Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 13 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Nickelodeon (British and Irish TV channel). Article was redirected for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 09:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

A tag has been placed on Nickelodeon (Ireland), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done for the following reason:

Nick is the exact same as Nick UK but with local adverts, if we keep this article, Nickelodeon Wales, Nickelodeon Scotland and Nickelodeon Northern Ireland should be created too

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Knowledge (XXG) criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 23:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Notability Rd232 23:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete does not assert notability, fails WP:BIO. Aiken ♫ 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gist of it seems to be that he's a police officer, he pressed charges against a politician for assault, and he had to fight bureaucracy to get a leave of absence from his job to go back to school. Those don't seem to be the type of things that confer notability unless they're massive causes celebre generating a lot of media coverage. The refs are some short article that don't seem to correspond with that level of coverage. He's also an author, but there's no cite for that - no indication his books were published, sold large numbers, reviewed by significant publications, etc. No indication that his role in a local sports association conveys notability sufficient for an article. Searching on google, the hits for him seem to be social media profiles and a blog comment (as well as the articles cited and false hits for people who share his name). No articles link here. It doesn't seem like he's shown up in other articles, except when the editor who started the bio inserted him in a couple other articles. --JamesAM (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Not Delete. I once again strongly argue the case not to be deleted. I agree that the that he's a police officer is not relevant as such, but the fact that he pressed charges against a politician for assault is a major one. This is because the politician was a truly powerful one and it needed lots of courage to do so. Secondly, it had become a huge political and social issue at that time, getting coverage in vernacular media and Television. Again the fact that he had to fight bureaucracy to get a leave is no small matter and has become a great cause, gaining lots of media coverage in the local language ie Hindi. Hence it was "massive causes celebre generating a lot of media coverage." The refs are some short article that don't seem to correspond with that level of coverage. Author and sports association are not that significant but only go on to add somerthing about him. I present links to a few Hindi websites to make my point clear-

http://article.wn.com/view/WNAT376c160c3c0e9ccdd6c0cba27db1432e/

http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/news/local/jharkhand/4_8_6074763_1.html

http://upnewslive.com/?p=4973

http://www4.jagran.com/news.aspx?id=619715&code=30584788

http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4371280.cms?prtpage=1

They are all Articles belonging to widely-circulating important Hindi newspapers. There are many other Hindi newspaper coverage which are not on web. In sum to ignore this and to call it not notable would seem to be unfair 

--nutanthakurlko (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2010 (IST)

They are all Articles belonging to widely-circulating important Hindi newspapers. There are many other Hindi newspaper coverage which are not on web. In sum to ignore this and to call it not notable would seem to be unfair —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.brown100 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

— James.brown100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Woogee (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you tell us what they say? Woogee (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Invasion (Animorphs) (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 Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books). There are no reliable sources I can find, the book has not won any awards that I can see and its part in a TV episode does not mean "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." Ironholds (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Mohamed Haji Hussein Rage (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, no relevant g-hits, no reliable sources found. Jarkeld (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to F♯A♯∞. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0  12:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

East Hastings (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)

Stub status, WP:OR ("Arguably their most iconic track..."), I see no significant coverage of the song via a Google search to warrant a redirect to F♯A♯∞. The sole reference can be integrated into that article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus supports the view that this subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mei Shimizu (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 actor does not seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Malkinann (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Insufficient notability to justify a self-supporting biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep She was the voice of a main character in two notable Anime series, and did some acting in another notable creation as well. Dream Focus 06:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To the nominator, what do you mean she doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER? It says at the first thing listed, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The three things listed count as multiple, and her roles were significant, and those three things were all notable enough to get their own Knowledge (XXG) articles even. Dream Focus 06:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that the two roles listed are not enough to pass that guideline, as Tenshi no Shippou Chu is the sequel to Angel Tales, and the Ruru roles listed are in reality one role, spread over a work and its sequel. The additional roles listed by the Japanese Knowledge (XXG) appear to be bit parts, which do not contribute to passing WP:ENTERTAINER. --Malkinann (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Roles in multiple notable films. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER right there. The language of the guideline in no way suggests, to me, that playing the same role in two notable films means one has played only one role, per se. That the role is "spread over a work and its sequel" is grounds for keeping. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Rational, while in appearance this BLP meets barely WP:ENTERTAINER a further look should be given to the roles. Each role is in feminine cast of Harem (genre) series. For Angel Tales & Tenshi no Shippo Chu!, she is one voice actress among 11 ones and for Mahou Sensei Negima live-action TV, she is one actress out of a whooping cast 31 actresses. Those facts in mind, any embellished description of her importance in those series is nothing but a smoke screen that should be dispersed thus leading to my delete vote.
    Note: Additionals searches on Animax, Animate, Newtype (magazine) & Ongakusenkasha website returned nothing --KrebMarkt 11:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Week delete The evidence is pretty thin here for passing WP:ENTERTAINER. Her role as Ruru in the Angel Tales series only counts once and the significant of that role is moderate at best. Her role as Satsuki Yotsuba in the live-action Mahou Sensei Negima however is very minor. Satsuki Yotsuba is, for all intense purposes, one of the few girls in the series that has remained in the background. Thus, I wouldn't consider Shimizu's portrayal of the character as a significant role. —Farix (t | c) 12:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep in agreement with points made by User:Ginsengbomb and User:Dream Focus. My keep is "weak" because though the actress would seem to squeek up on ENT, there is a tremendous dearth of sources for expanding this stub. Any help available from Japaneese Wikiedians? Schmidt, 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment If me, Dream Focus and MQS (who I haven't worked with in the past but appears to come from a somewhat different viewpoint than me) are all agreeing on something, that's grounds for a speedy keep right there if you ask me ;). (Joke). I do agree regarding the dearth of sources, which presents a bit of a concern. It's a close call, either way. I would/should/could probably qualify my keep as "weak," too. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • All I'm finding is a single significant role, and that for one of the less-important members of the harem of a harem anime. For that role, I'm finding no mention of her work in that role, and like KrebMarkt, nothing on her from the usual voice-acting magazine. She may have a bright career ahead of her, but for now delete for not meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. (Aside: there's a live-action Negima?!? How----!?! nevermind) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. The case on WP:ENT is borderline. In borderline cases, we should in my view avoid arguing the point on the subguideline and instead revert to WP:BIO which applies to all biographies. In that respect, I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Unless some can be presented, the article should be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chase Masterson. Clearly doesn't pass notability as it stands - if anything rests on the fact she was in it, it can be mentioned in her article Black Kite 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Creature Unknown (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 the notability guideline for films. From a cursory search, I was able to verify that it was made, and that was about it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would go along with a merger per MichaelQSchmidt. Bearian (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable, searching for it returns essentially nothing, no coverage in notable sources, it doesn't even seem to be actively developed or even have a homepage anymore Tuxcantfly (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep You guys obviously didn't look very hard for links. But there they are now and they establish notability. Now someone just needs to incorporate them into the article. Silverseren 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to Neutral Sorry, I missed those sources, though I still have yet to see any mention of non-trivial usage outside of academia. Nevertheless, the article really does need to be refined to emphasize on Mondrian's unique features; the "hello world" example does anything but that. Tuxcantfly (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
That's true, the article certainly needs some work, but we're not here for that, we're here to establish notability. Do the sources do that? Silverseren 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
"Scripting .NET Using Mondrian"
This, while written by them, is not self-publicity, it is not advertisement, it is not self-published, for it is only contained in a compilation book not of their design, and it is not an autobiography, nor is it a press release. Thus, it does not fit under the "independent of the subject" guiding line. And this source is extremely thorough is discussing the topic at hand. Now, unless you are going to say that while they are the authoritative masters of the subject, they still do not count, this source must then be valid. This article isn't a biography article, it is not about a person, just because they are people affiliated with something that is not another person does not make the source invalid. Silverseren 07:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dimensional analysis#Commensurability. I'll redirect. Any editor is free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular  06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't see much prospect for this to be anything but a dictionary definition, and even as a dicdef it's pretty dubious. Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Sealand . Tone 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sealand Rebel Government (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)

