Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 14#SlenderBuildxxx

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Mistaken nomination. SnottyWong talk 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Lodge (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. "Masonic Lodge" is not an ambiguous term. The list of specific buildings given here is, firstly, inappropriate for a disambig page, and secondly, duplicated on List of Masonic buildings. Delete per WP:SETINDEX. SnottyWong talk 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read what you just linked. At WP:SETINDEX you are given Signal Mountain as an example. The disambiguation has a listing of all mountains named Signal Mountain and a link to a list page. you basically defeated your own point. PeRshGo (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There is an obvious difference. A disambiguation page exists to allow users to navigate to articles which all have the same or similar names. Since there are multiple entities named "Signal Mountain", a disambig page in this case is warranted. There are not, however, multiple entities named "Masonic Lodge". There are multiple entities which fall into the category of Masonic Lodge (i.e. they can be described as a Masonic lodge), but this is not the same thing. Using your logic, we would have a disambiguation page for Human which lists every BLP article in Wikipedia. SnottyWong talk 00:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is only one article on Wikipedia titled "Masonic Lodge", so a dab page is unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Station1 is an experienced dab editor who knows better. Station1 knows this complies with MOS:DABRL and every other aspect of wp:MOSDAB policy! Station1 and i have worked together cooperatively sometimes, and sometimes seem at loggerheads, but this assertion by Station1 astounds me. I don't know "Snottywong" but AGF that the nomination is well-meant, just uninformed. --doncram (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with Snottywong's logic as I described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (disambiguation) but I can't disagree with Station1's. PeRshGo (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. There are 3 wikipedia-notable places named exactly Masonic Lodge listed in the dab, and 2 close variations worth mentioning (that are likely known also as simply that, and/or are likely targets of some readers' searches). 2 of those 3 are currently primary redlinks, but they are valid disambiguation page entries as they include a properly formatted supporting bluelink to an article showing the redlink in a meaningful context, conforming exactly to the MOS:DABRL guideline. The disambiguation page is needed to clarify to editors what is proper name to start the articles at, and to clarify to readers what are the options and inform them that wikipedia currently lacks, but would welcome, articles on the redlink ones. --doncram (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Goes West (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. Not notable. About person with a wasting disease, pitiable and all that, but the film is not notable. Self-references and IMDB which is not copy-edited and therefore not considered reliable. Student7 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG keep Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NF. Apparently the nominator judged the current article (yes, needs cleanup and better sourcing) and failed to check for available sources before nominating. While not wanting to underscore lack of WP:BEFORE, G-news find a great number of news articles for this film,[1] AND about Darius Weems [2] And the film has won multiple awards [3] and critical acclaim. Seems like its time to fix, not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Quite rare that a documentary film makes the impact as has this one... and rarer still for an independent film by teenagers. I have begun cleanup, expansion, and sourcing to the article, and ask that editors reading this discussion take a look at THIS and perhaps help out in improving and sourcing. I also strongly urge that the nomninator seriously consider a wihdrawal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Many of the awards are for minor film festivals which if taken on their own would not be sufficient. However, the shear number of awards received and the ongoing coverage shows it is clearly notable. The fact that it is being shown in a film festival in Kerala this year, over 3 years after its release, is also strong evidence towards it having lasting impact. Quantpole (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the Variety review alone and the sheer number of awards won make it a fairly obvious case, for me, anyway. Yes, some before WP:BEFORE work would have been nice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Passes WP:NF. SnottyWong talk 22:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep News coverage and awards. Dream Focus 06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whatever happened here, it's notable. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Indiscriminate list. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of XMPP client software (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 Indiscriminate list of external links. See WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is not meant to be used by people to advertise their products/projects. That is the sole purpose of this "article". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With some cleanup, this would provide a useful index to notable XMPP clients. Suggest that we remove all external links except the one to the XMPP site & then wikilink all clients. Red links can be allowed to stay on the list for a short time to encourage stubs, but can be purged if it is clear they are not notable. --Karnesky (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that we should keep the list because it is WP:USEFUL? Is that our purpose here, to provide a list of useful external links? I thought Wikipedia was not a web directory? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read both WP:USEFUL and my comments before wiki-lawyering!

"Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'"

This is precisely why I said this page can serve as an index. I also argued that the list article could be kept & the external links can be removed. --Karnesky (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External linkspam has been removed. I'd encourage you to be less liberal in deletion, when cleanup is relatively trivial (especially when you found this page on another talk page, to prevent any accusation of WP:POINT). --Karnesky (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Where is the informative part that helps people navigate the subject? All I see is NAME, SUPPORTED PLATFORM and SUPPORTED PROTOCOLS. None of it backed up by sources. Do you genuinely think anyone has put any effort into this article except to go "Hey cool, I'm gonna add my project to the list too." AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another point I meant to mention in the nomination that I forgot. What does this article get us that isn't better provided by categories? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and categories are not meant to be mutually exclusive. The fact that the list informes us about platform and protocol makes it better than a category already. --Cyclopia^talk 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might refer to other AfDs re. list articles. It has been said time-and-again that lists are not redundant to categories. This list is useful over categories for the same reasons that other software lists are, including:

• It provides additional sub-categorization/clarification (in this case, license, platform, and other miscellaneous notes)
• Some red-linked entries are notable products & this encourages the creation of stubs.

--Karnesky (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, indiscriminate list of non-notable titles. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No different from many other software list articles. It is clearly not indiscriminate, it seems to list only notable entries (all bluelinks), if some entries are not notable they can be removed and so, being an issue dealt with editing, we do not delete for this reason alone. The "advertisement" reasoning of the nom is unproven and smells of failing WP:AGF. Lists are meant to be useful, in structuring information for searching and easiness purpose. --Cyclopia^talk 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The advertisement reason is unproven? Did you look at the edit history? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 1)please point me at where blatant advertisement pops out and 2)since when promotional edits are considered a reason to delete a whole article? --Cyclopia^talk 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:IINFO applies. This list is unlikely to be completable on any level. Claritas § 11:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart that there is nothing indiscriminate about the list (it has a clearly defined topic with a clearly defined inclusion criteria), why do you think it is "unlikely to be completeable", and why do we need it to be completed right now? --Cyclopia^talk 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, would you mind please taking some time to understand what WP:OR and WP:MADEUP really mean, instead of citing them completely nonsensically in every AfD? Do XMPP clients look like a madeup topic? --Cyclopia^talk 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In answer to Cyclopia, WP:GHITS has never been a valid rationale for inclusion. The list itself needs to have been the subject of some form of external validation to demonstrate that it is not original research. That means that there should be some form of reliable, third party source that either provides a definition of the list in accordance with WP:Source list or comments upon such a list (i.e. an acknowledgement of its existence in the real world). There are no such sources cited in this list, hence my delete recomendation, since the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not talking of a number of GHITS, I am providing evidence that XMPP clients are not something madeup one day but are the subject of publications in the real world. The list itself needs to have been the subject of some form of external validation to demonstrate that it is not original research.: what "external validation"? Since when are WP articles peer reviewed outside WP? And would you mind explain where is the OR in this list? Citing policies is fine, citing them without knowing what they mean is not. --Cyclopia^talk 17:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment XMPP clients surely exist in the real world, but it is this "list of XMPP clients" that does not: this is the stumbling block. Not only is there no other list like it from which a definition can be sourced, but there is no other source like it, period. When I refer to WP:NOT#OR, I am referring to the list itself, not its content. Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about these lists, or the definitions they contain, once they have been published and become part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You are missing the point of 1)The purpose of lists, that is that of being a navigational help to readers, not a topic 2)WP:MADEUP which exists to prevent articles to pop about non-notable stuff that has been done one day 3)WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. Being a list a navigational help, we build it, like we build navboxes, infoboxes or categories. It is not meant to be an article about a notable list, it is meant to be a navigational help for users to navigate other articles. Gavin, you are really better reading policies and guidelines before appealing to them. --Cyclopia^talk 23:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Currently, all external links seem to have been removed. This invalidates the nom rationale of "Indiscriminate list of external links." --Cyclopia^talk 10:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : It is important for people and XMPP is an open, standard, extensible protocol... — Neustradamus (✉) 11:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montanamo (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 book lacking GHits and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK ttonyb (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no signficant coverage about this book. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Orangemike. (non-admin closure). Jujutacular ^T · C 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mini thin (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 musician. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of reliable sources, virtually no Google hits. Promotional article, with WP:BLP issues. JNW (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per others; user took it upon themselves to take the article that already had that name and essentially vandalize it into the form it is now (the original article has since been deleted), so I'm less than willing to let them have their way. HalfShadow 23:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can tell from the history, the author created this page from scratch. The page Mini Thin (note alternate capitalization) still redirects to ephedrine as appropriate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Despite the Vanilla Ice feel, this is apparently an unknown hip-hopist on an unknown record label with an article created by a WP:SPA that only promotes this artist. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete history and redirect to ephedrine. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry potter fun facts (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)

