33, 22 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) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alienology[edit]

Alienology (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)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, we do not create articles for unpublished books unless the forthcoming book has already received substantial press. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troll 4[edit]

Troll 4 (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)

Completing nomination for IP. Jujutacular talk 13:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. Fails WP:NFF. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G3; obviously not a real film. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not speedy; Given the peculiar nature of Troll 2 & 3, this may actually be real. But even if it is, it has not yet entered production. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we only assessing articles at face value? A very easy way to see that this is a hoax is to search for Morgan Freeman and Troll 4 (which produces no results), since Freeman's involvement would be widely noted. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Prod placed on by me was contested, but not ever filming has begun. Derild4921☼ 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete someday there might be a Troll 4, but this Troll 4 is a blatant hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Let this thing get some coverage and then we can readdress a possible return. But for now, it's entirely unsourced speculation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: "It features no trolls, it is about Dancing Dwarfs, but the Shyamalan twist is that it takes place at the same time as Troll 2," Clearly a hoax and should be speedy deleted as such. Mike Allen 03:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Utter nonsense. Not even a funny hoax. GreenGlass(talk) 04:43, 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 speedy deleted Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tadashi Yamaneko[edit]

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

one-sentence article with no assertion of notability for two years Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:01, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lights Go Out (Zine)[edit]

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

Unreferenced with no indication of notability. Prod removed by creator without any improvements. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 12:50, 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 No consensus. Concerns about describing the subject in a more neutral tone are a continuing concern in any political article. Mandsford 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Bangladesh[edit]

Greater Bangladesh (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 fringe theory concocted out of synthesis of material that relies heavily on unreliable sources. Looks like a coatrack to push a non-neutral point of view Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article related to Category:Irredentism - the article reports the existence of a concept, not reported as a fact, related to irredentism. There is no POV agenda in the wording or subject discussed. Shiva (Visnu) 13:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There may be some possible justification for not putting this article on T:DYK, but there is no doubt in my mind that this article is legitimate and should remain on Wikipedia. These are my points:
  1. The coinage/usage of the term is clear from the sources, which include a report from the then-Governor of Assam to the then-President of India. In the same report, the Governor reportedly uses quotes prominent political leaders Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The term is again used in the sources provided. Terms are usually coined from exact such sources as government reports, publications, etc. The article reports that the term exists and has been used.
  2. The article is written in accordance with WP:NPOV. There is clear usage of the words "claims", "alleged", "some Indian politicians and scholars" on numerous occasions. Nowhere is it reported as a fact. The only points that emerge as facts is the concern and reactions in India over the illegal immigration issue - this is true enough, that there have notable reactions. That reports the reactions from people who believe, but that is not presented as proof of the existence of this claim. The Bangladesh point of view has been simple - they deny such a concept exists and deny illegal immigration in India of any kind.
  3. Reliable sources: there was apparently a discussion questioning the legitimacy of books published by [Gyan Publishing] - while several editors expressed their concern, there was no consensus whatsoever to declare this source as inherently unreliable. This company has existed since 1984, long before the conception of Wikipedia. The report from the Governor of Assam is a reliable source - not as evidence of the legitimacy of "Greater Bangladesh", but as proof that such a concept/theory exists. It has been said by the detractors of this article that the Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam is a fringe terrorist group - they have participated in terrorist attacks in India already, and I don't think they need to do a 9/11-style attack before becoming notable. The northeast has been a hot-bed of separatism in the recent past, and I don't find reporting any terrorist group that has carried out attacks as non-notable. In the statement of Ragib, it has been asserted that the authors of books talking about Greater Bangladesh are not "well-known political theorist", and also a number of political analysts are not "reputed" in Bangladesh - I replied that a number of reliable political analysts, respected in academic circles, can fall in this category. How can you arbitrarily disqualify the authors (as well as publishers) of the books used as sources? In regards to Google hits - it may substantiate the existence of a topic, but certainly does not serve as evidence denying its existence. In the same segment, Aditya Kabir quotes part of the data in one of the sources, which identifies the term and that this concept exists as a feared irredentism, not recognized as existing by official sources. I offer this part of the quote that illustrates just what this article is saying:


- Willem van Schendel, The Bengal borderland: beyond state and nation in South Asia - this same source on page 234 says here that the Bangladeshi response was complete denial of the whole issue of illegal immigration, which the author condemns using terms like "callous" and that the Bangladeshi reponse "annihilated" the victims, found it "inconvenient to acknowledge" the citizenship of fellow Bangladeshis. If I were trying to push an anti-Bangladesh POV, I would have written a whole para importing using this author's passage, inculcating his personal/scholarly POV. The pages 233-234 written by Wllem van Schendel describes both the Indian and Bangladeshi POVs, pointing out the flaws in their POVs. I am not attempting any critique of any POV, but using van Schendel's work as evidence that the concept exists.

That is precisely what I am trying to report - the existence of such a concept and its reactions. I am not offering evidence that their claims are legitimate. The article describes some Indian politicians and scholars and a report from the Assam governor to the Indian president as proponents of that such a scheme exists.

The context of the sources may be complicated, but the article is not attempting any complicated assertions about the legitimacy of the concept - it simply reports that it exists and describes what it is.

Finally, I find that another article, Greater Nepal underwent an attempt at deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal, which failed for precisely the same reasons that apply in this article. There are other articles like Greater Armenia, Greater Serbia, Jinnahpur, which are all in the same classification. A look into the Category:Irredentism (which I guess I should add to the article) will provide many related examples. Each of those articles may be written in varying degrees of quality, but do they deserve deletion? No.