How many articles, exactly, do we need in order to cover Sealand? It's off the coast of the UK and the majority of Brits have never heard of it, still less of Paddy Roy Bates, his son and now his "rebel government". There is only one subject here. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Hobby "nation's" rebel government fails notability. Edison (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Claims to be government of the Principality I think passes notability. Certainly there encyclopedic content and the page is properly sourced. I see no valid reason to delete the page. Outback the koala (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well... while I am very sympathetic to the entity itself and recognize that the delete-!votes are at least partially based on some sort of hostility, I do also regard this "rebel government of the rebel government" as non-notable. What exists here can easily be included in the main article. The question here is not whether the whole deal is notable per se, but whether or not it is notable to warrant a separate article. Delete Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If it can easily be included in the main article, then why say delete?- merge would be likely what you're looking for. However, It seem notable enough for it's own article I think, especially because it, at least in part, trys to de-legitimizes the real Sealand government from what little legitimacy it already has. Outback the koala (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I say delete, because the information is already there. That one additional sentence can be typed in 20 seconds. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep -- seems notable on the claim, which has been covered in durably-archived media, and the article is sourced. While the standard nation-state POV has no room for these sorts of claims, I don't think Knowledge (XXG) should just cover what is verifiable and leave the debate for the political sphere. N2e (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't think or you do? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Principality of Sealand. Tone 11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Bates (Sealand) (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 living individual is notable for only one thing: inheriting Sealand from his father. WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was snowball keep. Nomination withdrawn, sources added. Mukadderat (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete, no references or external links for proof SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 19:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep, reliable references have been added to the article. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 20:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep A quick Google search found me a ridiculous number of sources. I added just a bare sliver of them to the article, there's tons more where that came from. Please, before you list an article for deletion, actually check yourself if there's sources out there. Don't be lazy. Silverseren 20:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep This AFD was a terrible mistake. Even in its original form, the article had wholly suitable references to peer-reviewed scientific journals. Links to web sites should not have been at all necessary. Also the article, written by someone on their first day at WP, was only given six minutes before the AFD was placed. Things should not happen like this. Happily, matters seem to have been amicably resolved on the talk page and I hope the new editor has not been too discouraged. Thincat (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. JForget 02:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Valentine Chin (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 session musician. Ridernyc (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Machine to Machine (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)