Unsourced trivia (possibly in violation of the original research policy); Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts. Page creator contested the PROD. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. trivia articles or section are usually discouraged in WP due to being not really encyclopedic in nature, nevertheless a well written and well sourced article might be beneficial to readers and hence at least occasionally acceptable. But currently this article is neither, hence it should be deleted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, A10. Hairhorn (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's a first time contribution from a new editor, and I suspect a young fan of the books (I'm guessing early teens), so I won't be too harsh. We do have a policy against trivia sections. The preference is for weaving interesting facts into the narrative, along with a sources for statements that raise a new talking point (hence the "Did you know?" section on the main page).

I do recommend that the author check out [4], as well as contributing to other Harry Potter articles on Wikipedia. Mandsford 23:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Trivia. Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or we'll have Harry Potter not-so-fun facts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. If this article were allowed to stand, which "facts" would be appropriate and which "facts" would not. The entire narrative of all seven books could be paraphrased as "fun facts". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stand-alone trivia article. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivia. GregJackP (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY DELETE. We're not a fan-site. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above, capitalization is incorrect, and it's entirely trivia. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad-faith nom Acroterion _(talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nupedia (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 website does not even exist, the HTML logo is obviously made in Microsoft Paint and passes WP:NOTABLE. CuriousDrat (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep No, it's a defunct website, but its notability is quite well documented. This is the second spurious AfD from this editor, and apart from petty vandalism, that's all they've accomplished. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Duplicates additional subjects; WP:FORK even WP:DICDEF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Democratically elected (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 short unreferenced article is bordering wiktionary. Is there anything else to say that "democratically elected" means "elected democratically"? Soman (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to democracy, dictionary def of a sentence fragment - what exactly is this "democratically elected" entity? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as alternate title, now Ed has explained what the subject he intended was, I see no substantial difference from the topic of the article election. Not a probable search term, so no need for a redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have all the respect in the world for Ed Poor, who was one of the founding fathers for my favorite internet site of all time. I think that there is a potential for this to be expanded, albeit with a different title. Democratic elections are defined by whoever happens to be making the rules. Some of the most repressive regimes in the world-- the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the German Democratic Republic, for instance -- have professed to have people power, the literal translation of democracy. Then there are variations like Indonesia's "Guided Democracy". There are different directions in which political science majors can take this one. Mandsford 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. There is no "Elections" section in Democracy, and the point of the article I created is to track which people or governments were (or were not) elected according to their country's rules. Then there's also the issue of coups and overthrows, as in "the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected government of X". Our readers want to know why the "most democratic country in the world" would do something so strange as to thwart the will of another country's people ... or whatever, which is the context in which I've seen the phrase democratically elected the most. See especially Covert United States foreign regime change actions. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - but I don't see how having a separate article on democratically elected helps to settle issues in the US regime change article? As per creating a list of democratic and non-democratic govts, thats a pov minefield. How about (as pointed out by Mansford above) the Indonesian coup of 1965? Sukarno had indeed been democratically elected, but mandate extended, etc.. How about Turkey? Are elections in a state with a 10% threshold really democratic? What about Colombia, where there is on one hand multiparty election but at the same time the state is engaged in physically eliminating critics? --Soman (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed seems to want to write the article democratic election. However, I can't see how this would differ from the major subject of the article election. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant to election, but not a common search term, so no redirect. Hekerui (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems you don't want to have this article at all, because you are pessimistic about whether we can write neutrally about multiple points of view. Well, the NPOV policy tells us exactly how to do that, and I have plenty of experience working with others: see WP:TEAMWORK for more on techniques of collaboration, and 1973 Chile coup for an example of one of my first and most successful collaborations with my fellow Wikipedians. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it would be easy to avoid personal POV on this one, since the United Nations members have been monitoring multiparty elections for many years, and there are internationally accepted standards for democratically elected governments. Any such article would need to recognize that the definition of a "true" democracy varies from one state to the next, but the terms for participation are usually codified within the national constitution. In the People's Republic of China and other one-party states, the theory of democracy is that people have the right to vote yes-or-no on the candidates who have been selected (indirectly) by everyone through the people's party. Even in multi-party states, the idea of democratically-elected government is tempered by restrictions on who is eligible to vote. Still, I can't help but wonder whether these ideas are already covered elsewhere. Mandsford 13:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—the subject of this article is redundant to democracy and election. "Democratically elected" is too vague between the two to be a redirect to either, and a WP:DAB page seems overkill: let the search engine handle it. –Grondemar 00:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant to democracy and election, arguably a POV fork. Redirect to democracy may be sensible, but I'm not sure how frequent a search term it is. Claritas § 11:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Dunleavy (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)