This article can be improved, no doubt about that. Any recommendations for improvement will be adopted. But in my mind, there are no grounds whatsoever to brand it as a WP:HOAX, WP:COAT and have it deleted. Shiva (Visnu) 13:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - a prior discussion can be found at this link, where the doubts about this article first emerged. Shiva (Visnu) 13:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb az86556, the article says - "Greater Bangladesh ("Brihat Bangladesh") is a political concept calling for the territorial expansion of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to include the Indian states of West Bengal, Assam and others in northeastern India" which according to The Bengal borderland: beyond state and nation in South Asia by Willem van Schendel, an highly notable academician and an expert in the field (see [38], [39] or [40]), is a case of "demonization" of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants to India by some "influential Indian politician". The book is selectively used as source for the article. The other source - Illegal migration from Bangladesh by Braja Bihari Kumara mentions such a claim as part of the discussion in a politician-heavy seminar in India (an annex to the book). The third book - Terrorism in India's north-east: a gathering storm by Ved Prakash - mentions it as an agenda raised in a conference of minority radical groups of India and Myanmar. Putting together such passing mentions and ignoring the academic commentary available doesn't represent a non-neutral POV. But, more importantly, the subject is not notable enough to warrant an article. Zillions of political rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and urban legends are born every day. Certainly an encyclopedia can't or shouldn't accommodate all that. The only remaining source is a report by S K Sinha, an Indian politician and ex-army officer, which apparently cited no source of information.
@S h i v a (Visnu), this has nothing to do with the DYK, and the whole mention of the DYK irrelevant here. Let's rather focus on the problem here - this is primarily not notable, and secondarily not neutral. While neutrality can be fixed, notability is a basic requirement for existence of an article here. Mentioning Gyan publication serves no purpose either, as it is not an issue here. Also other stuff exists isn't a valid argument. If we are discussing this article, we are discussing this article. I still want to mention that the Nepal article quoted is mostly about the Sugauli Treaty, and no fringe political assumption.
Thank you both. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditya - it is a courtesy to provide a link to where the discussion of this issue began - what's wrong with that? Several of the points associated with this AfD have been discussed there - that is where this debate originated. Apparently the reliability of Gyan Publishing was an issue raised by Ragib as part of the problem with this article. Why would Sugauli Treaty be the only factor for Greater Nepal? It wasn't just about that in the article and AfD and it has an article of its own anyway. It serves as a root of the irredentism yes, telling us what is the basis, as does the illegal immigration issue here, and to an extent the partition of Bengal and Bengali nationalism. As for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I personally don't think the other articles are "CRAP" that exist as examples why this one should not exist. Thank you, Shiva (Visnu) 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Comment I'm concerned that the first reference that the article cites is a book by Gyan Publishing House, which has been reported multiple times (1, 2, 3, 4) for plagiarism and circular referencing from Wikipedia. The publishers seem to have been, as a result of these discussions, flagged as unreliable. Unless the authenticity of this source is verified, the credibility of the information in the article (which would only have two sources to back it then - one being an unsourced report) would take a beating. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do note that one of the editors commented that a generalization cannot be made and each one has to be evaluate on case-by-case basis and that not all publications from this company are problematic. But if this discussion establishes that the source should not be there, that will be duly enforced - I would see it as an improvement, not evidence that this article is a hoax or something. This article will still have 2 credible references and the notability and deletion/non-deletion of this article can be weighed through those. Shiva (Visnu) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the extent of the Gyan Publishing problem. Then WP:RS is an issues here as well. Anyways, this isn't an article about irredentism, rather it's an article on a fringe conspiracy theory that was mentioned by sporadic sources passing, and was identified by an academic study as such. I would like to point out that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. The non-neutrality comes from the way this fringe theory was presented as a fact. Relying on your good faith, I am not accusing that the article is being used as a soapbox, though it clearly can seem so. The best refuge for the theories put forward here may be the article on Illegal immigration in India. The new citations are advertisements for the book. What was the actual content? A mention of another politician making grand claims? Another government seminar that discussed Bangladeshi immigrants from multiple perspectives? If we are trying to establish that the term exists, we must admit that it does. But, unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. It's an encyclopedia.
BTW, I just googled my own name, and it returned a number of mentions in books and newspapers. I sincerely don't think that can be a reason for an existence of an article on me. And, you got the other stuff policy wrong. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking of the existence of a political concept in scholarly and political circles, admittedly mainly Indian, about possible expansionist ambitions from various groups and potentially the government of Bangladesh. "Grand claims" of a politician? All forms of irridentism involve such examples, but also note that the Governor of Assam made an official report, not merely a political speech or interview. It is really a separate subject matter, especially since there is terrorism involved here. The link between Sugauli Treaty and Greater Nepal is actually pretty close to what we are discussing here. However, it is certainly a good idea to note the data about "Greater Bangladesh" in Illegal immigration in India, especially if consensus here determines that a separate article is not justified. Shiva (Visnu) 15:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditya - ah, but googling hits don't prove that there shouldn't be an article about you :) If someone writes a scholarly work about something notable you did, then why not? A lot of notable things are done which are not put up on enough websites to score a lot of Google hits. Shiva (Visnu) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditya - as for misunderstanding policy, it is clearly possible that both/either you and I may have gotten it wrong or else we would not be in this debate. I don't claim to know it better than others or not be mistaken in this case. I don't have a problem honoring the consensus here. Hopefully we'll all improve our respective knowledge. Shiva (Visnu) 15:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast. Anyways, we haven't seen a reliable and verifiable reference made to scholarly circles yet. But, "possible expansionist ambitions" and "potentially the government of Bangladesh"!!! Wikipedia is definitely not a crystal ball, my dear. And, please, stop mentioning that other stuff exists, it's just not a valid argument. And, yes, offline sources are most welcome, as long they are reliable, verifiable, appropriately in context, and don't just mention the subject in passing. BTW, is the "Strong Keep" position moving towards "Merge"? I hope whatever the consensus is we shall emerge as friends from this debate. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alrite, now there has been too much of unnecessary sarcasm and condescending behavior from certain editors. I do not wish to aggravate tensions, hence I am not going to comment further. I have already stated numerous times that I will honor the consensus opinion - if my current understanding is flawed, I will learn and improve. Shiva (Visnu) 15:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - Pretty staightforward and neutral encyclopedia-type discourse on a religious/nationalist movement. Beaucoup Google returns on a search for the phrase. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Struck through accidental duplicate comment. —SpacemanSpiff 18:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you go through the referenced material before taking a position? If you have not, please do. It doesn't pass through notability guidelines. The existence of the phrase is not good enough for an article. The only academic reference clearly states that the term was an attempt to demonize hapless illegal immigrants by some influential politicians. An unverified theory of some politicians doesn't make a religious/nationalist movement. And, putting forward an unproven or unverified claim as a fact is not neutral. Please, check WP policies for that. And, finally an encyclopedia is not a place to have a discourse, there's nothing called an encyclopedia-type discourse. I hope you have noticed the peacocks and weasels here.
@S h i v a (Visnu), dude, there was no "sarcasm and condescending behavior" from any editor here. Please, don't get hurt so easily. Wikipedia can only survive if we can collaborate. My proposal to be friends still stand in all sincerity. Please, assume good faith. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. The concept is not a well known one ... other than the allegations of a few right-wing Indian politicians' rhetorics. The references provided in the article do not provide the concept any significant coverage.
  • Courtesy of Google Books, I checked out ref #1,[41], where "Greater Bangladesh" is mentioned only 4 times in total. (plus once in the glossary). Among the 4 mentions of this, 1 quoted the phrase from a petition filed in a court of India.(pg 368). Pg 335 is about allegations from BJP, a right wing political party.Page 180 claims the concept to be an obscure militant group's "aim". Finally, page 520 mentions one Sadiq Khan and Abdul Momin to be the advocates of the idea ... none of them are well known political analysts or columnist at all. Ref #3 quotes Sadiq khan's 1991 article on Holiday, where the Khan talked about population and manpower exports and migrations, rather than creating a "Greater Bangladesh". Once again, Khan is not notable at all in Bangladesh as a "intellectual", and misquoting a 1991 article by Khan in his own weekly magazine does not indicate the concept of "Greater Bangladesh" is anything other than the imagination or political rhetoric of right wing Indian politicians.
I will add more justification of my comments later. --Ragib (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons given by Ragib. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:V. The concept of a Greater Bangladesh is not well known in either Bengal. Neither Bangladeshi Govt. nor Govt. of the West Bengal ever discussed on this issue. This issue was not even a subject of discussion in national media of either country. I can remember one similar concept called United Ireland, that became Wikipedia article. If you go through the article, you'd see the reason why it became a WP article. It is because of its background and well-established history dated back in 1916-1922. Since then both Irish and British Govt are actively involved in negotiation and it was a subject of several public referendums in recent years. This issue is also a highly covered topic in both British and Irish media. But Greater Bangladesh lacks in all sorts. (Please note that I am not comparing two articles, rather just showing the depth of reference and coverage is required to establish such an article in WP.) -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If it's a fringe right wing ideology, that's fine and dandy — make a note of it in the article. Existence of an article on a topic does not constitute endorsement, obviously. Carrite (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the main problem, ... the main problem is that it fails WP:N. Even in the books in the references, it is mentioned in only a few places, and only in the passing. Besides van Schendel's book, none of the others are really RS. --Ragib (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing an ideology here, right wing or not. We are discussing a fringe conspiracy theory. If you want the article to be appropriate it would probably read something like - "Greater Bangladesh is a rhetoric coined by a few politician in India to demonize illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. The governments of India or Bangladesh never discussed the concept, and it was never reported by mainstream media as a reality. One regional Indian administrator though wrote a report on the subject and sent to the central government, the report was covered by a few mainstream news outlets. Once a regional minority radical group and in another time a security analyst have discussed it as part of various discussion issues. A couple of military writers have used the term at least once in one book or other, a fact that was used in the digital advertisement for the books.". The neutrality adjusted and verified article would look like a joke. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looking at the Google books result, the term "Greater Bangladesh" does seem to be notable. But, I'm not sure whether these results are for the concept this article talks about: "territorial expansion of the People's Republic of Bangladesh". utcursch | talk 06:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question there. The Mikey Leung book discusses it as a 7th century notion. The Zakia Soman book describes it as a funny allegation. The Bardwell L. Smith book uses the term to describe the geographical concentration of Bengali people. The Aijazuddin Ahmad book launches the term to define a co-operation treaty between Bangladesh and West Bengal.The Mohāmmada Hānanāna book refers to a pre-1947 proposal to divide the Raj into three parts: India, Pakistan and Bengal. Yes, the term has many flavors and connotations. Could make for a nice entry at the Wiktionary. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:10, 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, Spartaz Humbug! 04:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A re-look at some mentions of the term does make it a phenomenon. Therefore, I vote keep. Mar4d (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that "greater" and "Bangladesh" used in succession to make a phrase that defines many different and unrelated notions makes it a phenomenon? What exactly is this phenomenon? Or more fundamentally - what defines a phenomenon? Surely not random use of two different words to make a variable meaning (and that too not too common). Please go through the reading material. Enough links has been provided here alone. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question "Cheap Artist" seems to have 150 book hits, more than 50 news hits, and almost 50,000 web hits. "Fucked up" has nearly 270,000 book hits, nearly 6,500 news hits, and almost 7,500,000 web hits. "Small dick" has more than a thousand book hits, more than 250 news hits, and almost 7,000,000 web hits. All these seems to be "phenomenal". Do we suggest that these are encyclopedic enough enough to have articles about? Wikipedia looks for encyclopedic stuff, not phenomenons. I believe a more encyclopedic article can be created for any of these than the article we are discussing. Check for the neutrality adjusted version of the article posted in this discussion. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1)See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST 2)We have smelly socks (Yes, it survived AfD). Fucked-up and small dick are redirects to synonims of these same notable concepts. --Cyclopiatalk 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a term that relates towards an ongoing political battle between Indian nationalists and Muslim nationalists and I strongly advise the closing administrator not to merely count noses in determining this result. Think of it as a highly contentious Israel-Palestine article that must be carefully examined. There is not a doubt in my mind that "Greater Bangladesh" is a term which has scholarly currency as the "vision" of Muslim nationalists. For this use, see for example: Braja Bihārī Kumāra's book Illegal migration from Bangladesh, page 223, which summarizes "In the light of demographic aggression of our country [India] by Bangladesh; arrival of 20 million illegal aliens and large number of refugees; ...its denial to accept its own citizens and even to accept their presence in India; the motivated claims/opinions of Bangladeshi individuals about "lebensraum"; their desire and dream for greater Bangladesh, and continued unfriendly acts towards India..." (emphasis mine). This is a hot topic for Indians and we must be sure the summarization of the debate here is based upon the real issue at hand — whether the topic is worthy of encyclopedic coverage — and not a facile count of I DON'T LIKE IT votes... Carrite (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The expression is used properly in the academic literature (see some of the results here). It has also historical connotations (cfr. [42]) and it is strongly and properly present in news sources (see here) where it is treated as a defined concept. This book makes use of the concept reasonably often, for example. It seems a definitely notable expression. --Cyclopiatalk 00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already commented on the book, which, written by a non-notable author, makes false claims based on comments attributed to "Intellectuals" who are virtually non-notable in Bangladesh. (the same attribution is repeated in multiple sources, but on reading the actual article by the NN intellectual, I found the book's claim unfounded). The "news reference" you point out are from obscure news sources, or op-ed/interviews, rather than actual news items (save for a few). I'd really like to see some credible and significant news coverage from mainstream media on this. Unfortunately, your news link does not show that. --Ragib (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not if the claims are true or false. This is a matter for the NPOV and accuracy of the article. When establishing notability, what is important is that the expression is indeed used and discussed in sources. You say that there are a few news items and "multiple sources" that repeat an attribution: this is enough for us. Wikipedia covers a lot of notable hoaxes and notable misconceptions: what is important is to make sure that they are marked as such (if they are -I have no opinion on this). --Cyclopiatalk 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: You say above about the book that the concept is the imagination or political rhetoric of right wing Indian politicians -This may well be true, but we're not discussing that, we're assessing if it's 'notable imagination or political rhetoric. See Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for an example of notable wacky right-wing political rhetoric. --Cyclopiatalk 23:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon this relisting, I would like to re-emphasize the example and precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal, which is very similar to this one. The nominator made a similar argument, and it was declined on the basis of similar arguments being presented here. Shiva (Visnu) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The very existence of the article probably violates most of the WP:5P, especially WP:N. It really doesn't matter how much I like it and how much you don't.
  1. "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is." WP:FRINGE
  2. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:GNG
  3. "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. WP:GNG
  4. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide." WP:NOT#DICTIONARY
  5. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." WP:SOAPBOX
  6. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." WP:ASSERT
  7. "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views." WP:ASSERT
It really gets tiring to see the arguments twisted around
  1. @Cyclopia 1: This isn't about other stuff exists or not. This is about the existence of two English words sequentially. This is what shows up in most of book, scholar, web and news hits. Instead of trying to prove the examples wrong, you can try out any two words to generate google hits.
  2. @Cyclopia 2: A passing mention in a book by for a supposedly 9th century notion without a source for that information? 22 news hits that include unacceptable sources, letters to the editor and assorted trivia? 27 scholar hits that are either by Braja Bihārī Kumāra or quotes Braja Bihārī Kumāra or is mostly inconsequential? Are we seriously taking this as a defined concept?
  3. @Cyclopia 3: Why pick the unimportant part of Ragib's comment, when clearly he said in verbatim "the book, which, written by a non-notable author, makes false claims based on comments attributed to "Intellectuals" who are virtually non-notable in Bangladesh. (the same attribution is repeated in multiple sources, but on reading the actual article by the NN intellectual, I found the book's claim unfounded)." If you want to counter his argument counter his argument, not his writing style.
  4. @Carrite: Great quote, but would you please read a few more pages of the book to find that it was a part on an annex on a seminar where it was mentioned once among hundreds of other stuff? I had already mentioned that earlier on this very thread. Sometimes repeating the obvious becomes necessary.
  5. @Shiva: Please, stop that WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. You have done that more than necessary. And, it's still not a valid argument.
Sorry, if I sound rude. That's not my intention. Probably that's my crappy writing style. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditya - it is humorous and poignant that your final words to Carrite were "Sometimes repeating the obvious becomes necessary" just before you ventured to tell me to stop repeating an argument that I've "done that more than necessary." If you are aware of sounding rude, then please take more care in your comments. Shiva (Visnu) 04:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aditya: I am sorry but if there is anyone twisting policy, it is you. You for example are getting WP:GNG completely upside down: it need not be the main topic of the source material. Not, you see? It does NOT need that.
  • Now, WP:FRINGE is a matter of how content is presented, not of content existing here or not. It's a matter of keeping NPOV. But it has nothing to do with the suitability of the subject for an article. Nor WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ASSERT etc. have any bearing. They have bearing on how to write the article, not on if to write it or not. What can be solved by editing is not going to be solved by deletion, per our deletion policy. Notable fringe theories are covered by us.
  • And yes, we are seriously taking this as a defined concept. I don't know who this Braja Bihārī Kumāra is, but if people cite him and use his concepts in papers (you say yourself, "quotes B.B.K."), then it is a notable concept. Accept that.
  • About Ragib's comment: The point is that the book making false claims or being written by a non-notable author is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the concept is discussed outside of here, it's verifiable and it has been cited here and there in publications. There are dozens of false claims written by non-notable authors that are nonetheless notable, because they are repeated in sources. Also, I don't understand where I have criticized his writing style (which is fine, for what I can see):I was answering to arguments.
  • I suggest that if you care about this problematic concept, you should spend your energies in making this a NPOV compliant article, instead of simply trying to get a notable concept deleted because you don't like it. --Cyclopiatalk 13:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: I see you above write "it's an article on a fringe conspiracy theory that was mentioned by sporadic sources passing, and was identified by an academic study as such." - If it has been discussed by an academic study, it is most probably notable. --Cyclopiatalk 14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Twisting policy"? I said, in verbatim "twisting arguments". See what I mean? By the way GNG says it need not be the main topic, but it needs to be mentioned more than in the passing (i.e. not a quick mention in an annex, and forgotten). Even the academic study mentioned that fringe theory only once, and went on to discuss other things. on Please, Googling isn't definitive measure of notability. Anyways, if you like it you like it, and I really can't change that. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am deeply suspicious of the possibility (likelihood?) of a political agenda behind the nomination of this article for deletion. Personal political objections to the concept discussed in the article are certainly insufficient grounds for deleting that article. Otherwise, all manner of disputed political ideals would be deleted, and that would be absurd. (Caveat: I am a New Zealander who couldn't care less about the political issues implicit in the topic of this article and the commentary above). BlueRobe (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but I strongly doubt it. Whatever personal POV is involved, its inadvertant and unintentional. According to their contribution histories, Messrs. Ragib and Aditya Kabir are distinguished editors in good standing; Ragib is also an administrator I note. I doubt they would do anything so contrary to Wikipedia's basic rules. Shiva (Visnu) 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BlueRobe, you made a nasty personal attack here. You should apologize. Even though I don't agree with Shiva on the notability of the topic, I never indicated any bad faith or hidden agenda in his part. Strongly disagreeing on a topic based on my evaluation of the subject's notability and the reliability of supporting sources does not indicate any political ideals, and by attacking me and Aditya personally, rather than our arguments, you are simply being incivil. I urge you to withdraw this personal attack, and I am open to hearing any logical argument from you in support of your keep opinion. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "lack of notability" arguments are clearly nonsense - the concept has widespread recognition in media (especially regional media sources), as a simple check of Google will demonstrate. This entire page is packed with people pushing their own political agendas. Thus, I strongly urge caution before deleting this article and playing into the hands of some behind-the-scenes political manoeuvre. BlueRobe (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that this nomination's reference to the "non-neutral point of view" is a misrepresentation of the WP guidelines. Wikipaedia does not prohibit biased points of view (POVs). POVs are rife throughout Wikipaedia whenever there is an article that strongly relates to one of the parties to a dispute or conflict. Wikipaedia's policy is that the article on the POV-topic should be written from a NPOV based on WP:RS. If articles that represented a POV were banned then Wikipaedia would have to censor out articles on Climate Change, Palestine and Terrorism - and that would be absurd. BlueRobe (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen - all of you are excellent editors - I have no doubt of the integrity of Ragib and Aditya Kabir, nor do I consider BlueRobe's comment to be an outright personal attack. If any of you honestly feels there is POV/agenda-pushing going on, the only way to fight it is through policy-based, logical arguments. Retaliatory remarks will not be of any help, so please be cool, calm and respectful. Shiva (Visnu) 22:56, 21 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 both. The list of villages in Rewari district has been incorporated to the district article; the list of villages in the Barwala municipality is not substantiated by any source and no arguments have been made in favor of keeping; the list of villages in Panchkula district has not formally been nominated. Mandsford 23:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Villages in Rewari district[edit]