M2M seems to mean any number of contradictory things. Seems like a buzz word neologism with little actual meaning. Ridernyc (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep I've added a number of links to the page that show notability and that it is not a neologism or a buzz word, but an actual term in the computer and economic world. It seems quite notable, the article just needs to be badly rewritten. Silverseren 20:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, neutral. Could you please separate the wheat from the chaff and mention some of the WP:RS-compliant sources here? From what I can see, you mostly added a bunch of press releases and sources with trivial mentions. — Rankiri (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
"Comverse to Demonstrate Machine-to-Machine Wireless Communication Using Intel(R) Technology" - Market Watch
"Gemalto's Innovative Machine-to-Machine Solution Receives "2009 SmartGrid Product of the Year" Award" - Trading Markets Press Release
"How Machine-to-Machine Communication Works" - HowStuffWorks
"Machine-to-Machine (M2M) Communications" - MobileIN
Believe me, there's a number, a ridiculous number, of news sources that I haven't put on the page. If you like me to, I will, but there's a lot. Silverseren 22:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I was going to say something similar but figured I would let others comment. All the sources just throw around the phrase M2M, I really do not see how any of them prove it is not a poorly defined neologism. Seems to be a buzz word for networking 2 devices. I've seen no description beyond a PR buzzword. Ridernyc (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not a buzzword. "Machine to machine communications" is literally the name of the process of machine inter-communication. It is the word used in the computer world as the description of such an occurrence. Silverseren 22:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Then provide us with a source that shows that, not saying your wrong just saying not a single sources describes it. Ridernyc (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You mean the ones I put right up there? Silverseren 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Only one of them describes M2M the rest are just press releases. They give no description of what m2m is, the how to article is the only one that comes close but it basically simply describes it as old fashioned telemetry using a wireless network. Not what you or the article has described. I've yet to see any 2 articles that agree on any sort of standard definition. Ridernyc (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is wrong. Easy as that. Which is why i'm in the middle of rewriting it at this very moment. Machine to Machine communication is a notable topic that has seen much coverage. Did you hit next page on the How Stuff Works article? It describes its modern uses. Silverseren 23:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Feel free to rewrite it but it's a copyvio at the moment. I tagged it for CSD. I think it's notable but not when it's content is stolen from at least 2 other sites. OlYeller 23:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Changes were made but it's still a copyvio. OlYeller 23:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
More changes were made. It's no longer a copyvio. Silverseren 23:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good now on the copyvio side. I removed the db. As for it being notable, this subject isn't something I really know about so I'll refrain from commenting. OlYeller 23:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually done with what I was doing. If you want to work on it, go ahead.Silverseren 00:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
After careful consideration, I have decided to retire from this project and so will be unable to help at this time. Take care. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete As far as I can see, this is all marketing hype. Note please the first issue of MMMag (http://web.archive.org/web/20030718092602/www.m2mmag.com/m2mmag.asp), which characterize M2M in a way to encompass essentially all communications: "In fact, there is a large, untapped market emerging in the machine-to-machine, mobile-to-machine, man-to-machine, machine-to-man, and machine-to-mobile (M2M) marketplace."
    Also, "the process of machine inter-communication" has existed for many years, and pretty much every computer protocol has the purpose of inter or intra machine communication. With all due respect, the how stuff works reference is less than impressive, if for no other reason than it contains the phrase 'When machines "talk" they do so in a language known as "telemetry."' Telemetry is not a language, it's a just the process of monitoring something as a distance (and I notice that similar phrasing is in the article without citation). None of the references I've looked at have any substantial technical information distinguishing M2M from the general concept of data communications. As a networking geek, I have to ask, are there any RFCs related to this topic? Any discussion about how M2m fits within the traditional OSI model? Nuujinn (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Just because that source, which is not being used in the article anyways, describes it like that doesn't mean anything. The sources we actually have describe it more as the process by which greater and more expanding networks of computer communications are being created throughout the world. If you think I need to reword the article, I will. I'm off to expand it right now as it is anyway. Silverseren 20:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, then, taking your argument, if machine to machine is related to data communication, it is essentially a field actually, then according to WP:LENGTH, it should be summarized in the main article, while still having its separate full article here. Truly, machine to machine has the possibility of being too long to correctly make it fit in the data communications article. Silverseren 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say, let me try to be more clear. As far as I can tell, the term "machine to machine" and "m2m" have no technical meaning or reference, but rather serve as a buzz word for marketing purposes. Communication between machines is the essence of all intra and internet connections. I do not think it is a field--if it were a field, then surely there would be courses offered in it, and professional certifications for it. If it were a communications protocol, there should be an RFC for it. If it's a system for communications, it ought to be described somewhere in terms of how it adheres to or differs from the OSI model. I can find nothing on the net other than vague characterizations with a marketing orientation. I cannot find any sources or references on the net to the term that have any specificity to them, the only common thread is that the terms are used by companies selling data communication services over cellular networks.
Also, you suggested, I believe, that we should look at the how stuff works article ("Did you hit next page on the How Stuff Works article? It describes its modern uses"), and it is a reference used in the article. I read the entire how stuff works article and found nothing that I'd say distinguishes m2m from everyday data communications. I'd be happy to look over any technical article you can find, but there are none listed in the article so far. If you find some references with real, substantial technical information in them, I'll help you rewrite it. Nuujinn (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
"Machine-to-Machine (M2M) Communication Challenges Established (U)SIM Card Technology" - GD
Definition of M2M on Whatis?
"Machine to Machine (M2M) Technology in Demand Responsive Commercial Buildings"
I found out, as I searched and found these sources, that I was debating the wrong point. I found what I should have been debating and how the initial part of the article is wrong (which i'll be correcting soon). "Machine to Machine" is a technology, not a communication. It is a set of technologies that have specific purposes and utilize data communications and telemetry to communicate, yes, but they are a technology that uses them. It is for this reason that it deserves its own article, because it is a type of technology, new(er) technology. That's my argument. And i'm sticking by that. Silverseren 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There, I changed the intro. Read it again and tell me what you think. Silverseren 08:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
See this is the point it's a porrly defined neologism, you seem to keep trying to redefine what this is as we point out issues and you find contradictory sources. Ridernyc (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Besides the fact that it is not a neologism because the sources themselves go back to 2003, it is actually clearly defined. In all of the sources I used, M2M is defined as the technology that does these things. I was just being an idiot before and didn't notice that, but every source defines it as a technology. Silverseren 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes because you are cherry picking sources, the how to article is contradicts your sources. There is no standard definition for this term. Ridernyc (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You're the one cherry-picking them if you're only using one to say all of the others are invalid. Besides, it says "Three very common technologies -- wireless sensors, the Internet and personal computers -- are coming together to create machine-to-machine communications, or M2M." Clearly, based on the other sources, this means that these technologies that are M2M use M2M communications...because they are M2M. The writer of that article wrote it badly, but the fact that M2M is a technology coincides with all of the other references. However, if you would like me not to use the how to article just for that, even though it is a fine source, okay, I won't. That doesn't change the fact that the other sources are perfectly fine. Silverseren 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Going to end the conversation ow and let people look at the sources themselves. No reason to keep making the same points repeatedly. Ridernyc (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Ridernyc is right. The thing is, I do this kind of thing for a living and have since the mid 80s, and so far, there is absolutely nothing substantial in any of the sources, and as Ridernyc points out, the sources that are available are both vague and contradict one another. I'd be happy to help with this and support a keep argument if anyone could articulate some technical definition, an RFC, documentation of a single protocol, a description of an API, something, anything more substantial than "there is one machine here that's talking to another one over there". The way the term is used, it's just a buzz word from marketers used as a substitute for network communication. Nuujinn (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
"Machine to Machine (M2M) Technology in Demand Responsive Commercial Buildings"
The first paragraph in the abstract for this source has the perfect definition, in my opinion, of what M2M is. How is that not clear and concise? Silverseren 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But how do you reconcile that definition with one provided in the other sources? Some stress that M2M isn't limited to machines, some don't. "Machine to Machine (M2M) Technology in Demand Responsive Commercial Buildings" describes a study done using XML and IP over standard inter and intranets, but most of the sources emphasis M2M is done over cell networks. And almost all of them have a marketing slant one way or another, and use M2M as a buzz word (including "Machine to Machine (M2M) Technology in Demand Responsive Commercial Buildings", which seems to a grant report). I just think this would be better as a paragraph or two in another article and also as a wiktionary entry. Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Because the other sources also say that same thing, about it being a technology. Yes, they then go into its uses in other things and the abilities of its communication, but it is still a technology. Most of the sources go into cell networks because that is currently the biggest use for such technology, aka creating cell devices that are able to link with each other. If it is the main current use, then of course most of the sources are going to focus on that use. But not all of the sources do, such as the Infoworld article.
It is also not a buzz word because Machine to Machine is the term that has been in use for the past ten years. It is a legitimate term in the computer industry. Yes, marketing campaigns are going to pick up on it easier because it sounds catchy, but that doesn't lessen the legitimacy of the term within the computer and economic world.
Also, it should not just be shortened into another article because of the high amount of information that exists about it and that can be poured into an encyclopedia article. It is fit for an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and also deserves its own article, because it is its own thing and not subject to something else.
As an example that the sources say it is a technology, look at this:
"M2M is a set of technologies"
"machine to machine comprises of a number of separate technologies"
"using machine to machine technology"
“Connecting consumer electronics and machine-to-machine (M2M) devices to a wireless network requires a unique set of assets”
"Gemalto has developed a unique technological advancement aimed at meeting smart grid service needs."
The only sources I did not use was the how stuff works article because it speaks differently about machine to machine and i've been seriously debating taking it out of the article and the IT Business Edge interview because the guy speaks of M2M applications and not about M2M itself (which is why that source isn't being used for the intro). Silverseren 20:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - an obviously necessary and self-evident technical neologism. Usage plenty. Even if the bulk of the definition looks like an advert, the term usage is proven. Mukadderat (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note - Silver, I'm going to ask that you refrain from commenting on the AfD anymore. You've now replied to every single comment and made over 3 times as many comments as there are !voters in this AfD. I suggest taking a break from the AfD and addressing any problems brought up about the subject in the article and/or on its talk page. I'm not going to site any guidelines or policies but give your history and the current situation, I think it's fair to ask. OlYeller 20:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - the information found on this page is necessary for companies looking for a machine-to-machine solution with little understanding of the industry. User:veinblz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.164.53 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC) — 81.98.164.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Compliments, there are some nice sources there. Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Author blanked, speedy deletion tag has been added. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Horten Parabola (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)