Reserve team footballer, never made 1st team appearance, only age group international appearance, fails WP:ATHLETE (WP:NSPORTS), only general sports journalism, no independent in depth coverage, fails WP:GNG. Per established consensus of football biographies this person does not meet notability criteria. ClubOranje^T 20:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - per nom. Having never appeared in a fully-pro or senior international match he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. There is insufficient coverage to merrit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE by never making a first team appearance, else I would've already created such an article. Wolvesweb (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 03:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not yet notable. --Triwbe (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doctor Who supporting characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who) (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 character only appeared in two-episodes, and shows no signs of ever appearing in the show again. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Character is important within the shows history, and just as important as any other companion. magnius (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The character left after two episodes and left seemingly no legacy. He wasn't that important in the show's history considering that, and when this article was nominated before, it was agreed to MERGED into another article, I only renominated it to reevaluate it due to WP's rules possibly changing. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's enough real-world information. DonQuixote (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters—seriously, guys, he was in two episodes, and relatively minorly in each. Having an article for such a non-character is really opening the floodgates in an un-necessary way. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 10:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Many characters (and not just in DW) were only in two parters, some less than that, but they still warrant an article to themselves. Basing your opinion on how many episodes a character in isn't the consideration, it's how important the subject surely? magnius (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and as my use of the words "relatively minorly in each" clearly indicated, I do not feel the subject is important at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I could warrant an article with a bit more scrounging about for sources. If this is the best there is for this character though, I think we should merge per TreasuryTag. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per TreasuryTag. No real lasting legacy, and much of the text is unsourced, so a merge feels like the right approach here. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A previous AfD for this article was closed as Merge, but it seems this never happened. Does anyone know why not? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment At the time I believe they couldn't find a target to merge it too. Since so much time had passed and one person claimed on the Talk Page that it now passed WP:FICT. As such, I decided to renominate it to see if opinions had really changed. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think an encylopedia should only have entries about fictional characters when they are significantly noteworthy outside of just fandom - so The Doctor would be okay, but I don't consider a single other character in Doctor Who notable enough to warrant a page. That's my opinion, which is probably not popular among DW fans, but my vote here is definitely delete since this is a particularly minor character that appeared in DW several years ago.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  But notability is not temporary... ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 07:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per TT and previous AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems like a fair compromise. Support for the sake of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptid Hunters (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)

Tentacles (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Completing nomination for IP. See talk pages. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptid Hunters fails the criteria in that is has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works. It has not won a major literary award. It has not inspired a movie, event or religion. It is not the subject of instruction at schools. And the author is not historically significant. Also nominating Tentacles (novel) for the same reason. 76.102.25.93 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google news search for "Cryptid Hunters" and "Roland Smith" shows results. [5] The summary of the first is from Tampa Tribune, but you can't read the article without paying for it, so you have to rely on just the search result summary: "What prompted Roland Smith to become an award winning children's ... The most popular he said is Cryptid Hunters".

http://www.rolandsmith.com/awards/index.htm

Cryptid Hunters

Cryptid Hunters makes the 2008 Nene recommended reading list of Hawaii!

2007-2008 South Carolina Junior Book Award

2007-2008 Mark Twain List

2006-2007 Texas Lone Star List

2007 Colorado Children's Book Award

2006-2007 Sunshine State Young Readers Award winner.

2007 Nevada Young Readers Award winner

2006-2007 Black-eyed Susan Award

Its on a lot of reading list, and has won a lot of awards. Dream Focus 01:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - as per WP:NBOOK, User:Dream Focus's extensive work/copyedits and reliable sources showing that this is an award winning author (see Cryptid Hunters primarily and also edits to Tentacles (novel)) who has written 25 books. Criteria #1, #4 and #5 are met. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cryptid Hunters per improvements to the article by Morenooso and Dream Focus, and per sources in current version of the article satisfying both the general and specific notability requirements for books. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tentacles (novel) - Sources for this sequel are not sufficient to pass the notability requirements as they are either not independent, are sales ranking statistics (not probative of anything) or are directory-style listings. And did I mention how much I hate multiple nominations in a single discussion, for exactly this reason? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Multiple reliably sourced citations showing Tentacles (novel) is on readings lists from college programs for children to charter and regular schools has been introduced into the article. Criteria #5 had been previously demonstrated (the author and his other work slated for deletion have been proved notable). Criteria #4 is now met by this book being "the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs". ----moreno oso (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sources added to the article demonstrate that "the book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country". It therefore passes criterion #4 of WP:NBOOK and should be considered notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tentacles also, since now it has been found its on a lot of notable reading list. Dream Focus 06:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW. Passes WP:NBOOK. SnottyWong talk 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as there are no remaining arguments for deletion. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torment (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a very poorly written stub with no notability presented for the subject within the article. Spidey104^contribs 18:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found a large review published by Comics Bulletin, you can find out more at Pink Kryptonite and Rambles websites. I can imagine an informative article about this comics series. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, Spidey104, but AfD is not cleanup. In my opinion we should discuss the notability of the subject. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the section you linked to: "if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option."