List of Villages in Rewari district (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 need for a list, and no articles for each of these villages. More importantly, no indication this topic, as a list, has any references to vouch for its notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few of these. I'm not sure if the creator understands the process. I left a message, and others might too, but I think this is difficult because I don't want to scare off the editor but I don't think any of these topics lists are notable in the least. I'm Ok with Blofeld's suggestion of a merge, but obviously I don't think all of these individual redlink villages should have a dab page. I'm very open to ideas about how to proceed. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I think you are mistaken if you think populated places are not notable. You haven't done the research to be able to say this. Obviously some are more than others but I think you'd be surprised at some of these places which seem utterly unnotable in this list if multiple sources and info and photographs of some of the locations were presented to you. Some of the villages in the list undoubtedly have several thousand people living in them and are settlements of encyclopedic note, not all maybe but a considerable amount. The list granted are an awful mess but just googling Bhoj Balag at random reveals http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bhoj+balag&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a potential source which would not only support a list but some decent stubs too. I see some government reliable sources covering civil works taking place in this random village etc. As long as each village is verifiable then I think this list should remain and be moved into the district articles and fomratted properly. As long as this editor doesn't create tons of unreferenced short stubs on these villages then having them red linked is not a problem. Dr. Blofeld 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been unclear... I only am referring to the list, not the villages themselves (I think most geographic things are inherently notable, although there is some threshold at which a merge is better... but that's another issue). Shadowjams (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the notability of the places that's at issue, just the list. A list of places with notable temples, for example, is definitely worth having, but these lists are of no more value than a telephone directory. And anyway there's no point in a list that purports to be comprehensive and yet where 90% of entries are redlinks and probably always will be. These are telephone directories where most of the people listed don't have phones! andy (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a group of editors working on Indian villages I think. Maybe the lists would be better compiled in the workspace. But red links ar enot a bad thing, not pretty but invite people to develop the encyclopedia. Unfortunately a lot of editors interested in rural India are not fluent english speakers. Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even a completed list would be of little or no encyclopaedic value. WP:NOTLINK states "Wikipedia articles are not... Mere collections of internal links, except for... lists to assist with article organization and navigation", and WP:STANDALONE makes it clear that a list should provide an encyclopaedic context for inclusion and notes that "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value" . And then there's the issue of verifiability - without a reference to a gazetteer these lists all fail WP:VER and must be deleted. andy (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:17, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mafioso I,II & III (2009-2011)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mafioso I,II & III (2009-2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about two GCSE media-studies student Youtube short films and a proposed third. Claims of "cult popularity" but only a few hundred views. Fails WP:Notability (films), to put it mildly. PROD contested by one of the authors. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nominator. Fails notability per WP:Notability (films). Lack of verifiable significant coverage available through reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Kudos to the film producers, but it's just not notable at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unknown indie Youtube effort with no significant external notability established. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete NN web content. View count is downright pitiful, so this can't even be said to be popular on youtube. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failing notability guidelines. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 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 Speedy deleted: article contained only "a rephrasing of the title" (see CSD A3). JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide (Bobby Gaylor Song)[edit]