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I got all the information I could to edit this article. All the websites I researched say the same thing, so there´s nothing I can do. I won't fight with you. If you want to delete it, you are welcome, but first do me a favour, recreate this article after it's deletion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swawdsd (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment If you would like to move this article under your user space so that you may continue to work on it until it has sufficient references to meet notability guidelines, I can take care of that for you and close this AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (A3, no content) by Nihonjoe. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Disney XD Play (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)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a cyrstal ball. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect all to Kruger National Park#Rest camps. Consensus dictates these do not have individual notability. However, no prejudice against the future recreation of a list of rest camps if the section at Kruger National Park gets large. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular  21:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Tamboti Tent Camp (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)

Unremarkable camping facility within a national park, lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because :

Camp Shawu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Skukuza Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orpen Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Berg-en-Dal Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Redirect to Kruger National Park#Rest camps. I would remind the nominator that WP:BEFORE requires various steps before nominating pages for deletion, one of which is "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged." If, in fact, this was considered and rejected then the reasons should be included in the nomination. The images can be merged into the target. An introductory section can be sourced from material such as TerriersFan (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment' I would remind this editor that there needs to be something worth merging into the target, thus the deletion discussion. If consensus is that there is sufficient content there to merge, then so be it, but I'm not seeing it in these articles.--RadioFan (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hackney Free and Parochial C of E School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not assert notability of subject. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As I stated in my comment below, since this is a school for age 11-16, I consider this a middle school. Furthermore, I would not consider a middle school to be worthy of inclusion unless it was particularly outstanding, which does not seem to be the case with this article. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
In the US, this would be considered a middle school. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's in the UK though, so your point is irrelevant. Aiken ♫ 13:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Since the subject of this article is equivalent to a US middle school, I will treat it as a US middle school. 139.225.254.75 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Not only is this an appalling US-centric comment, it is also inaccurate. Middle school age ranges vary from state to state but typically they are up to 14, two years lower than a UK high school. TerriersFan (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, when I said "equivalent", I should have said "roughly equivalent", which makes sense to me as the subject of this article serves ages 11-16. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep because of the significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep if it is a secondary school. I gather that of this type of school, many terminate at that year, while some of them have an optional program continuing to the age 18. I don;t think this corresponds to a US junior high school, but as the final educational level for most of the students would be a secondary school.It is routine and standard here for all high schools to be considered notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You say that you "gather that of this type of school, many terminate at that year". Can you substantiate this? Also, wouldn't a large percentage of students graduating at 16 go on to a trade school? RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as hoax per WP:CSD#G3. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Brenda Destiny Williams (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)

Speedy: Blatant hoax. According to the article creator (likely one of several socks promoting this person through several articles), this person is a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue covermodel, a Victoria's Secret Angel, Vogue model, and Playboy Playmate (at the age of 16), which would make her one of the most successful models of the age. It's all very impressive except for that none of the templates at the bottom of the page back it up and no internet source has ever heard of her.  Mbinebri  17:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Delete → AA — 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

151.198.187.55/Universal Verification Methodology (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)

dup of Universal Verification Methodology Anshuk (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fever Tour (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 non-notable tour for several reasons. It won't even begin until the end of April. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, only brief mentions, and tours like this generally are not notable unless they are highly anticipated by mainstream music critics and are to include extremely popular acts. Therefore, it easily fails WP:MUSIC. It does have a chance of becoming notable in the future, but not until it has begun, at the earliest. Timmeh 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Saeed Bhutta (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 academic. Only one reference provided, that of his own university bio. Google turns up nothing else relevant. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Uiquipèdia (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 site provides only revisionist propaganda. It has no notability : it's a wiki with 5000 articles. Everything is locked and censored by a couple of users. No reliable sources are avalaible about it, it's obviously out of criterias. Xic667 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:MEMORIAL. As sad as this death is, the news coverage given to it is strictly routine. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. There is no "Great Britain national cricket team", there never has been a "Great Britain national cricket team", and the article is just speculation.

The logo included in the article is File:England and Wales Cricket Board.svg, which unsurprisingly belongs to the England and Wales Cricket Board, not to this imaginary team. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Saaheb. JForget 02:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yaar Bina Chain Kahan Re (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 song from the movie Saaheb. There is no new data on this article which is not covered in Saaheb. Anshuk (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Den (Pharaoh)#Family. Tone 11:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Qaineit (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)