I think it is harmful as is because it looks to be a non-notable subject that was given an article as fancruft. I think the story arc is notable, but if you read my previous comment again you will see that my complaint is that this article does not show that. Spidey104^contribs 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be familiar with the topic. Why don't you improve the article by editing? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This seems like it could be notable as it was McFarlane's revamping of Spider-Man (with a new issue #1) which led to so much in 1990s comics (worth checking some of the sources at Modern Age of Comics). Equally, this was made in April 2009 but hasn't got much attention since, this is partly because hardly anything links to it (only one mainspace article - it isn't in the navbox as it should be). I'd suggest an intensive round of linking this in from the creators and characters, as well as a look around for more sources. Revist this in 6 months and see how it has shaped up. (Emperor (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep I've added some of the solid coverage from Voger (which contains interviews with McFarlane and the editor) as it is a key run with record breaking sales (if you search Amazon for "Spider-Man" and "McFarlane" the relevant pages pop right up). It needs more work but it is notable. (Emperor (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep - isn't this one of the highest grossing comic storylines of all time? That seems notable enough. - Sharp962 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think Sharp962 is correct, but does anyone have a verifiable source to put into the article about it? An article has to justify its notability within itself, not in the talk page comments about what could/should be in it. Spidey104^contribs 02:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source for it breaking the record for comics sales. (Emperor (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Good work Emperor. Thanks for your competent help. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to the considerable improvements. Artw (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to second the notion by Artw; though not an exemplar, this is a solid storyline article. This seems to be a fair article now, and time and ambitious editors should help it to continue to grow. I have to also agree that accolades to Emperor, Vejvančický, and even Spidey for the work improving the article. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A very notable comic. It got ample coverage, as others have found. Dream Focus 06:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Given significant improvements and the above discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Is there anyway I can ask for this discussion to be closed? I still stand by my reasoning (see what I wrote above) to nominate this article for deletion, because it was an abysmal article that was harmful to the topic's image as it stood. However, the article has more than quintupled in size since I nominated it and the changes you can see here prove it is going in the right direction. But it still has LOTS of room for improvement, so don't stop fixing this article. The "Plot synopsis" is still horrendous and needs to be fixed. Spidey104^contribs 13:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of, course, it isn't just about whether an article is demonstrating notability, what also counts is if it can be demonstrated (its potential) and reading round the connected articles it became clear these are some of the highest selling comics ever. Equally, as I mention above, there were problems with it being almost an orphan article, despite its pivotal role within comics in general and Todd McFarlane's career in general. Because of that it had got very little traffic and few edits, so the first step would be to link it in from elsewhere. Then before nominating flag your concerns on the article (and perhaps in WT:CMC) - there were no clean-up tags on this article before it was AfDed. This was the first time I saw it and it didn't take long for Vejvančický and I to find coverage elsewhere, as was said above "AfD is not cleanup". (Emperor (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As was quote above from "AfD is not cleanup": "if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option." The page you are linking to is a guideline and not an absolute reference, as is illustrated by the quote. Spidey104^contribs 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That quote goes on to specify what it means by harmful - key are WP:BLP violations, but also includes adverts, spam, nonsense, etc. So even by that this doesn't count as "harmful" (expect to our sensibilities ;) ). The important part there is: "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia." Which pretty much sums up that article - it was pretty awful but not "harmful". (Emperor (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per lack of proper sources. Recreated as redirect to List of The Cleveland Show characters. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Tubbs (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 Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - one of two or three major characters on a hit Fox TV show. I don't get the nominator's rationale. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. Gage (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Main character on a notable television show. Dream Focus 06:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Nomination is probably on the basis that the article doesn't cite any reliable independent sources, and thus either (a) contains no verifiable information, or (b) contains so little verifiable information that it would be more appropriately redirected to List of The Cleveland Show characters. I don't suppose you feel like digging up some reliable, independent sources that discuss Donna Tubbs, rather than just The Cleveland Show, DreamFocus? The article also has the problem of containing little or no information from a real world perspective. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator - While it is true that this article does not demonstrate that there is significant coverage of Donna Tubbs in reliable, independent sources, the main issue is that such coverage does not exist. Notability is not inherited; just because a media franchise is sufficiently notable for its own article does not mean that even its protagonist is also sufficiently notable for its own article. Neelix (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no significant coverage in independent sources. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Claritas § 16:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Per alll above me. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep seems to have potential. No prejudice against re-nominating or merging if the article remains shows no signs of improvement. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, she is a main character. CTJF83 pride 05:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Editors are saying "Keep" but no one is addressing the primary concern that this character is not individually notable. Being a major character in a particular television series is not an assertion of notability; Ben Matlock of Matlock and Jeannie of I Dream of Jeannie are both the protagonists of their respective television series, but they are not sufficiently individually notable to justify their own articles. Neelix (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup goals with disputed scorers (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 apparently composed entirely of original research. It is not up to Wikipedia to identify goals that have been misattributed. – PeeJay 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: There is no original research, a clear reference is made to an authoritative publication while links to video clips on the net will be added periodically, particularly during the current World Cup, with quotes provided in many individual entries. Of course it is 'up to Wikipedia' to check that sources used – such as FIFA match reports – are accurate. If people don't like the fact that FIFA match reports are often unreliable and that they have to check stuff for themselves, tough. Wikipedia's purpose is to correct, not to reproduce inaccuracies just because they are 'well sourced'. Mjefm (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with you that sentences such as "despite video showing", "sometimes listed as" and "did not appear to be" are clear references to authoritative publications. I would like to see external links and references to make sure this is not Original Research as PeeJay suggests. --85.146.209.49 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia's purpose is to correct, not to reproduce inaccuracies just because they are 'well sourced'.: Quite the opposite, see WP:VNT --Cyclopia^talk 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:total lack of clarity as to the distinction between inadvertent deflection and an own goal. Sometimes there is argument about the last touch: by that criterion half of all goals scored would be own goals by goalkeepers. Kevin McE (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not really a notable topic in its own right, and in its present state violates WP:OR. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If it were properly referenced, it probably wouldn't be original research. However, I fail to see how this subject is independently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see how this is notable, never mind the verifiability and OR issues. Probably also trivia. --Pretty Green (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. Official FIFA reports might be inaccurate, but they're still official and we have to stick to them. If there are discrepancies with other authoritative sources, then simply point them out in the respective World Cup articles. — Luxic (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an indiscriminate collection of information. With no central source to collate said instances, and with most of them being pretty subjective, readers cannot trust that this subject is given a neutral treatment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per (almost) everyone. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. I like it, but it really is WP:OR. I'd suggest userification and no prejudice to recreation if entries show RS of actually having been disputed. --Cyclopia^talk 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Cohen (dental surgeon) (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's subject would be notable for inventing what is said to be a new type of mouthwash, but I have not been able to source this. I nominated the article for this product, SmartMouth, for deletion also.

Also he founded a company, Triumph Pharmaceuticals Inc., which seems to exist only to sell this single product. He is said (with no citation) to be a member of at least two professional organizations, but he seems not to be an officer or otherwise notable in the management of either. I checked the staff pages of both here and here. Blue Rasberry 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep About as notable as a dentist can be expected to be, in that he seems to have been making the news for the last 20 years [6] and [7] (which refers to a 1994 article in Readers' Digest). The press seems to have dubbed him a "leading expert on halitosis", and sought his wisdom [8] on the subject.

Mandsford 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteI would say delete both articles. Marvin Cohen, D.D.S. did write the encyclopedic article on halitosis and is the inventor of SmarthMouth, which is sold by his small business Triumph Pharmaceuticals Inc. This company has about 15 employees. The company also doesn't have a stock. Mel Rosenberg has done more work on halitosis than he has.HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although not an academic instructor, the claim to fame (i.e. "one of the world’s leading authorities on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of halitosis") needs to be matched against WP:PROF, specifically #1. It fails. GHits are not impressive in that it is commonplace for some medical professionals to court the press more than others. Membership in professional organizations and associations is not an indicator of notability. Location (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Needs to satisfy WP:PROF in this case, and I don't see that, but correct me if I'm wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"[I]t is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." A professor, dentist, physician, etc. can meet WP:GNG without meeting WP:PROF. The idea behind WP:PROF is that a lot of very significant academicians won't be well-known in the general press. Indeed, the trend among the academic elite is to avoid the mainstream media. Within academia, professors who seek their fame by becoming regularly quoted in the mainstream press are often looked down upon by their peers as egotists making up for their lack of achievement within the community. Mandsford 15:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It appears that Mel Rosenberg is indeed the world's foremost expert on bad breath. Dr. Cohen is merely breathing hot air Vartanza (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XBMC4Xbox (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 Just a copy and paste of the XBMC page, stupidly huge amounts of irrelevant duplication, unnecessary to distinguish it from regular XBMC, no attempt to establish independent notability (re a project forked only a week ago or so). Sumbuddi (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To me, the nominator's "arguments" (which do not refer much to policy) would really point to a merge+redirect. That should be discussed on the talk pages of the respective articles. However, I believe that the article could be cleaned up and could be a stand-alone article (as it is a true fork & one that has been extensively documented, satisfying WP:N). --Karnesky (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The four references that aren't old and irrelevant do not establish notability. They say 'XBMC no longer supports Xbox' and don't mention any fork. Unless there is some assertion of notability (and a copied and pasted article with dozens of references from six years ago doesn't do that), it should be deleted. From what I can see, the project has one developer, and no releases, and moreover the last XBOX build of XBMC was a year or so ago - not the version currently used on other platforms, even prior to the announcement that xbox support was being discontinued. There's nothing here that couldn't be a section in XBMC (with or without a redirect). Sumbuddi (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI; I have cleaned both articles, and I strongly think that they both now hold as stand-alone articles, (however I will if possible try to clean them even more) Gamester17 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an inappropriate content fork. Make a note about XBMC4Xbox in the original XBMC article if appropriate, although the fact that XBMC4Xbox has never released anything would make the appropriateness of such a note highly questionable. There is definitely no justification for this separate article, due to the absence of any reliable secondary sources that cover the topic of XBMC4Xbox in detail, as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If there is reason to note XBMC4Xbox in the original XBMC article, I would strongly encourage making a redirect instead of deleting the article. The terms of the most common development kit used to build this code make official releases impossible. The code is available and the linked articles note that the developer of XBMC4Xbox is the same person who had been making sure that the original XBMC still worked for Xbox, so I see no reason to question anything. --Karnesky (talk) 01:40, 16s nev June 2010 (UTC)