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

no mention of notability Melaen (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subject fails notability verified through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:NSONG. Cindamuse (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A3 (as tagged), the article is a rephrasing of the title. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:14, 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 redirect to N-Dubz. Redundant with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Behaviour. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best Behavior[edit]

Best Behavior (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)

Too early; no indication that this is notable: all references are to youtube, social networking sites, or the artist's website. Convert the article into a redirect to N-Dubz. Also per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Behaviour; I nominated Best Behaviour before discovering that this article also existed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Redirect to N-Dubz. Subject fails notability verified through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:NSONG. Cindamuse (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to N-Dubz as article fails notability criteria for songs and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - if the other AfD nom resulted in a redirect, shouldnt this be immediately redirected also? It's the same thing. - eo (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I figured, but I'm waiting for a comment from the closing admin. If (s)he agrees, this could just be speedily closed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect -- As before, per WP:CRYSTAL. I suggest moving to user page, waiting a few months, and then seeing if there are reviews and coverage to warrant an article, similar to the other articles on songs by N-Dubz. Danski14(talk) 14:19, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaria Control Project[edit]

Malaria Control Project (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)

Completing nomination for 69.181.249.92, nomination is as follows: Prod contested by person who works for the project. It's still an unreferenced article about non-notable software. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 09:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why this article should be deleted. It is, however, wrongly named. a move request to "malariacontrol.net" is pending.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malariologist (talk • contribs)

I think this debate here can be considered to cover the article no matter where it gets moved to. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:52, 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 Administrative closure Nothing has changed since I administratively closed this last week: the FLRC for this material remains open, while a discussion on this precise topic posted at WP:CENT is ongoing. Editors are encouraged to participate in either of those discussions (which could moot a WP:LOCAL consensus here), and the nominator is welcome to take up the closure of both substantially identical nominations with me at User talk:Jclemens or seek to have this closure reviewed at WP:DRV. Of course, any editor is free to renominate the list if and when its delisted from featured status, and these two closures should not be construed as prohibiting a speedy renomination once this material has been delisted. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast (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)

Was AfD'ed before, but wrongly closed by an admin. Was brought ot FLRC here due to 3.b (content forking) concerns. However consensus on the FLC-process has it that content forking is an AfD matter.

  • AFD exists to authorise use of the delete function which is tightly controlled because of its disruptive nature. The process for merger is described at WP:MERGE which says nothing about AFD. That the list is featured is certainly a relevant argument which is specifically cited as a reason to speedily close a deletion nomination as disruptive or frivolous. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. "which is specifically cited" Where is that cited? 2. There's precedence for featured lists to be deleted. 3. merge-to-redirect discussions happen all the time at AfD when considering content forks. Sandman888 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:SK. Merger might be an outcome of AFD but articles should not be brought here if there is not the slightest intention to delete. Please see WP:MERGE for the correct process. Also note WP:MAD. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim "That the list is featured is certainly a relevant argument which is specifically cited as a reason to speedily close a deletion nomination as disruptive or frivolous" is not at all backed up by WP:SK. It specifically aims at "recently promoted articles" and makes no mention of lists, let alone 2 year old lists. There's little difference between deleting the list or replacing with #REDIRECT "main article", as an example is this AfD. Sandman888 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are now arguing that lists are not articles. This is Articles for Deletion and so another leg of your proposition collapses. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not refuting/answering or even discussing the central point here. The point is that SK only makes for "recently promoted articles" to be speedy kept, but this is not recently promoted. It's fair to admit being wrong, but when you claim that featured status is "a relevant argument which is specifically cited as a reason to speedily close a deletion nomination" it is blatantly false. Sandman888 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a central point - this is not a proper deletion discussion. This is why it would be sensible to speedily close it. Merger, redirection and the like may be done by ordinary editing and so the matter does not belong here. Please see our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you no longer wish to address your previous claim and take that as a implicit acknowledgement that FL's can be AfD'ed. The matter does belong here to determine whether there is consensus for a redirect. Being a featured list it is not advisable to just blank the page, as evidenced by the same policy you linked to ("Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD"). Please see our essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussion here instead of vaguely bluelinking WP:BEFORE. Sandman888 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My primary position remains that bringing a respectable featured list here is absurd and the discussion should be closed speedily. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (OD) well that might be the case but your position is not based upon any wikipedia policy, and appears to be an emotion based "IJUSTLIKEIT" vote. Sandman888 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD is clearly not eligible for speedy keep as it does not pass any of the criteria at WP:SK. Suggesting that we speedy keep the article (and then perpetuating a long argument about it) is annoying. Continuing this pattern of behavior on numerous AfD's (which you have been doing for quite a while now) is disruptive and borderline trolling. SnottyWong spout 18:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you consider this a "respectable featured list" is irrelevant. There has been precedent for deletion of an FL and the criteria for FLRC speedy delist in cases where there exists a "clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article [which] may be shown in Articles for deletion". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Condé Nast Publications per nom. Actually, it has already been merged. A couple sentences from the lead of this article could probably be merged as well. Merging is an acceptable outcome of an AfD. For an article about mergers, merging is arguably even more appropriate. SnottyWong confabulate 18:03, 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 delete. Aside from the headcount, which is firmly to delete, the delete side of the debate has done a far more thorough job of analysing the sources. The outcome of that analysis is that the sourcing isn't sufficient for the purposes of the relevant notability guidelines. The analysis has not been refuted. The previous AfD outcomes do not substantially influence, let alone bind, the outcome here. Consensus can change, as our decision-making processes become more mature. Mkativerata (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (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)

Per WP:N

A topic should have 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.

  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

The article has 7 'sources':

  1. - self, useless.
  2. - 'Iowa Atheists', dead-link, clearly not a reliable source in any case.
  3. - Doesn't appear to be a reliable source either, plus it is a trivial mention, just one sentence at the end of a section.
  4. - Appears to be a link dump of bible studies. Book's blurb: 'The new edition includes more than 4,800 resources available at more than 10,000 Internet sites that provide information on a range of biblical study topics.' This is the very definition of a 'trivial mention'
  5. - This is certainly 'significant coverage', but I'm not sure it is reliable. Is this a letter to a newspaper? Why is the author's email address at the bottom, and with an @yahoo.com.mx address, rather than @elnuevodiario.com.ni as you would expect?
  6. - self again
  7. - you can check this on Amazon, again this is a trivial mention.