So far as I can discover, all we know is that her name was on a stela and she may have been Den's wife, and she was not buried with him but nearby. See . I don't think one mention on a stela is sufficient for an article. I've searched for other information to no avail except to find a mention of a Qainneith 'known from a seal of unknown provenance' so possibly a different person Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Queen of Egypt sounds pretty notable. Despite having only one known contemporaneous source, she is mentioned in subsequent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if she wasn't Den's wife, that means that she wasn't a queen. But I think that is the best thing to do that we redirect this article to Den_(Pharaoh)#Family.--Mychele Trempetich (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Madea Goes to Jail. Black Kite 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Madea Goes to Jail (play) (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 fails general notability guidelines. No significant coverage in secondary sources. It almost but not quite looks like a vanity piece. It has been around since April 2006 and the only reference is imdb. --Bejnar (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge both this article Madea Goes to Jail (play) (about the play) and the separate article Madea Goes to Jail (film) (about the movie) into Madea Goes to Jail, which is currently a disambig page listing the play and the movie. The film is highly notable with reviews in major papers like the NYT and the Boston Globe. The play, not so much. The play/film combination is clearly notable, but it doesn't need three articles. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Keep. The research below by Arxiloxos is persuasive. The play is clearly notable. And while I find it clumsy to have separate articles for play and movie with a disambig page, there is plenty of precedent here for doing it that way - both with Tyler Perry's work and with many other situations where there was a play or book as well as a movie. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. If the decision is to simply delete this page, then the disambig page Madea Goes to Jail should also be deleted - or better it should become a redirect to the film. Whatever the decision is about this page, I believe we should end up with just one article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of a merger, but I disagree with your reasoning. Notability is not transferred, and there is no need for a redirect with the tag "(play)" if there is only one article. So merge and delete. --Bejnar (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This play, like all of Perry's "Madea" theatrical productions, was massively successful, toured widely, and was extensively covered and reviewed. A search of <"Madea Goes to Jail" play> at Google News produces hundreds of hits, and while many of them aren't about the play, here are some that are: Philadelphia Inquirer; Syracuse Post-Standard; Call & Post; Chicago Sun-Times ("his play "Madea Goes to Jail" is selling out in theaters across the country"); Boston.com; Monsters and Critics (review of Newark performance); Minneapolis Star-Tribune("The mighty `Madea' visits Minneapolis; As in other cities, Tyler Perry's mostly black fans are flocking to his show, mixing soul concert, sass, song, sermon and sweet inspiration." . . . "Now he is making his Minneapolis debut in "Madea Goes to Jail," which opened to whoops and hollers Thursday at the Orpheum Theatre.") ; Dallas Observer. I can keep going, but I think the point is made. If the editors decide it's better to deal with each Perry property in a combined article about the corresponding play and movie, that might be a legitimate editorial decision, but it sure as heck isn't because the plays aren't notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Since most, if not all of the articles that Arxiloxos cites, discuss the "Madea" plays together, with emphasis on Diary of a Mad Black Woman, rather than this one, putting them in one article seems appropriate. Since the author's article is not too long, and currently does not mention his plays, Merge to Tyler Perry would seem to be appropriate, ensuring only "concise plot summaries" WP:PLOT in the process. The level of coverage suggested by Arxiloxos comments above are not quite borne out by the texts of the articles, please do read them. For example, the article in The Boston Globe reads in its entierty:
"Madea comes to Worcester"   Over the past six years, Tyler Perry has become an industry. His success began with plays, such as the new Madea Goes to Jail, which is at the DCU Center in Worcester this weekend. Madea, Tyler's popular character, has spawned smash films, such as Diary of a Mad Black Woman. Madea began as a tribute to Perry's mother and aunt and was never intended to be the franchise it has become. But after the first production, Madea was too popular for Perry to put on the shelf. Perry says he will retire Madea after Madea Goes to Jail, at least for a couple of years while he works on other projects. He begins production on Daddy's Little Girls next month, which he will produce and direct from his own screenplay, before moving on to Jazzman's Blues, another of his scripts. Madea might return after that, but for now, Perry will be happy to have a break. I want to step back for a minute and take it all in, he says. Madea Goes to Jail runs tonight through Sunday at the DCU Center in Worcester. $52.50-$55.50. 617-931-2000, www.ticketmaster.com. --Bejnar (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The articles I selected were taken from the first few pages of search results; they were all written in connection with a production of "Madea Goes to Jail." Some are straight reviews, some are background, some are brief, but it's not true to say that they all place "emphasis on Diary of a Mad Black Woman", and there are many, many more pages of search results, bearing in mind that many of them are at pay sites so you can usually see just a few lines. But this is a little bit beside the point. Merging the articles for each Madea play/film, or even merging all the Madea articles into one, as a matter of editorial discretion, is one thing, although I certainly don't think it would be appropriate to do this at Tyler Perry since he is now connected with considerably more that just Madea. The key point is that a merger decision for one property in a big, hugely popular series, shouldn't be done via a narrowed AfD based on a nomination claiming, contrary to the evidence, that the subject had "no significant coverage in significant sources" and was akin to a "vanity piece".
Perry's Madea plays have been a massively successful, very long lived project, with significant impact in African-American popular culture, and they deserve thorough encyclopedic treatment. Currently, it appears that each of Perry's plays has its own article, and and any substantial change in this structure ought to be discussed with reference to the whole corpus, not just one small part of it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to C.O.P.S.. There's little evidence of any significant real-world notability or coverage of the character itself. Black Kite 19:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Main character of a notable cartoon series and toyline. He was the leader of the good guys as I recall. And all of the characters from this series should've been nominated together to save us some time. You seem to be going after one series after another, nominating everything in it. Dream Focus 07:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete- yet another article about a character from a minor TV show that has absolutely no sources to back it up. Google News yields nothing, Google Books one that mentions the character in passing- not enough to justify this big huge article. It's almost entirely original research. The tone of the article is also excessively flowery and, while for proper articles this is an issue that can be fixed, here it cannot be done because there are no sources to enable balanced coverage. Reyk YO! 10:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing of value to be had from this article 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • <del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to C.O.P.S., since it's reasonable to assume that this is and could be a useful search term. The only information reliably sourced (elsewhere, mind) is the voice actor, so there is nothing really to merge. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as article fails to cross either the verifiability or notability thresholds. Would normally suggest merge to main article but the vast majority of this information is already included in the C.O.P.S. article. Leaving behind a redirect to the main C.O.P.S. article ice certainly warranted. - Dravecky (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep in some capacity per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, i.e. no valid reason exists as to there being any pressing need to delete the edit history and why we would not at worst redirect with edit history intact to . As even the nominator and bolded delete above suggest, we have merge and redirect locations and thus we would at worst go that route instead of redlinking. This particular character is not just from a TV show, but was also an action figure, which we can see in the real world. Not only can verify that it is an action figure with own eyes, we can indeed confirm through a reliable secondary source who voice acted the character from Google Books. I have sourced the article accordingly. This particular character's article is unquestionably at least worthy of a redirect as the article itself indicates: "BulletProof is not just a protagonist and the main character of the series..." Main characters are unquestionably legitimate search terms per WP:SENSE. Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and reference better, standard fictional biography. --69.142.103.133 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Has one reference - main character and toyline suggests sourcing feasible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep main character in major series. Conceivably merge, but I think that for the main characters an article can be justified. In any case, it would certainly be a redirect not a delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per the detailed sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.234.216 (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The source is a basic description which hardly covers the subject character hardly worthy of an entire article wikipeda's guidelines state that sources must substantially cover the subject if this subject has to be kept I think it should be merged as there is not overwhelming sources to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. No evidence whatsoever that this fictional character has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Satori Son 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems that this AfD was never listed on a daily log. I have added it to today's log. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The argument for for keeping this article seems to notability is inherited because he appeared in COPS as a main character but the only reference is from a encyclopaedia which barely gives a brief description of the character but which is that character was voiced by Ken Ryan now that is hardly substantial coverage to justify a whole article. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I still think he's notable as the main character of a notable series. At least the nominator's claim that this is a "minor character" is invalid in my opinion. JIP | Talk 06:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough material for an encyclopaedia article. Just a retelling of the story. People would do better to buy/rent the DVDs, read the comic books, or whatever. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • comment Whatever the problems, there does seem to be quite enough material--if anything , it needs to be shortened. the work itself is a suitable source, and the almost complete emphasis of plot is appropriate, for a spin off article, but not the entire work. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • One of the links used as a sources I believe is a fansite used to justify this article and the information is more about the show than the character which means its not substanial coverage. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect. My searches reveal only trivial mentions of this topic, always in the context of the show. I searched without the "Bulletproof", and by "bullerproof vess" (get it? Bulletproof vest?) and found only the name of the voice actor. But this is covered in the main show article, so the character had not been analyzed at all in reliable third party sources. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm still amazed why this particular character has been singled out. As has been said previously, this is not only a major character, but the main character in a show that has been established as notable. Not nearly all of the show's other characters have their own articles, but some do, and I haven't seen anyone question their notability. From another, perhaps more important, perspective, I can mention Transformers. I am a Transformers fan but not a C.O.P.S. fan. Pretty much every Transformers character ever has its own Knowledge (XXG) article. Some of them are notable on their own, but many exist simply because they're about a toy that had a cartoon character made of it. For example, the Technobots and Terrorcons have, to my recollection, appeared in less than a dozen of the Transformers cartoon's almost one hundred episodes. Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, on the contrast, has appeared in pretty much every episode ever of C.O.P.S. JIP | Talk 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Commment: Lots of keyboard wear created by this discussion. I perceive that the show is considered notable, so we're just arguing about whether the primary character gets his own page or not? Either way, that's just an organizational question of where to put this content, whether here, or on the show page with a redirect. Having the separate article does no noticeable harm to the project, so I'll lean keep.--Milowent (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It does no harm I don't feel is a valid argument, because the issue is does it have substantial sources to assert notability. The only reliable sources are the encyclopaedia which documents the voice actor and and second site which like the encyclopaedia talks more about the television show premise than the character discussed. I would support a merge like I mentioned in a nomination for another COPS article but Buttons McBoomBoom and Rock Krusher were merged and from what I can see no notable information from either article has been merged because they like this are merely plot summaries and there is nothing worthy merging except character names Dwanyewest (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major/main character in a notable series is a suitable spin out article. As usual a route of less confrontational and thoughtful discussion should have preceded this but we're here now. There is a reasonable point that our readers may benefit from a reorganization where instead of one main and multiple individual character articles that a main article plus several supplemental articles combining many of the major characters and likewise for the minor characters. This would also be a useful suggestion for writing about fictional series if we are doling out suggestions for other editors. -- Banjeboi 13:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If you are referring to WP:SS, the article C.O.P.S. is very sparse. We should work with reorganization based on sourced content. Not much coverage is being provided by those who are voting to keep, and my personal research does not show much, either. I'm not sure why people are arguing that being a main character equates a stand-alone article. Amount of sourced content should be our litmus test, and if the passage in "Reception" is the best that can be done, we should present the character within the constraints of the main article. Erik (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article has 2 sources, but there might be more out there. December21st2012Freak at 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see significant coverage in the sources given and I haven't been able to find any on my own. Only two lines in the entire article have actually been verified: his existence and a name-drop from a nonnotable blogger. ThemFromSpace 09:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge or redirect. Most of the keep !votes here ignore policy. Nothing supports the proposition that major characters from notable cartoone are somehow notable. Sounds like WP:NOTINHERITED to me. Like every article, there must be significant coverage in reliable sources. I challenge anyone to reasonably argue that the bar of significant has been met here. In my view, policy requires deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, main character from notable series. The policy supporting this is called Knowledge (XXG):Summary style. As the main character in the series, nearly any discussion of the series will cover him. If there is enough content, it is legitimate to split off the section on this character into its own article. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Without any secondary sources which analyse the topic, the topic isn't notable. There is no need to invoke summary style, since there is zero information available from secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to C.O.P.S. since I do not see any worthwhile secondary sources being provided and a personal research attempt did not turn up much of use for a stand-alone article. For example, this is still series-centric, not character-centric. The TV series article is very sparse, so WP:SS does not apply here; merging preserves edit history and consolidates all C.O.P.S information in one place. Erik (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think is likely the only acceptable compromise because many of the C.O.P.S. characters have been merged into the main character and there clearly isn't sufficient third person data to justify a solo article I would rather a decision one way or the other rather than a no consensus like Big Boss. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