It is not the same team of people who are developing these two separate projects, the creating of a new team was part of the split, so there is a distinct separate team working on the new XBMC4Xbox project Gamester17 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same people. Look at the projects the XBMC4Xbox team has commit access to [9][10][11] (primary source; not intended for use in the article, but I think I've seen a secondary source that indicates the same thing). --Karnesky (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am the person who split this into two separate articles and have cleaned up both articles so that they are not just simple copies of each other, (who ever said that they are "copy and paste " have not taken the time to compare the two articles). The XBMC4Xbox is a totally separate project from XBMC now, just how Boxee, MediaPortal and Plex (also forks of XBMC) are totally separate projects from from the original XBMC project. By separating these into two separate articles I have been able to cleaned the XBMC article for the original project from all the 'old' Xbox stuff which is no longer part of the original XBMC project. The fact is that the XBMC4Xbox does not only have one developer like Sumbuddi said but currently is has four developers (arnova, sholafsson, theuni, and exobuzz) as you can see listed on the SourceForge project page of people who have committed code to the SVN, and as for the releases and builds for the Xbox; for legal reasons there has never been any official releases or builds of the Xbox version of XBMC from the actual people who developing the code, all releases and builds are made by third-parties, (see the "legality" section in the article itself). Gamester17 (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for notability, it's XBMC for Xbox for god sake, just google xbmc AND xbox. The only thing is that the original project have been slit into two separate projects, only thing is that one kept the old name, but they could just as well both changed names into something new and then it would be much easier for people to understand that they have been split. By the way, please checkout http://www.xbmc4xbox.org which is a new unofficial fan site for this 'new' project. Gamester17 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated the XBMC4Xbox article again, and will continue with updating the XBMC article to separate them even more Gamester17 (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like copy and paste to me. Stuff like 'supported video formats' are identical, not least because XBMC4Xbox has never made any releases and the supported formats are actually those of XBMC. There is no point in this article because it's still the same app. When there's notability, when there's a real difference between XBMC for Xbox (which goes at XBMC where it has been for the last how ever many years while it has been part of the project), and XBMC4Xbox, this article might make sense.

My Xbox runs XBMC. It does not run XBMC4Xbox. Nobody's Xbox runs XBMC4Xbox, because no code has been released. XBMC is notable. XBMC for the Xbox goes at XBMC. Googling 'xbmc AND xbox' will find you a tonne of content that goes at XBMC, which for most of its life has been an Xbox app. NOT for this non-notable fork. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XBMC and XBMC4Xbox are not the same application, and they each have unique features and functions that the other does not. Not even the skins and addons are compatible out-of-the-box between the two applications, just try to install a skin or plugin made for XBMC on XBMC4Xbox or vice versa without first doing some heavy modifications to the code of that addon. As a former project manager of the XBMC project please trust me on this or just try for yourself to see if you can prove me wrong, they are not the same, I really do know what I am talking about. @Sumbuddi, your Xbox may run a old version of XBMC, but you are wrong that no Xbox's runs XBMC4Xbox because the source code and binaries for XBMC4Xbox is just as available as the source code for XBMC, that is both project's full source code is available on their respective project page on SourceForge, (and for reference no Xbox source code can be found on the XBMC project on SourceForge any longer, it is only available in the separate XBMC4Xbox Project). Fact is also that binaries for the old XBMC for Xbox has never been made available from the official XBMC project, you have always had to get them from independent third-parties who compile and distribute them on their own, and the same goes for XBMC4Xbox binaries which you can download today if look around the interwebs. By the way I have updated the referrers as well in the XBMC4Xbox article Gamester17 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct that the overwhelming majority of XBMC for Xbox installations are from illegal downloads, as very few endusers are capable of compiling the code themselves. Nonetheless I still haven't seen any sources stating that XBMC4Xbox, as a forked project, is notable. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but trim it down a lot. It's important that there is a fork, but I'm not sure we need so much adapted detail from XBMC (even if some of it's slightly different from the current XBMC). Frankly, that article and its relatives on Wikipedia have more minutia than should be in an encyclopedia article (like all of this info on supported formats). As an example of why to avoid deletion, when Plex forked, it took a little while for the internet to catch up with reviews etc. etc. Plex has the advantage of being deployed for a growing OS/hardware base, but otherwise they are similar.Mattnad (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's important that there's a fork, that doesn't mean it needs a separate article, when an 'XBMC4Xbox' heading on the XBMC article would serve that purpose perfectly well. The differences from XBMC on other platforms would be best explained in the main XBMC, where the functionality of XBMC is explained, and the few differences/limitations can explained. It doesn't make sense to have content about XBMC *for* the Xbox on the Xbox page (explaining for instance the limitations of the Xbox version - definitely required given the history of the project), and also content about XBMC4XBox on a separate page, with a huge degree of overlap between the two. The limitations of XBMC for the XBox such as not being able to play HD video content, are going to be the same as the limitations of XBMC4Xbox. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now trimmed and stripped the XBMC4Xbox article even more to try to list only things that are unique to XBMC4Xbox on the Xbox, which is a lot, and I think that Xbox only stuff is too much to fit into the XBMC article under a XBMC4Xbox subsection there. Gamester17 (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh??? The xbox-only stuff is an essential part of XBMC, which was originally xbox-only. The only unique content relevant to XBMC4Xbox is stuff that XBMC4Xbox does differently from XBMC. (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the question is notability. Which sources of the many sources listed constitute the significant coverage in reliable sources that are required to establish notability? I've looked at most of them, nothing I've found meets that bar. What am I missing? Also, users involved in the project might take a moment to review WP:COI. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a content fork - material related to the XMBC4Xbox can be in the main XMBC page. Not much independent coverage and thus notability. Claritas § 07:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, Redirect or Delete. The huge number of "sources" in the article fail to obscure the fact that this XBMC4Xbox, whatever it is, has no independent notability from the XBMC. The few independent sources, specialized tech blogs, all simply say that the XBMC4Xbox is a spinoff of the XBMC. Abductive (reasoning) 07:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Recommend relisting. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think that in the article as it stands, the information is useful, is difficult to trim down and requires several sections, and is largely irrelevant to the original XBMC. It looks good to me. --Farry (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is, for instance, 'XBMC4Xbox limitations' irrelevant to XBMC, when those limitations are the reason why the app originally known as 'Xbox Media Center' is no longer supported on that device? Sumbuddi (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmartMouth (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's subject is a brand of mouthwash. The article states that the mouthwash uses novel technology but it is not clear whether this is an advertising claim or good science, even though a reputable medical school and doctor are named. There is a mechanism proposed for the science of attacking bad breath, but it is not clear whether all mouth washes work in this way. The references given are primary sources reporting efficacy tests related to the product; to me this is WP:MILL because all OTC drugs get some kind of testing and it is not evident that these tests are special. I have not been able to find third-party reviews that indicate this product is notable compared to similar products in its class. Blue Rasberry 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article of the inventor of this product, Marvin Cohen (dental surgeon), for deletion. Blue Rasberry 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per G11, although I think that the inventor is notable. How this advertisement ("SmartMouth has been clinically proven to provide fresh breath for 12 hours after each rinse") stayed here for almost two years is beyond me. I think this would fall beyond the "Scope" of Wikipedia. I just hope someone is Listenine. Mandsford 00:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not exist. Searching PubMed individually for "SmartMouth", "TriOral", and "zinc chloride, sodium chlorite", I get only one reference: [12]. Location (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Advertising for a non-notable product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valid arguments made on both sides. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Balamban, Cebu bus accident (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)