It seems that this article has been through several AFDs and that, rather like the GNAA article, people have been trawling the 'net for mentions of it, trying to find a justification for KEEP, but have come up with little that's actually allowable as a source/reference for Wikipedia's purposes (the many google hits not withstanding). Checking Google news the Nicaraguan website above is the only hit in all the Gnews archives. It seems that a truly notable topic would have rather more out there than this.Sumbuddi (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. If you think it needs to be cleaned up then nominate it for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.71.19 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well no it doesn't meet it, that's the problem. The problem I describe above is a fundamental GNG issue, not cleanup.Sumbuddi (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't make the notability cut. The standards for a website are laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (web) and this website doesn't come close. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of notability. Mention in most sources is indeed rather trivial, and the Spanish opinion piece, the only non-trivial mention, is insufficient on its own. Huon (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MelanieN: not a sufficiently notable web site. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I really, really would like to see an article on this. This site is quite well known, and very unique. And I'm sure many Wikipedians are fans of this site. Additionally, there are a lot of references to this site online, but nearly all of them are passing references in blogs and forums. Those factors are why it was kept in the past, despite many delete votes. Many believed this article could be properly sourced. However, unfortunately, there just isn't enough discussion amongst third party sources at this time to warrant an article. Especially when one considers WP:WEB. I did some quick searches and couldn't find anything useful. Having this articles means breaching WP:N and Wikipedia policy. That said, if someone cares enough about this article, they should move it to their userspace and try working on it to see if, somehow, it can be improved. Or wait until it can. Then, if, and only if, more third-party references are added, the article can go through WP:UNDELETE. I would suggest adding more information on the history of the website, if possible, and its popularity, as shown through references (preferably news references) and site hits. Danski14(talk) 04:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I decided to go and add some references, just to see what it would look like. They are to blogs or various websites, one is to a book that may or may not be notable, and one is to a "Websters dictionary" that really isn't a dictionary. I still don't think it is quite enough to be kept, but I think this is close toa a borderline case. I will defer judgment to whatever consensus is reached. At the least these references show what can be done. Danski14(talk) 05:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also interested in what people think about the reference to Conservapedia. On the one hand, it's only tangentially related, since it only briefly addresses SAB, and mainly offers a counter-argument. Does it count as a "reliable third-party publication"? And, does that fact that it was written most likely in response to the Wikipedia article lessen it's notability? Danski14(talk) 05:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Conservapedia, as a wiki project, does not count as a reliable source to establish notability, but it could be cited as a source of opinions. IMO of course. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, especially since it's such a high-level source.Danski14(talk) 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep noting the references added by Danski14. MtD (talk) 06:19, 16 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Allowing more time to evaluate Danski14's sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "Webster's dictionary" source is a Wikipedia mirror. All of the other sources listed, or that I can find, are self-published or trivial apart from the opinion piece in El Nuevo Diario, which isn't enough on its own to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I would never have noticed that. Danski14(talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno about that, rationalism has been around for a while now... Carrite (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, not a fringe view. 2/3 of the world is non-christian. 15% is non-religious. so it safe to say a large number are skeptical of Christianity. Danski14(talk) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadly not enough reliable coverage in mainstream media. (The mainstream doesn't want us to talk about the Bible -- either believe or reject take your choice -- but that's another story.) Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, upon consideration of the nominator's analysis of the sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:WEB still applies; none of the added sources:
http://skepticsannotatedbiblerespons.blogspot.com
http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sab.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/skeptics-annotated-Bible.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.org
http://books.google.com/books?id=6UJeAAAACAAJ&dq=Skeptic%27s+annotated+bible&hl=en&ei=RaGRTN6ZMYL_8Abuq9nVBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA
http://books.google.com/books?id=OXJpOwtxM1sC&pg=PA25&dq=%22Skeptic%27s+annotated+bible%22&hl=en&ei=U6GRTK6mFcP38AbU-7GBBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Skeptic%27s%20annotated%20bible%22&f=false
are remotely reliable, blogspot, some non-notable online Christian advocacy sites, a self-published book that was discussed and rejected as a source in previous AFDs, and some sort of spam/wikipedia compilation book.Sumbuddi (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of my personal inclusion benchmarks for religious topics is this question: "Does Conservapedia consider it worthy of coverage?" Not that Conservapedia is a landmark of scholarship, by any stretch of the imagination — it's just that their obsessive concentration on religious themes gives one a sounding board for what religiously-driven people consider to be important enough for encyclopedic coverage. For what it's worth, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible merits coverage at Conservapedia. Their sourcing is much worse than that of the Wikipedia article which we are discussing, it should be also noted. Websites are hard in terms of what merits coverage and what does not, but it is my sense that this is one that does. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conservapedia lacks plenty of religious articles, such as 'Jesus Myth Theory', while having others that are utterly trivial. I'm pretty sure it's not representative of anything other than a very particular strand of muscular right-wing American ideology. There are clear guidelines on what makes a website merit coverage. For instance 'GNAA' has huge numbers of webhits, and is very well-known, but it apparently fails WP:WEB. It is not appropriate to follow WP:ILIKEIT and describe this evaluation as 'hard', when the notability standards are in fact very clear and easy to follow. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, truth be told, evaluations of articles relating to websites are "hard," since most of their documentation involves feedback from other websites... Guidelines are just guidelines, decisions need to be made upon the question "Is Wikipedia better off with or without this article?" in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably we try to avoid "high level" sources like encyclopedias. Also, it's pretty obvious the Conservapedia article was written in response to the Wikipedia article, but giving a conservative christian take on it. So, oddly enough, it doesn't necessarily indicate notability. Danski14(talk) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pointer to the fact that this does not seem to be some obscure site to which no attention is given. Carrite (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We may as well say that the site is notable because it has a Wikipedia article. We're looking for reliable, published sources that are primarily about the subject, not more web sites. -- Vary | (Talk) 20:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have just noticed that the second AfD debate ended in KEEP in January 2010, less than a year ago. Notability is not temporary. If people feel a mistake was made, that decision could have been appealed to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Bringing it back here constitutes a disruptive manifestation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume bad faith. It is not usual to appeal a 9 month old KEEP deletion. Otherwise we wouldn't have had 19 GNAA AFDs. I read this article for the first time on 9 September, noticed it lacked sourcing, and listed it for deletion. To call that 'disruptive' is in itself disruptive. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a procedural violation, in my opinion. The correct procedure is an appeal to Deletion Review, not shopping for a new AfD result. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is not temporary" does not mean "once an article is kept at AFD it's notable forever," it means that saying a subject is 'no longer notable' (as with a retired athlete or a one hit wonder who's been off the charts for a while) is not a valid deletion rationale. It means that if a subject meets the GNG, it doesn't matter if all the sources being used to support inclusion are from five years ago: notable then, notable now. It does not mean that AFD contributors are infallible or that the decision reached in a single AFD is always the correct one. A deletion review is not an AFD and should generally not be used to contest the consensus of a past AFD. It can be used to contest whether the close accurately represented the consensus of the discussion, or to present significant new information that wasn't discovered until after the discussion closed and may have prevented an article from being deleted. If one simply wishes to argue for a new consensus, the correct course is a new AFD. That's why we have a procedure for creating second and third AFD discussions. That is, as the nominator stated, why the GNAA article was deleted after an umpteenth AFD, not after a deletion review. This discussion is completely appropriate and absolutely not disruptive. Notability isn't temporary, but consensus isn't permanent, either. -- Vary | (Talk) 20:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought when this article previously came to AFD that it clearly failed Wikipedia:Notability (web), and I was surprised to see it kept. The only sources added since my previous comments are self-published Christian criticism, the inclusion of which just indicates that significant religious commentators haven't noticed the website. Even one of the cited sources contends that "almost none of SAB deserves detailed response". I don't consider the existence of a Conservapedia article relevant; Conservapedia has only a dozen or so regular editors, and their level of interest in topics like "Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience" is unlikely to represent that of American conservative Christians in general. EALacey (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good secondary source coverage, satisfies WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources would you classify as "good secondary sources"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources presented do not appear to be reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:15, 21 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 Incubate. Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kittens of Woodlake Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kittens of Woodlake[edit]

Kittens of Woodlake (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)

Nonnotable independent film, sources are all local and do not satisfy WP:N. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - better to prune and wikify etc, rather than delete.SE7Talk/Contribs 20:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete supposed film, not on IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With respects Andrew, IMDB is not the repository if all films ever made, and would not contibute any notability even were this one be listed there. Better to look at the sources provided to see that it does indeed exist, and then look for more and see if we can determine if it can meet WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate per WP:TOOSOON. I just went through and gave the article a cleanup and sourcing, but notability is not quite there yet. I was going to suggest userfication, but my own suspician is that the SPA author LMorley100 is quite likely the film's writer/director Lynnette Morley, and a userfication would encourage a furthe conflict of interest. If deleted from mainspace and incubated, the author (who up til now was not notified of this AFD) can be advised of WP:COI and asked to not edit the article further... allowing others to address additional sourcing in incubation as the film gains coverage. And if the film does not get more coverage, it will be deleted from incubation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Article author now notified and cautioned. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:36, 12 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Noël Gobron[edit]