This is an article for a non-notable person, with no secondary sources and only a few obscure primary sources written by themself. This page has been tagged for notability since 2008, and has still not been provided any evidence. I added a prod tag, but it was continually removed by someone - I assume the article's subject - with no reason, no discussion, and still no evidence for notability. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the notability is being positioned as a researcher. This person meets none of the criteria for Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics).Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of episodes for a non-notable web series.

The series was previously nominated at Articles for Deletion and was merged into the webcomic article, which was subsequently also deleted at Articles for Deletion. Taelus (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/02/ctrl-alt-del-the-animated-series/ An editor at joystiq mentioned these episodes. I can't remember if joystiq is a reliable source or not. Where are all the reliable sources listed? Other places might mention this also. Looking through all the Google results after some filtering. Dream Focus 07:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
From the source guidelines at WP:VG/S - Joystiq "A blog network; use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced."
Additionally, that page they did on it doesn't seem to say much other than "This will exist. And it will cost this much and be out in Feb.", so I am unsure it helps with notability here. --Taelus (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Slim Domit (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)

Being the son of the world's richest man is not sufficient to establish notability. His merits as a business executive include nothing about why Knowledge (XXG) should have an article on him. meco (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked that. If it is likely that there are sides to him that may make him notable, the article may be flagged for {{Rescue}}, though. __meco (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


I'd like to make the comment that the article still doesn't assert notability. I have changed my opinion from nominating the article for deletion to keep, but I'd like to see the article text make a better case of why he is notable. The now presented references do seem to have enough information about him to make this case. __meco (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
How is saying the the subject is chairman of a company with $5,500,000,000 annual revenue and nearly 80,000 employees not an assertion of notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Because if that is all the information we present we need simply a redirect to that company's article which states that he is their CEO. __meco (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G4. There's nothing improved in this article over Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Raining Money Outside. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Raven-symoné's 5th studio album (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)

Typical WP:HAMMER failing article. Track list seems imaginary, no sources that confirm any meaningful data. WP:CRYSTAL applies. —Kww(talk) 14:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find it, please do. Speedy delete criterion G4 would apply most likely. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. no consensus at all for deletion JForget 02:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sindhu Joy (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)

Sindhu Joy is not notable enough for a WP bio. She contested a parliament election and lost but doesn't give her any major role in politics. She was a student leader and addicted to various social networking services like Facebook or Orkut. Would that make for a WP article? She was awarded PhD in some subject recently, which she calls An alter in the living as of Sindhu Joy towards Dr Sindhu Joy She fails WP:Bio. This article can be a troll magnet due to her controversial career, too. No worries deleted. --117.204.85.175 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep, Google news seems to have enough material about her career as a student leader to satisfy notability concerns.. (NB, I completed the nomination proces on behalf of the IP nominator.) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: When there is a more specific point in policy like WP:Politician it is better to start from there. Especially so, since our subject's assumed notability is solely based on her political career. I think she would fail wp:politician although she has been much in the news recently due firstly, to her candidacy, secondly, to some controversies. --117.204.89.8 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
First, coverage predates her candidacy and second "some controversies" is how lot of subjects get coverage. As long as the article is balanced and does not violate WP:UNDUE, i don't see any harm in having the article. If the coverage had been restricted to her electoral history alone, WP:POLITICIAN would apply here, but since it is not, i would say it meets the Base criteria for WP:BIO which is coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources and subject has plenty of it. (and note the references added are just English ones, there must be lot more Malayalam sources)--Sodabottle (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. I can't see any indepth and significant coverage of lasting nature in the media except electoral, which as you know is ephemeral and needs to be discounted per the aspects of policy we both cited. When you say, there is no harm in keeping the bio, I suggest you to do a check on the history of the article. Time and again highly inappropriate material has been added.--117.204.89.8 (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
We agree to disagree then. I took a look the article history as you suggested. most of the disruptive edits seems to come from IPs. I have watchlisted the article and keep an eye on it. If (the article survives the AfD and) the disruptive edits continue, i will ask an admin to semi protect it. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to accept this if she were he president, not the VP. For one think, some such organisations have multiple VPs. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
DGG is correct. there are currently four--Sodabottle (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
and there are hundreds of student organisations in India. --117.204.82.201 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A character that is only mentioned in passing and never actually appears in any books. Nothing is actually know about him it's all original research speculation. Ridernyc (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Caves of Element (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)