Event fails notability guidelines. The article had been proposed for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, but that proposal was denied by an editor who felt that this event (with 17+ deaths) was notable enough. However, with coverage in only a single source, this event does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:NNEWS. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There has been coverage in much more than one source. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is a tragedy, but it is not a history-making event. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be mentioned in List of road accidents 2000–2010 with a brief description, per our usual practice. As a look at that article will show, the vast majority of the fatal accidents on there do not have their own articles. Mandsford 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 17 deaths seems significant enough to be encyclopedic. The Arkansas floods killed only a few more and it pops up in the In the News on the front page. BIAS? hmmm... just because one happened in the USA killing Americans, while the bus crash were Iranians in the Philippines isn't a good reason to elevate one incident and delete the other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The number of people who died or were injured in this accident makes it significant enough for an article. If such an accident occurred in the UK or USA it would almost certainly be kept (e.g. Sherman, Texas bus accident, in which the same number died), so there is no reason to delete this one (since Wikipedia does not discriminate by country). It is true that incidents in less developed countries are less likely to be mentioned on the internet. Frankly, so what? It doesn't make them any less significant. Deleting such articles is effectively a form of bias against less developed countries and we should eliminate such bias from Wikipedia. Also bear in mind that although it may have only been covered in a few sources on the internet, it will almost certainly have been well-covered in the Filipino print media, which is just as valid a source. The (apparently growing) perception that only internet sources are relevant is not an accurate one and is not supported by Wikipedia policy or guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman, Texas bus accident, the community agreed to keep that article because the incident had long-term effects on the regulation of the bus industry in the United States. There is no indication that the Cebu incident will have similar long-term effects. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of road accidents 2000–2010 lists six accidents in the UK, USA and Canada that caused more than ten deaths. There are seven articles about individual road accidents in those countries between those dates. Not every 10+ death accident has an article (yet) and not every article is about an accident that killed 10+ people, but I think those figures are quite telling. It shows that most serious accidents in those countries do have articles. And in my opinion, serious accidents in any country should have articles, whether they have "long-term" affects or not. Wikipedia currently contains 28 articles about road accidents in the United States, which is nearly as many as every other country put together. I very much doubt that every one, or even most, of those accidents led to major changes in legislation or regulation. They are here because they are significant due to the loss of life involved, and the same applies to this accident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the loss of life in all of those cases is tragic, that in itself is not a criterion of notability. The fact that other articles exist on similar topics is not a valid argument for the retention of this article. If anything, it points to the fact that those articles may merit their own AFD discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This accident has now been covered in multiple international sources, including by such agencies as the BBC. The death toll has risen to 21. I really don't think Wikipedia:NNEWS applies. Rereading that page (which is, of course, only a guideline in any case and is not set in stone), I can find nothing that would disqualify this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read WP:Notability (events)#Depth of coverage. This section speaks specifically to the coverage that is needed in order to make an event "notable". Passing mention, even if the source is BBC, does not make for a notable event. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please read WP:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage. "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." And as I have said, please also stop assuming, as you appear to be, that the internet is the only source out there. This the cause of much of the systemic bias against events which occur outside the English-speaking world. The print media is just as valid. Just because no such sources have been added yet does not mean they won't be, and lack of a range of sources is in itself not a reason to delete the article as long as the sources that have been quoted are reliable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nomination and i agree on the comments of some users. - Gabby 22:56, 15 June 2010 (PST)
  • You can't keep "per nomination". Fences&Windows 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the advice in WP:EVENT this nomination is too early. We cannot yet tell so soon after the crash if this is notable, so it should have been left to allow time for us to form a correct perspective. Alternatives such as merge should also have been considered per WP:BEFORE. Early deletion nominations are just as bad as people writing articles too early. The crash has been reported internationally and it has set off a debate in the Philippines about whether buses should travel along that route at all,[13][14] the bus company has been suspended and a government investigation has been launched:[15]. It's also not just a local event, it's an international incident: Iran is sending aircraft to pick up the survivors to return them to Iran.[16] There are indications that the event is indeed notable, so I give a provisional keep, with no prejudice against another nomination in a few weeks or months if it transpires that there was eventually only a brief spike of coverage and little secondary comment. Fences&Windows 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe this is a somewhat backward interpretation of the advice at WP:EVENT. The problem isn't that the nomination is too early because it is too early to tell if the event will remain notable. The problem is that the creation is too early because it is too early to tell if the event will remain notable. It would be better to wait a time after the event to see if it has the required lasting effects to make the event notable before creating the article. If the article is created, and we wait before reviewing it, it will almost certainly fall between the cracks and never be properly reviewed when the time is right. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NOTNEWS is to prevent things from like ordinary football games from getting their own article. The coverage of this event in multiple newspapers clearly satisfies the GNG, in my opinion. Buddy431 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Where multiple governmental probes are looking into an incident, the incident has moved beyond the WP:NOTNEWS classification, in my estimation. --PinkBull 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Sushi (restaurant) (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)

Originally posted last week, and I CSD'd the restaurant on G11. Speedy, however, was declined due to the fact that it's asserting notability. Article is written like an advert, and while it does tout notability (WP:PEACOCK comes to mind however), it only seems to have a couple of good reviews under its belt. In any event, it doesn't seem to cross the threshold per WP:N, and with the creator of the article declaring this to be notable, I'm calling it controversial enough for bringing it here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Written too much like an advertising blurb, and while it does claim notability it seems to be deliberately vague ("appeared in many feature films" but doesn't say which ones) and a Google search does not appear to back up these lofty claims. For example, a Google books search for "I Love Sushi" +Malibu turns up just 4 brief book mentions, 1 of which is a fairly obscure travel guide and the others are business directories. That probably wouldn't be the case if the place is really a cultural touchstone like the article tries to claim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources on Google or Google News, and the article offers no references save its homepage. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:CORP. Claritas § 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just looked at the website. This is for I Love Sushi in Seattle. Investigating... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just looked up on Google Maps (see this link). The only places called I Love Sushi in the Los Angeles metro area are near Beverly Hills and in Ventura. These are 30 minutes MINIMUM from Malibu. I call hoax. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be a hoax, but if it is there's a grain of truth to it. The Google Books search I linked to above shows there was, as of 1982, a restaurant called I Love Sushi at 29350 Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. This is apparently a strip mall, and there's a place called Zooma Sushi there now. I also note this Twitter account which has a URL to an empty GoDaddy domain. My guess is it actually does (or did) exist, but the cultural notability claims in the article are made up or at least really exaggerated, presumably in an attempt to avoid a quick A7 speedy deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll let it ride then. Retracted speedy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverified. Like others here, I tried to find any online evidence that this "world famous" restaurant in Malibu actually exists. I was unsuccessful. There are a ton of restaurants out there called "I Love Sushi" - Ventura, Costa Mesa, Washington State, New Mexico - all apparently unrelated to each other. But if the Malibu restaurant once existed, it apparently doesn't any more. And yet the article is written at least partly in the present tense. No references are provided. If the article isn't deleted, it should be userfied until these issues are clarified - above all whether it still exists - and references provided. The author is a single-purpose account, new to Wikipedia, and has an apparent conflict of interest (username = Baricool; founder of restaurant = Bari Alexander), so he/she might need some help if the article is to be improved or recreated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Claims of being world-famous are not backed up in books. Actor [{Charlie Sheen]] did refer to this as one of his favorite restaurants [17] in Malibu (where Charlie Harper lives). Mandsford 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[18]

• Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:CORP as no reliable sources can be found. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we WP:SNOW this one? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Andrews (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)

Previously deleted in 2008, so may satisfy the CSD G4 requirements, but I'll let others who can see the old article make that call. I don't think the blog controversy makes much difference to his notability, which is minimal in my opinion. The-Pope (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG, simply no notability. Claritas § 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:N. Supposed 'controversy' is so minor that it isn't even necessary to bring up WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete falls a long way short of WP:GNG, WP:BIO.............. Nuttah (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. miracleworker5263 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly not meeting WP:WEB, even taking into account WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topbargains.com.au (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Claim to fame is Alexis ranks them 1009 in Australia. ttonyb (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete independent coverage not significant enough to pass WP:WEB.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only two sources I'd consider viable are Reader's Digest and news.com.au. The problem I have with these articles is that the website is only mentioned briefly, and these articles do not make this website the primary focus of the article - news.com.au only points at the website and mentions what it is amidst at least a dozen such sites, and Reader's Digest mentions it in conjunction with three others insofar as rebates are concerned. The others are just statistics and that is NOT enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, passing mention in the only reliable sources that note its existence. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- I created this page and seems like a whole war has started. My only concern is that standards being applied on deletion of this page are not applied on a range of other website pages in Australian Websites category. If having 35,000 members is not significant, nothing really is. The Feedburner RSS chicklet on the site independently shows 21,000 RSS subscribers on the site. A exactly similar site OZbargain.com.au is listed here under Australia with absolutely NO references at all - so much for the dual standards of some people here. This is not the Wikipedia I have known for years - please apply consistent and reasonable standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz 311 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only passing mentions in sites cited. Featured in Readers Digest? "Other sites worth considering include: www.ozbargain.com.au, www.topbargains.com.au, www.rewardlover.com and www.moneybackco.com". I do agree that Ozbargains isn't much different and have tagged it for speedy deletion. But here Bill has doesn't mean Ben gets. Provide us with real independent coverage and help to change our minds. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozbargains appears to have disappeared from Wikipedia now. Peridon (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being a top 1000 site is significant. The site reach is broader than major banks based on Alexa ranks and has verifiable 20,000 RSS subscribers. I would consider that significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.193.210 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Per WP:ALEXA, "Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so. A highly ranked web site may well have nothing written about it, or a poorly ranked web site may well have a lot written about it." In addition, the number of RSS subscribers has no bearing on notability. ttonyb (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree that a large number of subscribers has no bearing notability. Also you must not look at media mentions or RSS subscribers or membership as isolated facts. When looked at them together, they show significance. However, I realize that no matter what, this will be deleted as it has become an ego problem for user Ttonybl who would like it deleted. I am new to Wikipedia but not has been the best of experiences. Thanks anyways for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz 311 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that, despite being new to Wikipedia, you believe you know Ttonyb1 well enough to know that having this article deleted is an "ego problem" for him. I have been editing Wikipedia for several years, and in my experience one's comments are more likely to be taken seriously if one assumes good faith. Accusing editors of wrong intentions simply encourages other editors to see you as unconstructive. As for the reasons you give for keeping the article, it is certainly true that such matters as number of subscribers do have a bearing on significance in some ways, but they do not have any bearing on Wikipedia's notability criteria. I suggest at least reading the general notability guideline, and having a look at the guidelines on notability for organizations and companies and reliable sources to see what sort of thing is required. Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations is also relevant, but to be realistic there is a limit to how much a new reader can be expected to read and take in. If, when you have had a look at these guidelines, you can find the sort of evidence of notability required, I am sure that the article will be kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I am learning on use Wikipedia as I go. Have added a notability tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.17.56 (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 worthwhile info to merge. Not significantly different from host article to create redirect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bejeweled Blitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No evidence of notability, no references, no third party sources but mostly per WP:NOTMANUAL. Magioladitis (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any relevant content into the parent Bejeweled article - this subtype of game doesn't need it's own page and redirect Bejeweled Blitz to Bejeweled. Exxolon (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok if we keep it as redirect but which info is worth in there? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge notable series, but pretty much all the content just describes the various power-ups and so on, not really an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – It's not even worth merging this information anywhere. Wikipedia is not a game guide. I won't oppose to someone writing an encyclopedic version, but this is not acceptable, at least to my standards. –MuZemike 17:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No independent notability from the parent game, Bejeweled. One of many variants of the game. --Teancum (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Spray (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)

Reserve footballer, never made 1st team appearance, no international appearance, fails WP:ATHLETE (WP:NSPORTS), only general sports journalism, no independent in depth coverage, fails WP:GNG. Per established consensus of football biographies this person does not meet notability criteria. ClubOranje^T 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - With no senior caps for Wolverhampton or any other fully pro team, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and the lack of significant coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE by never making a first team appearance, else I would've already created such an article. Wolvesweb (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 03:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: was created by Alex latham (talk · contribs), so inherently non-notable. Fails ATHLETE, GNG, etc. BigDom 06:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reimei no Arcana (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)