Jean-Noël Gobron (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 clear how this person meets WP:CREATIVE? The "references" in the bibliography section are primary (point to the websites of the subject, Alcyonfilm.com). no third-party, substantial sources that indicate why he is notable. Spatulli (talk) 19:12, 9 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think it is possible to compile an informative article about this filmmaker. I found several reviews of his works: [43], [44], [45], [46], unfortunately I can't speak French or Dutch. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an argument to avoid, see WP:INTHENEWS, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:SOURCESEARCH , etc. finding sources for the name of the person doesn't mean he meets WP:CREATIVE. That's what happens to be my deletion rationale. Spatulli (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I'm trying to do here is providing possible sources/evidence for consideration of others. In this particular case I think there is a chance to enrich this project with a piece of verifiable information on a filmmaker. I admit, my editing skills for translating French and Dutch sources are limited, and G-translator is weak. It is just my opinion. Should I avoid doing that? Btw, WP:CREATIVE, #3 says: the person has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it says the person must have been the subject of the article, which is not really the case here:[47] (it's an article that reviews his film, without giving a clear assertion of its significance; for example, no awards are mentioned) . [48] [49]and [50] merely mention him in passing while the two latter ones are about some film of his, without mentioning how significant this work is. Neither of them are specifically about him. Spatulli (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the online review of his films about his parents indicates some 3rd party attention, that is hardly enough. And if notable in Europe, one would expect to be able to look to articles in other Wikipedias. But he has no biography in the French, Dutch or German Wikis. The nearest is a mention as a distributor of a particular film: [51]. It may have been worth informing the creator of the article to seek references demonstrating notability, though her account activity seems to be limited to the 9 days during which this article was developed. AllyD (talk) 18:56, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12oz Prophet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
12oz Prophet (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 reliable sources found. Redlinky, lacking in sources, tagged for sources for four years now. Last AFD was four years ago and resulted in no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:33, 9 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Brantford[edit]

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

Article appears to be solely an extended personal essay based on original research. Although it's been around for over three years, its present references appear to be dead in-line external links and links to a historical architectural website that do not support what's being contended in the article. I'd suggest merging it into the main Brantford Ontario article; but because the material this article contains is completely unsupported, I'm unsure exactly what should be safely "merged". Deconstructhis (talk) 16:01, 9 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although quite a bit of effort has gone into writing it, it does appear to be a reflective essay more suitable for a magazine rather than Wikipedia. Passages like "Bands from across the country would pack the bars with Brantford's more aggressive youth. Some of the more well known musicians, like Steve Goof(BFG's), Anus (Dirty Bird) Jimbo (Dayglo Abortions) have fond memories of playing in Brantford's seedy bars" seem to confirm this. Because most of the bands have no articles on Wikipedia, one can only assume that they're not particularly noteworthy. Bob talk 08:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. After an online search for references, I believe that the subject lacks verifiable notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that the article should be deleted. Cindamuse (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contravenes WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. PKT(alk) 00:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really reads like an article someone wrote for something else (perhaps a local zine?) and decided to stick it here instead. Unsourced and likely unsourcable, not to mention really POV ("great bands" etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fear and Fearfulness[edit]

Fear and Fearfulness (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, original reason was "Article about an article, not notable, no independent references" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 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 merge to Borden (company). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borden Food Corporation[edit]

Borden Food Corporation (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 is largely a word for word duplicate of the article Borden (company) and is redundant. All the information can be found in the more comprehensive parent article. -- Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - Article is not "largely" word-for-word duplicate. Article talk page has already laid out many important, substantive differences just by analyzing the lead paragraphs. Additional analysis will show even more substantive differences. Article may require improvement, but that does not justify deletion. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Agree with Tim1965. The atricle can use improvement, and thats why were all here isnt it? The free encylopedia that anyone can edit. So, lets have some people edit it and make it satisfactory! Flightx52 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order, and this may be me being dense - why do we need two articles on the same entity? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:43, 15 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Borden (company) article listing the subsidiary and expansion of the company. There is not an analysis provided on the talk page, but rather a simple copy|paste of the ledes of the two articles. A more thorough comparison clearly shows that there is substantial duplication of information. Either speedy delete per "A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic" or merge into the parent company. At this point, Borden Food Corporation lacks notability independent of the parent company. Notability is not inherited per WP:INHERIT. Cindamuse (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the two entities have different histories, but their relationship is not clear. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - After review, I think merging with Borden (Company) Is the better idea. Flightx52 (talk) 01:01, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crime scene getaway[edit]

Crime scene getaway (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)

Dicdef. No sources. Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getaway car closed as no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:05, 9 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Luke[edit]

Brad Luke (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:N. Subject is a non-notable City of Newcastle councillor. AussieLegend (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong AussieLegend he is also candidate for the division of Newcastle and runs a financial planning business. Enidblyton11 (talk) 11:53, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron C. Hall[edit]

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

Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Regrettable, but fairly common case. Coverage appears to be strictly local, and nothing much came out of it. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:31, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vokle[edit]

Vokle (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)

Video conferencing application. Lacks any substantial coverage from reliable sources (and I was unable to find any in a quick search). Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:37, 2 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, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources and the information about the Tech Coast Angels, they are the one of the largest investment angel pools around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeksquader (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget the password to User:Sochill33? ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
No observed discussions, therefore I'm relisting again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, passing mention in some reliable sources, but no significant coverage. Notability is not conferred upon software by the fame of people who use it, or who invests in it. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:21, 21 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) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wilkinson (Rubiks Cuber)[edit]

Chris Wilkinson (Rubiks Cuber) (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 secondary sources indicate that this person is notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. PROD removed by primary author without comment. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is a schoolboy who is good at Rubiks Cubes. There are no major articles about him.--Lester 07:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails notability at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete schoolkid who plays with Rubik's Cubes. Not even remotely notable enough for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Campbell[edit]

Danny Campbell (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 is no evidence that this player has done anything of note. Despite what the article implies, he never played first-team professional football in England. The matches referred to appear to be friendly or reserve-team games. I am not sure that seven appearances for Cincinnati Kings is sufficient to make him notable. The player of the same name shown at the "Neil Brown" website was active 40 years ago. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that his appearances for the reserve/youth teams or for the Kings wouldn't be enough to satisfy WP:ATHLETE, but if there was some verification that he played in the Gambrinus Liga it would be. I haven't found anything yet though... Bettia (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is mentioned in relation to FK Baník Most on this webpage but as it's in Czech, I have no idea what it says about him. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google's magic translating machine, it says "Most couples had already left the invaders Kiril Čokčev - Danny Campbell. Petr Kabíček nevylučuje možnost, že se zde v létě objeví znovu. Peter Kabíček not exclude the possibility that there will again this summer." So not very helpful really..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - does anyone have a PlayerHistory.com subscription? His profile doesn't mention the Gambrinus Liga, but it does mention 7 career appearances - 5 for the Kings (which isn't enough as it isn't a fully-pro team) and 2 more for anonymous English/Scottish teams...GiantSnowman 11:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soccerbase has no record of him, so he didn't play professionally in England or Scotland. Also, "He was in and out of the team that season suffering with a drop in form and confidence. Against Oldham Athletic in August 2003 he suffered a torn cruciate ligament preventing him from playing until April 2004 where he returned away at Victoria Park against Hartlepool United creating the equalising goal in a game that ended 4–4" is either made-up or else refers to the reserve/youth team, as Stockport's first team did not play such matches -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There appears to be no verification that has competed at a fully professional level, therefore this subject fails WP:V and WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that another article on the same player at Daniel Campbell (soccer) was deleted in March 2008 with a block on its re-creation. (see User talk:Dannyc85). Danny Campbell (soccer) was also deleted in March 2008. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of which are identical to this article. Unfortunately, neither of those were deleted via AfD so this probably wouldn't be eligible for speedy deletion under CSD:G4. Ah well, let's let this AfD run its course then it can be used to speedy any further copies that crop up. Bettia (talk) 15:10, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oinatz Aulestia[edit]

Oinatz Aulestia (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)

On behalf of Vasco Amaral Sandman888 (talk) 06:21, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Squatters episodes[edit]

List of Squatters episodes (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)

Episodic list of a non-notable web series, Squatters. If Squatters is deemed notable enough to have an article, this should be merged into the Squatters web page due to the small amount of episodes-- no need to create a content fork. Also, I should've nominated all these articles in one nomination, sorry. Nomader (Talk) 05:19, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squatters (TV series)[edit]

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

A declined speedy from back in May ([52]), no reliable sources show up during a search and the two sources other than the places where the videos are hosted are a passing mention on a nyu.edu blog/podcast and an extensive article on a blog called "Clicker", which is a website dedicated to promoting online video series (its about page). I'm nominating this for deletion because it is a self-published web video series (published on YouTube, DailyMotion, and its own website) that fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Nomader (Talk) 05:16, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars with unusual door designs[edit]

List of cars with unusual door designs (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)