Upgraded from prod due to previous CSD-G11 attempts, with creator removing templates. Fails WP:SPAM. Article states: "Although this article is created by the developers of the game, this article is in no way intended to promote this game, and should not be treated as one that does. This artcle is only intended to provide information about the upcoming game and inform the public about the company, BB." Fails WP:CRYSTAL, the game is not yet in production. Blatant violation of WP:COI. No GHits, no assertion of WP:NOTABILITY. GregJackP (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Delete as a G12 violaotion. — CactusWriter | 21:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Baja rc car (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 repeatedly removes db-spam tags. Article fails WP:SPAM. GregJackP (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to C.O.P.S.. There's little evidence of any significant real-world notability or coverage of the character itself. Black Kite 19:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Main character of a notable cartoon series and toyline. He was the leader of the good guys as I recall. And all of the characters from this series should've been nominated together to save us some time. You seem to be going after one series after another, nominating everything in it. Dream Focus 07:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete- yet another article about a character from a minor TV show that has absolutely no sources to back it up. Google News yields nothing, Google Books one that mentions the character in passing- not enough to justify this big huge article. It's almost entirely original research. The tone of the article is also excessively flowery and, while for proper articles this is an issue that can be fixed, here it cannot be done because there are no sources to enable balanced coverage. Reyk YO! 10:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing of value to be had from this article 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • <del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to C.O.P.S., since it's reasonable to assume that this is and could be a useful search term. The only information reliably sourced (elsewhere, mind) is the voice actor, so there is nothing really to merge. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as article fails to cross either the verifiability or notability thresholds. Would normally suggest merge to main article but the vast majority of this information is already included in the C.O.P.S. article. Leaving behind a redirect to the main C.O.P.S. article ice certainly warranted. - Dravecky (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep in some capacity per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, i.e. no valid reason exists as to there being any pressing need to delete the edit history and why we would not at worst redirect with edit history intact to . As even the nominator and bolded delete above suggest, we have merge and redirect locations and thus we would at worst go that route instead of redlinking. This particular character is not just from a TV show, but was also an action figure, which we can see in the real world. Not only can verify that it is an action figure with own eyes, we can indeed confirm through a reliable secondary source who voice acted the character from Google Books. I have sourced the article accordingly. This particular character's article is unquestionably at least worthy of a redirect as the article itself indicates: "BulletProof is not just a protagonist and the main character of the series..." Main characters are unquestionably legitimate search terms per WP:SENSE. Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and reference better, standard fictional biography. --69.142.103.133 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Has one reference - main character and toyline suggests sourcing feasible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep main character in major series. Conceivably merge, but I think that for the main characters an article can be justified. In any case, it would certainly be a redirect not a delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per the detailed sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.234.216 (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The source is a basic description which hardly covers the subject character hardly worthy of an entire article wikipeda's guidelines state that sources must substantially cover the subject if this subject has to be kept I think it should be merged as there is not overwhelming sources to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. No evidence whatsoever that this fictional character has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Satori Son 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems that this AfD was never listed on a daily log. I have added it to today's log. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The argument for for keeping this article seems to notability is inherited because he appeared in COPS as a main character but the only reference is from a encyclopaedia which barely gives a brief description of the character but which is that character was voiced by Ken Ryan now that is hardly substantial coverage to justify a whole article. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I still think he's notable as the main character of a notable series. At least the nominator's claim that this is a "minor character" is invalid in my opinion. JIP | Talk 06:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough material for an encyclopaedia article. Just a retelling of the story. People would do better to buy/rent the DVDs, read the comic books, or whatever. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • comment Whatever the problems, there does seem to be quite enough material--if anything , it needs to be shortened. the work itself is a suitable source, and the almost complete emphasis of plot is appropriate, for a spin off article, but not the entire work. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • One of the links used as a sources I believe is a fansite used to justify this article and the information is more about the show than the character which means its not substanial coverage. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect. My searches reveal only trivial mentions of this topic, always in the context of the show. I searched without the "Bulletproof", and by "bullerproof vess" (get it? Bulletproof vest?) and found only the name of the voice actor. But this is covered in the main show article, so the character had not been analyzed at all in reliable third party sources. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm still amazed why this particular character has been singled out. As has been said previously, this is not only a major character, but the main character in a show that has been established as notable. Not nearly all of the show's other characters have their own articles, but some do, and I haven't seen anyone question their notability. From another, perhaps more important, perspective, I can mention Transformers. I am a Transformers fan but not a C.O.P.S. fan. Pretty much every Transformers character ever has its own Knowledge (XXG) article. Some of them are notable on their own, but many exist simply because they're about a toy that had a cartoon character made of it. For example, the Technobots and Terrorcons have, to my recollection, appeared in less than a dozen of the Transformers cartoon's almost one hundred episodes. Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, on the contrast, has appeared in pretty much every episode ever of C.O.P.S. JIP | Talk 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Commment: Lots of keyboard wear created by this discussion. I perceive that the show is considered notable, so we're just arguing about whether the primary character gets his own page or not? Either way, that's just an organizational question of where to put this content, whether here, or on the show page with a redirect. Having the separate article does no noticeable harm to the project, so I'll lean keep.--Milowent (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It does no harm I don't feel is a valid argument, because the issue is does it have substantial sources to assert notability. The only reliable sources are the encyclopaedia which documents the voice actor and and second site which like the encyclopaedia talks more about the television show premise than the character discussed. I would support a merge like I mentioned in a nomination for another COPS article but Buttons McBoomBoom and Rock Krusher were merged and from what I can see no notable information from either article has been merged because they like this are merely plot summaries and there is nothing worthy merging except character names Dwanyewest (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major/main character in a notable series is a suitable spin out article. As usual a route of less confrontational and thoughtful discussion should have preceded this but we're here now. There is a reasonable point that our readers may benefit from a reorganization where instead of one main and multiple individual character articles that a main article plus several supplemental articles combining many of the major characters and likewise for the minor characters. This would also be a useful suggestion for writing about fictional series if we are doling out suggestions for other editors. -- Banjeboi 13:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If you are referring to WP:SS, the article C.O.P.S. is very sparse. We should work with reorganization based on sourced content. Not much coverage is being provided by those who are voting to keep, and my personal research does not show much, either. I'm not sure why people are arguing that being a main character equates a stand-alone article. Amount of sourced content should be our litmus test, and if the passage in "Reception" is the best that can be done, we should present the character within the constraints of the main article. Erik (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article has 2 sources, but there might be more out there. December21st2012Freak at 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see significant coverage in the sources given and I haven't been able to find any on my own. Only two lines in the entire article have actually been verified: his existence and a name-drop from a nonnotable blogger. ThemFromSpace 09:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge or redirect. Most of the keep !votes here ignore policy. Nothing supports the proposition that major characters from notable cartoone are somehow notable. Sounds like WP:NOTINHERITED to me. Like every article, there must be significant coverage in reliable sources. I challenge anyone to reasonably argue that the bar of significant has been met here. In my view, policy requires deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, main character from notable series. The policy supporting this is called Knowledge (XXG):Summary style. As the main character in the series, nearly any discussion of the series will cover him. If there is enough content, it is legitimate to split off the section on this character into its own article. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Without any secondary sources which analyse the topic, the topic isn't notable. There is no need to invoke summary style, since there is zero information available from secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to C.O.P.S. since I do not see any worthwhile secondary sources being provided and a personal research attempt did not turn up much of use for a stand-alone article. For example, this is still series-centric, not character-centric. The TV series article is very sparse, so WP:SS does not apply here; merging preserves edit history and consolidates all C.O.P.S information in one place. Erik (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think is likely the only acceptable compromise because many of the C.O.P.S. characters have been merged into the main character and there clearly isn't sufficient third person data to justify a solo article I would rather a decision one way or the other rather than a no consensus like Big Boss. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Dugenbed (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 about a piece of furniture that has no evidence of actual existence. Purporting to date back to the 13th century, a google book search shows no results for it. Purportedly gaining popularity in modern resorts, there are no results aside wikipedia mirrors, and sites that consolidate content through automated web scraping. Whpq (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