Search for reliable third-party sources turns up with nothing. Non-notable manga by a non-notable author. No entries for either the manga or the author at Anime News Network's encyclopedia. Prod disputed by an IP with no given reason. —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability found. Search for licensor in French, Spanish, Italian & German returned nothing but scanlation related websites & blogs. Fail both the General Notability and Book specific guidelines. Can anyone search for possible Chinese licensor with "黎明的阿尔克纳" key word ? --KrebMarkt 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as non-notable and unsourced for over two years. Per his entry on this page, his career was not particularly distinguished, and my further searches yield little more information about him. Magic♪piano 13:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some content and references. Served in the Maryland General Assembly and was a Presidential Elector. Notable per WP:POLITICIAN.
• Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Claritas § 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I'm on the borderline with WP:MILPEOPLE, the saving grace being his significant perticipation in notable battles. I'll not comment ignorantly on his acts as a politician. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • His regiment was part of the Maryland Line, which played important roles on those battles. I'm not sure what to make of his role in them, though; his name, for example does not appear in a book-length treatment of the Battle of Camden. Magic♪piano 19:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• On the other hand, if holding a seat in a state body is sufficient to confer notability, I'm OK with keeping the article. Magic♪piano 19:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Based on his military credentials, which are fairly insignificant, I was inclined to suggest deletion. It subsequently appears he might be notable for his political career. William Richardson (politician) (or similar) would be more appropriate, since that is why he is significant in WP. Place within scope of WProject politics, and beef up that aspect of his biography. this is another possible source. Gwinva (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as per Gwinva, particularly noting WP:POLITICIAN --j⚛e decker^talk 05:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as above from his political career alone there is scope to extend the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable for his political career. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 pride 04:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Bride of Frankenstein (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 - clear-cut spam written by one of the writers of the article's subject. No reliable sources indicate that this currently amateur production is notable. Speedy denied for some unfathomable reason, prod removed by the article's author. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a significant and independent coverage about this musical, see The New York Times, Sea Coast Online, Wire, Broadway World etc. etc. The subject easily passes our notability guidelines. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@nominator: Please, don't forget to notify editors about your deletion nominations. In this case, you've nominated the article for speedy deletion, you've prodded it, and finally you've created this AfD. All that without a single explaining line on the talk page of a new user. COI or not, this is not very courteous behavior. Btw, the article is not a spam, even the initial version was rather descriptive and informative. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a long and detailed note on the article's talk page in response to the article's author. I have no interest in your lectures on courtesy. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can find a long list of independent reviews (links included) at the official website of the project. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Joe Chill Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unable to verify WP:N (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Agrella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 5th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete From the claims it seems like he should be notable, but I can't find independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I can't find third party sources on him, but I know he's well known as a judge for several tournament circuits and in various martial arts circles. I'd vote keep if someone found an independent source showing notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Records (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)

Record label, who may have had some notable artists (none listed in the body of article, however as Infrogmation points out one is listed in a picture narrative.), is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed since creation for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Kid Ory is already in the article (clearly the "none listed" claim above is false); even if no one else had recorded for the label I think that the Ory recordings would have been enough for notability. Shellac 78 era company. Infrogmation (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Kid Ory is listed in the narrative of a picture - NOT in the body of the article. Codf1977 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Is the proposing editor serious in suggesting that a label founded by Nesuhi Ertegun and featuring Kid Ory and Jelly Roll Morton is not notable in itself?--Technopat (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes setting aside all the WP:Inherited claims - the question is does it meet either the WP:GNG and WP:ORG and as I cant find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject I am forced to conclude that it is not notable in it's own right. I am willing to change my mind if significant coverage comes to light. Codf1977 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now that I've added a little context and a reference. Lupo 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is still lacking significant coverage in reliable sources though. Codf1977 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just added the first link. But you can find the same text in the Rock'n'roll hall of fame, or at encyclopedia.com. If you consider any of these "more reliable", feel free to supply one of these as the reference for this article. Lupo 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did not mean to imply either of them were not Reliable sources - I just coped and pasted the source from the WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of those rare instances where I decide to recognize that the GNG is a guideline, and not a policy. There is every reason to expect this article to be lacking in easily-available online sources, and at least one source now exists that lets the article pass the verifiable test. Insofar as it now passes verifiability (a policy), I'm more than willing to let it slide on GNG (a guideline) given its clear and inextricable association with some very notable names in jazz. Normally, I'm very much a fan of GNG and am rather strict in adherence to it, but exceptions have to be made if and when exceptions appear warranted and, to my eyes, this is one of those cases where an exception is very called for. Keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is pretty famous: [19]. Getting this one deleted was a bad idea. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep long history, notable founder, notable artists. Not sure what else one could expect from a record label, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makoa Kali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 5th May 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although i'd change my opinion if more verifiable refs can be found. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find independent sources to show this art is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that there do not appear to be reliable sources to document notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could find no reliable sources to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Creator restored after CSD this record label, who may have had some notable artists (none listed), is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed since creation for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.

• 1) Shellac 78 record era company. I argue that record companies from this era tend to be notable in themselves, as making records in that era needed a considerable amount of industrial investment, quite unlike how easy it was to start what was called a "record company" in recent decades.
• 2)Important in the New Orleans traditional jazz revival era. If the New Orleans jazz revival is notable, this label is.
• 3) Notable musicians who Wikipedia has articles on recorded for label.

Infrogmation (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.

• 1) reasons stated above by Infrogmation
• 2) just added discographical data including two notable artists who recorded on the "New Orleans" label: Johnny Wiggs and Herb Morand

StefanWirz (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per the rationale above. Wikipedia:Notability “is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” It is not unreasonable to presume that there is not, as yet, much material available online for referencing the subject matter at hand, which in no way reduces its notability.--Technopat (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep When searching for book sources I primarily found short mentions in discographies and such, but there's plenty of it and it's reasonable to assume that some music press sources from the era aren't available online. I did manage to confirm that this existed at least from 1949 to 1978, and I just don't think a record company could last for 3 decades, especially in that era, without being at least somewhat notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul meng (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)

Copy-paste from James Thompson (fighter) with minor Meng/Thompson changes. Looks like a hoax. No relevant Google hits for "Paul Meng" and "MMA". Lupo 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The lead image in the infobox that User:Paulmeng uploaded at the Commons was from here and showed James Thompson... (deleted at the Commons as a copyvio). Lupo 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hoax. Check out the references - they're actually for James Thompson. andy (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. Can't this be speedied? Astudent0 (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Creator restored after CSD this record label, who may have had some notable artists, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sources to indicate notability. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, made shellac records in the 78 era; hardly as insignificant a task as being a "record label" in recent generations. Recorded notable artists who have articles on them in Wikipedia. Infrogmation (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Recorded notable artists" that is a claim of WP:Inherited notability; and if as you claim they are notable for other things, where is the significant coverage ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even has two references now, which isn't bad for a stub :-) Lupo 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One is not independent, and the other is only a mention - so still fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Infrogmation’s rationale above. As the proposing editor has copy and pasted the “accusation” from the other several articles on records he/she has proposed for deletion, I reckon I can just copy and paste my earlier objections: Wikipedia:Notability “is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” It is not unreasonable to presume that there is not, as yet, much material available online for referencing the subject matter at hand, which in no way reduces its notability. --Technopat (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Still fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google Books search demonstrates substantial coverage, and hence notability.--PinkBull 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Creator restored after CSD this record label, who may have had some notable artists, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed for over 6 years. Codf1977 (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sources to indicate notability. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, listed in Brian Rust's American Record Label Book; subjects which are have entries in standard specialty reference works are legitimate topics for Wikipeida. This is a pre-Great Depression shellac 78 record company. I additionally argue that record companies from this era tend to be sufficently notable from this alone, since making records in that era needed a considerable amount of industrial investment, closer to being an automobile company than the very different situtuation of how easy it was to start what was called a "record company" in more recent decades. Having historic record label listings online is a help to 78 collectors. Infrogmation (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per the rationale given at the other record articles for AfD the proposing editor has copy–pasted his/her objections to. Wikipedia:Notability “is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” It is not unreasonable to presume that there is not, as yet, much material available online for referencing the subject matter at hand, which in no way reduces its notability.--Technopat (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google Book search demonstrates substantial coverage, hence notability.--PinkBull 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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