"Unusual" is highly subjective, I doubt reliable sources can be found, and this is possibly not encyclopaedic. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Are you kidding? Totally subjective. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is not really specified, what we are dealing with here is a list of automobiles that don't have doors with hinges towards the front and a latch towards the back. It's definitely a finite list (and seemingly close to complete if not complete as it sits), although I agree that the current name makes it sound subjective and open-ended. Carrite (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This subject is far too subjective to ever have accurate encyclopedic information about it. Nomader (Talk) 04:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a list, the encyclopedic information appears elsewhere. Think of this as a gateway for users to find articles on related topics. Carrite (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but retitle it. The current title of this list is a problem: it makes it sound like it's subjective, but it really isn't: the first sentence explains that this is a list of cars that "use passenger door designs other than the standard design, which is hinged at the front edge of the door, and swings away from the car horizontally and towards the front of the car." If this were titled "List of cars with non-standard door design", the inclusion criterion suddenly becomes clear. Sourcing does not strike me as a major problem for the majority of list: the majority of the cars on the current list have their own articles where their design is covered. One might argue that the inclusion criterion is arbitrary but it seems to me that this is potentially a legitimate, and useful, way to organize a group of cars with a common characteristic. I could still imagine arguments that this list would be non-encyclopedic for some other reason, but I don't think subjectivity and sourceability are really the issues here that they seem to be at first blush. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A further comment: I lean toward keeping this list in one piece, but if the criterion "non-standard door designs" is thought to be too arbitrary, the remedy would not be to delete all the content of the list, but rather to split it up into smaller lists for each type of door. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Stupid title, pretty good list. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Change to: List of cars with non-standard door designs. Carrite (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be alright with that renaming, but I'm worried that the list in its nature will always be encyclopedic. I think the lead needs to be expanded to clearly lay out what the criteria for inclusion for the list is. Nomader (Talk) 05:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep standard engineering list. There are only 6 categories recognized as unusual. If you can think of more designs, you should send your resume to Detroit. My guess, is that the delete voters never clicked through to the article and voted based on the name only. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles exist for each of the six types, the contents should be moved tho these six respective pages. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list, not an article. There is no content fork involved and nothing to merge. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, etc. Is there an article on Car door? Merge some there, merge lists to individual articles on the door styles. (If someone wants to read about Butterfly doors he or she will not object to there being a list at the bottom of the article.)Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a list, not an article. There is no content fork involved and nothing to merge. The functional purpose of the exercise is to provide masses of in-links for related articles. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but retitle. The article itself definitely has a reason to exist. The word "unusual" is controversial, though, because it does imply subjective judgment. Replacing it with a word such as "atypical" or "non-standard" might make it appear less objectionable at first glance. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use "non-standard" rather than "unusual" as the title. These designs aren't trivial and a navigational list pointing to the individual card models is understandable and of use. Someoneanother 01:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list with clear inclusion criterion. Renaming "unusual" to "non-standard" might help. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but retitle notable for inclusion. but need a better name per above.—Chris!c/t 19:27, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lab Theatre[edit]

Lab Theatre (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 Calvin College theater facility. No third party sources to show notability. Not even any prominent performances held there, nor is it even the only theater facility at the college. GrapedApe (talk) 03:11, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RASH Theater Company[edit]

RASH Theater Company (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 theater without reliable sources. JNW (talk) 02:37, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Midnight[edit]

Charlie Midnight (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 secondary sources found. Claims to Grammy wins are not corroborated by existing Grammy award lists; the Grammys in question went to the artists. Large number of credits, but absolutely no biographical info found, nor anything other than Allmusic directories to verify the info. Simply having a big résumé of material isn't enough if there's absolutely no reliable sourcing to be found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I agree with user:Ten Pound Hammer (above). He has co-written songs with other notable people, and produced their albums, but I also could not find biographical articles about him.--Lester 04:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Prolific songwriter and record producer who has himself received a Golden Globe nomination (now cited) and significant coverage in Billboard. Plenty of reliable sources for the specific credits exists; I've added just a small sampling of what I found. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per expansion by Paul Erik. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per expansion by Paul Erik. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:55, 22 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 CSD A9. Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TRE3S[edit]

TRE3S (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 makes no claim of fame, and is unreferenced. It was successfully speedy deleted under CSD A7. intelati(Call) 02:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually several times deleted under CSD A7, A9.--intelati(Call) 03:33, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebrals Society[edit]

Cerebrals Society (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 does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of organizations. No reliable sources have been found for the article, even after a previous PROD. After further diligent search and discussion on the article talk page, it appears that no reliable sources can be found about the organization or its activities. Therefore the article is nominated for deletion discussion for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did give you a reliable source twice in the discussion page. Please, note that this source is already included into the article. For your reference, here are my replies to our discussion on the article talk page:
  • Along with Mensa, Cerebrals Society is featured into the Genius Ressources section of the Ron Howard's movie "A beautiful mind" website. This fits quite well with Audience recommendation of the Wikipedia guidelines on notability of organizations: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." --90.41.2.178 (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. (Sorry, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia). Go to http://www.abeautifulmind.com/main.html. Then, click on the fourth formula (actual link is "Formulas"). Under the "About genius" section, chose "Genius Resources": the fourth link here is Cerebrals. --90.41.2.178 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)"[reply]
--92.150.56.72 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Thanks for your reply. I think under Wikipedia policy it is reasonable to conclude that 1) that is not actually a reliable source, as it appears to be a paragraph passed from a publicist from Cerebrals Society to a Hollywood movie publicist, and 2) in any event, the movie website does not describe any activity of organization in sufficient detail or with sufficiently recent events to even verify the continued existence of the organization, much less to establish its notability or to verify encyclopedic statements about the organization. Since then, the organization appears to have been invisible to all independent media. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying it's not sufficient to be notable, but also to be continuously notable as proven by multiple unrelated sources? Can you please substantiate that with any official Wikipedia policies (same as your speculation about origin of Cerebrals reference on the Beatufil Mind website)? Otherwise, you can speculate like that endlessly and come down to disguising personal preferences under badly interpredted Wikipedia policies. StevanMD (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about making the affirmative case that the article is about a notable organization based on sources that are indisputably reliable? See WP:BFAQ for examples of issues to keep in mind for any article about an organization. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please identify "sources that are undisputably reliable"? If that's easier, can you please draw comparison with references for this page for example? It would be helpful to know. Also, can you state what makes a reference on a major movie website unworthy of notability claim?
Besides, a test originally started by and used for Cerebrals Society organized contest has at a later point grown to become a test published by a major global test publisher for professional use by licensed psychologists (a contribution that sets apart Cerebrals Society from all other high IQ organizations, including Mensa), however you can't find that information on the internet, so you see how general notability claims of Wikipedia can become a little ridiculous. How does one enter non-internet references, and how do editors, such as yourself, check and verify those references? Please, let me know, as it is certainly a warranted reference for the Cerebrals Society article. StevanMD (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources for any of the factual claims you have just made about the society or about the test? To answer your kind question, the way I verify sources is by looking them up through Internet searches (the most convenient way, which should generally be available to most Wikipedians) and also through library requests through a major metropolitan public library or a major state research university library system. Both of those library systems give me access to interlibrary loans that can reach across the entire United States. To answer your other question, the Wikipedia reliable sources policy has been located at the same URL on Wikipedia for a long time. A helpful paragraph in the lede of that article says, "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a general rule, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for the factual claims, as I said, are only partially and incompletely obtainable on the internet and would require you to either blindly trust them or research them live. Source for the claim that the test was published by a major global test publisher can be found here: http://www.ecpa.fr/ressources-humaines/test.asp?id=1742
You will also need to check that it corresponds to the 2003 Cerebrals Contest here: http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=100 which you'll need to interview the test author and the test publisher about. Question becomes, whether it is unnotable because it requires live verification as oposed to simple internet "point and click" approach? Of course not, but please, do let me know whether adding this information to Cerebrals Society article will stop it from being deleted as it properly should?
With regard to: "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a general rule, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.", I don't see how that discredits a reference on a major movie website, which itself has a rather lengthy Wikipedia entry and was a project involving hundreds of people working over a period extending for months if not a whole year on research and realization of both the film and related material? StevanMD (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing the link to the test publisher website. The APA-styled reference is already given in the article. Answers given by several members of Cerebrals have been used in order to analyse high-range items of an experimental cognitive ability test. This test along with related psychometric analyses were then peer-reviewed and published by the ECPA (which is to my knowledge the French branch of Pearson Education, Inc.). --Xavierjouve (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG. The high point for this group is apparently having a movie website link to their site. That's both a little funny and a little sad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does funny or sad in one man's personal opionion qualify for deletion per Wiki policies? What matters is whether the source is credible and notable, not whether it makes someone laugh or cry. StevanMD (talk) 07:22, 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 redirect to List of Decepticons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pounce (Transformers)[edit]

Pounce (Transformers) (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. Character is a minor one, neither notable nor important. NotARealWord (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is a redirect really necessary? Also, if Hasbro ever gains trademark to this name, they could make it inappropriate to redirect this to "List of Decepticons" considering how they like to reuse names for unrelated characters. NotARealWord (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It sure as hell beats deleting the page. --Divebomb (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging might be more appropriate but there is no suitable place to merge to. If ever an article on the Clones toys/characters were made, that might be a good place to merge. In the absence of that, there is some significance to the toy and character concept for the Clones that a short write up somewhere is appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 18:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why would keep be necessary? It's not like the Decepticon clones appeared much. NotARealWord (talk) 15:12, 21 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. No agreement on whether the Grammy nomination is sufficient to estability notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Vinatea[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Edward Vinatea (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 declined an IP's speedy on this, since claims to notability are made--but those claims all work by way of namedropping. This person is not notable. Article has no reliable sources that establish notability, Google News and Books offer nothing. Delete. At the very least delete that horrible photograph with the fan growing out of his head. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I just saw the first AfD, and nothing there changes my mind. Mention is made of this page on AllMusic verifying some of his work--but there remains the absence of any other reliable sources that establish notability or verify any of the other facts. Should this AfD end in the article being kept, for one reason or another, I am going to insist that it be reduced to one single sentence, containing the facts in the AllMusic reference. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Drmies is looking to establish WP:N as as a musician...Yo, thats not why this subject has an article here. He is an audio engineer and became worthy of WP inclusion the moment one of his artists was nominated for a Grammy (check Ashley Altman Grammy award nomination 2006 (listed as #6) from the book itself) Some stuff can be found at Allmusic.com & some stuff at Discogs. It's obvious the Allmusic doesn't list him as engineer on so many titles. Case in point is Altman's album. He also works with professionals you've never heard of like Ed Chalpin which you made a personal attack here [53] and Kimo Kaulani. To verify all this, Google is your best friend, use it. Jrod2 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might could start by adding reliable sources to the article. We're clearly not dealing with Bob Ludwig here, or Rudy Van Gelder. What you call a personal attack is actually the undoing of namedropping and notability by association: there is a photograph of your guy and Ed Chalpin, Ed Chalpin worked with Hendrix (yes, Jimi), therefore your guy is notable. Also, I don't understand your first sentence, but it is clear that WP:N should apply across the board, and it doesn't here: subjects need reliable secondary sources to establish notability, even if the particular notability is inherent to a position or an award, like an Olympic Medal. I don't believe that engineering a nominated album automatically confers notability, that's the bottomline, and you can't make any other claims for notability because there aren't any to make with reliable sources. Oh, I know what Google is, thank you. This edit, which I will let stand for now to indicate the straws you are clutching at, suggests that WP:RS is not daily reading: you make our encyclopedia claim your subject is a musical person by pointing at his MySpace. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--you're saying that engineering a song which is nominated for a Grammy for "Best Female Pop Vocal Performance" along with 139 other pop vocal performances confers notability? 1 out of 140? That's not very selective. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Mastered Geri King. comment:I've been contibutining to this article subject & fwiw all mastering engineers are by nature name droppers, piggy backers, and the large majority are a bunch of prima donnas. The subject is at least multifaceted and I looks like he is a threat to his peers because he can sing or mix. So many ip trolls have taken issue with this engineer his page should be protected not deleted. 69.10.63.226 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What this dude Drmies is suggesting is: mastering engineers aren't worth a mention when their clients only get an award nomination - that or maybe - award nominations are BS to establish notability. Either way he clearly has no idea of how difficult it's for any musician to achieve a Grammy nomination. Dude instead of tagging away for convenience look for suitable citations. I just found this with little effort at http://www.billboard.com/#/album/cindy-blackman/music-for-the-new-millennium/775151 .Maybe he thinks C Blackman is not notable too? 1 more thing - if everyone has to be like Bob L then 90% of all engineer pages would be removed from wikipedia [lol]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.58.130 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That link doesn't mention the subject, and is a link to a seemingly unnotable, at least non-charting album anyways. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited from the artists an engineer works with. The sound engineers aren't the ones nominated for an award, the artistes are. All in all, this guy fails the {general notability guidelines by some distance. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep.Here is the link that mentions him. Fwiw: engineers don't have a specific "Grammy" award because it would require a separate category on each style of music. Thus rely on the success of their artists awards and noms.Ubot16 (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Award noms, mastered recordings with other notable artists, his work was covered by at some point by WorldNews.com I don't have the time to research him so I gave the subject a "weak keep". Ubot16 (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: what about the quote on The Huffington Post?[54] Don't they have higher editorial standards and more diligence than Wikipedia will ever have?. 204.152.202.182 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep.Another threshold of inclusion is this engineer worked or still does for dj/producer Tom Glide and Ekayani [55][56] who had 2 wins with an album Vinatea worked on called "Yoga On The Dancefloor And Sanskrit Mantras": Won Best Urban Track & Record Of the Year 2008 and Best Urban Track 2007 On The New Century Peoples Choice Award [57] [58][59] [60] [61] and was rated 4 stars by Time Out New York mag [62][63]. 96.45.189.199 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*speedy delete. this site is a joke and has no business being on wiki. A couple of credits does not make one notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.37 (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Çomment: Make no mistake, Yo...these are the *dynamic* anom IP addresses (166.137.136.37, , 166.137.136.226, 166.137.137.162, 166.137.137.16, 166.137.136.217, 166.137.137.182, 166.137.139.71, 166.137.136.75, 166.137.138.144, 166.137.137.16, 166.137.137.111) of "Greg", a Gearslutz.com troll. His IP's are also most likely proxies, aight? He came to Wikipedia out of the blue in July this year to rv removed links to that public forum used as citations [64]. Then after he realized he was getting nowhere wit me, he decided to make accusations n' personal attacks [65] like: "he's in a jihad against gearslutz" [66] and "Joe has beef with gearslutz or something" [67]. Then after the Gearslutz WP:RS/N discussion was closed with unreliable consensus, he started to make a whole bunch of nonconstructive edits to this article under AfD nomination. There is at least another ip address that matches his edit style. Btw, this was originally Proded not AfDed by another one-edit ip address (187.20.114.22) matching edit style with *Greg* [68] which i find too serendipitous :) Anywhoo...He is clearly a troll n' short of a range block which could effect many ppl, his comments are just stricken from the record. Jrod2 (talk) 14:50, 22 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gunnells[edit]

Jon Gunnells (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 has actually been here without challenge since March 2009. What is claimed does not amount to notability, but in view of the long history I thought it better to bring it here than to just speedy it. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 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 Withdrawn no !votes for deletion, article was greatly improved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retail design[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Retail design (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)

Dicdef, unsourced OR. Last AFD closed with a keep based on "This article just needs some work," but once again, everyone expected everyone else to do the work and thus we just went around in circles and did jack squat. It's always somebody else's problem isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nominator voted "strong keep" in the articles last AfD - what's changed since then? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that I am no longer one of those people who says "keep but add sources" without making any attempt to prove that sources exist. Unfortunately, we have so many people who still do that same freaking thing, thus making a big Gordian knot of WP:SEP... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather, you're one of those people who would have an article deleted rather than add some references? It's always someone else's problem isn't it? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:06, 11 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) 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - From "Strong Keep" to nominating for deletion? Hmmmm. Actually, the correct answer is that it's hard to give a crap one way or the other. Certainly an example of a poorly sourced article, but that makes it one of about 500,000 sitting on WP. Maybe more. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I seriously thought this was a huge joke on somebody's part, but apparently not. I am appalled nonetheless. Therefore, I have gone in and added a number of references to the article and have completely rewritten and expanded the history section of the article. This nomination seems to be, to me, an extreme violation of WP:BEFORE. SilverserenC 02:30, 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. Courcelles 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GMV Nashville[edit]

GMV Nashville (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 reliable sources found. Only sources are a blog and a primary source. Presence of notable artists on label doesn't mean inherent notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:56, 9 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, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company[edit]

Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company (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 company lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Article is supported by Press Releases. ttonyb (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted more potential sources supporting the notability of the company to the talk page of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tri-State_Consumer_Insurance_Company

I also tried to make the case there that a google search for the company returns a number of discussion boards looking for information on the company, indicating its need for a page SamXMorris (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) — SamXMorris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Wikipedia articles must meet the criteria for Wikipedia based notability using reliable sources. The sources do not meet the criteria for reliable sources, the majority are Press Releases. Wikipedia is not a venue to disseminate information about companies that do not meet Wikipedia defined criteria, the company should be able to do so using their own website. ttonyb (talk) 01:50, 10 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, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks sufficient sources to establish notability. On the talk page, User:SamXMorris and User:Dsforeman (both WP:SPAs) argue "A search for "TSC Direct" returns a number of message boards with users asking for information about the company. In my opinion, having a wikipedia article that collects all verifiable information about the company fills an important empty niche." and "When searching on Google for TSC Direct you see posts on Q&A sites and forums with many people are seeking information about the company and asking specifically if it is a legitimate business. A local NY insurance company with 100 million in assets is certainly notable and a Wikipedia article would provide valuable information for people who would otherwise have few other reliable sources of information." On the contrary, if the sources are not already there to be readily found on a Google search, that is an argument AGAINST including in it Wikipedia. We only put things here that can be verified by independent sources. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 22 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International[edit]

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

I can't find the significant coverage needed to prove notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:58, 9 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, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like there's enough reliable sources out there to warrant an article. And as a bonus, it was an interesting read.   — C M B J   06:07, 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_September_16

Leave a Reply