One-time cookout lacking in genuine notability; minor media firestorm is of the "local controversy" type, but severely fails WP:N#TEMP, WP:INTHENEWS.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. It will probably turn out sufficiently notable with time and some historical perspective, given the wider story has been picked up outside the local area . The term "Compton cookout" appears to be used as a label for the entire brouhaha, so the title is fine. However the article needs serious work. The writers have fallen into the trap of associating the party with racial issues as UCSD itself, rather than simply reporting the fact that others have argued a cause and effect association, giving a somewhat skewed perspective. While the event is occurring, its always difficult to parse out WP:N#TEMP, WP:INTHENEWS issues from longer term notable events. Rockpocket 18:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I have removed the implication of racial issues at UCSD with the party itself. I agree with Rocketpocket; the Compton Cookout is (or will be) notable, inasmuch as it is being reported nationally and being taken up as a cause by California politicians. If it sputters, delete it. Or delete it, and if it continues, repost?Marco ZuolagaMarco Zuolaga 18:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

+ the author takes a position with regard to Will Espositio's opinion. This article should be neutral and it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.4.149 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep The author of the hoax is Nipsey Tyrone Washington aka Jiggaboo Jones . He seems to have a comedy act and sells dvds. I think the article should be kept, and Mr Washington and his stage names should refer to it.Geo8rge (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Oneevent. Originally that was true, but unfortunately people who were not in on the joke, and didn't find it funny began having meetings, news conferences, made accusations. Then additonal racist incidents started appearing like the noose discovered in the library, and the hood on Dr Zeuss' statue. All of which led to more news coverage. Once again, Mr Washington and his antics are not noteworthy, but the over reaction by numerous individuals and boarder line witch hunt over a long period of time is.Geo8rge (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The incident did generate a lot of local coverage, especially when it was followed up by a couple of campus "pranks" involving a noose and a Ku Klux Klan hood. However I think it falls under the "one event" rule and will not become part of history. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - This event is not notable enough to deserve it's own encyclopedic entry. The Scythian 01:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Golob (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 biography of person who does not appear to be notable, edited by three SPAs. Contested PROD. I have looked for reliable sources without finding any. There may also be copyright issues - the article was originally a copypaste of franchisechoice-markgolob.com and even though it has been slightly rewritten, the way I understand WP:COPY it is not sufficient to change the phrasing and move words around. The main issue is notability, however - if the person is found to be notable the article can be rewritten entirely. bonadea contributions talk 12:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep but rewrite. 40 GNews hits, including Forbes, Miami and Oakland newspapers, etc. Needs significant work, including references, compliance with BLP. (GregJackP (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Comment Fair enough - the fact that the article's author apparently has three different accounts that have been used only to edit this article made me a bit suspicious. I still suspect that somebody's been paid to write the article, but if the subject is indeed notable the article shouldn't be deleted. --bonadea contributions talk 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork * 11:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete There are no articles about Mark Golob. The 40 GNews hits are for health clubs that he ran. He is a health club executive for a number of health clubs that have failed or had significant financial troubles. Some of them were press releases for the health clubs. The only article I found that did more than quote him about his health clubs or mention his status was one in the Miami Herald of 1986 "A Club Scene to Keep You Lean" which also indicated that previously he had been a concert promoter. Golob was not an agent or talent manager, he just worked on concert promotion. There is no significant coverage in secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite 22:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jill-Lyn Euto (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 appears to be about a fairly mundane murder case and presents as more of a memorial than an encyclopedic entry. JeffJ (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Article moved to Murder of Jill-Lyn Euto, to focus more on the event than the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msdny (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep The article provides a reference to a notable unsolved murder case. This case received significant local and national media attention, including America's Most Wanted, as documented in the article. WP:VICTIM does provide some exceptions as "The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role". Matthew_Shepard is given as an example. Matthew Shepard's case received more attention than Jill Lyn-Euto, but both are still significant. In both cases, neither victim was particularly notable prior to their murders. I would assert that both articles should remain in Knowledge (XXG). Msdny (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You can't really just label the murder as notable as an argument, since that's the issue for discussion here. You also say "significant" attention. That's a weasel word for a good reason; How do you define "significant" for the purpose of this discussion? I wouldn't rely on America's Most Wanted as a yard stick for significant since after 1000 episodes, just about every unsolved murder has been covered. And coverage has not been "persistent", but rather the case was revisited after the mother's death or as a human interest piece, and only by local media. But back to "notable": What makes this murder any more notable than the 1000's of murders committed around the world every day? How many people are murdered in the US every day? Are you suggesting that each and every one have an article? Offer some additional sources from national media outlets and we'll re-examine the "significant coverage" claim. I did a Google search and could not find one profession news source with any information on the case. Note: The article is down to 3 references from 4 after I deleted a link to an unrelated video about a local diner. --JeffJ (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You compare Jill-Lyn Euto to Matthew Shepard. From the article: "Shepard's murder brought national and international attention to the issue of hate crime legislation at the state and federal levels." What is the comparable aspect of the Euto case? What issue received national and internation attention because of Euto's death? What changes to state and federal legislation were influenced by Euto's death? And while the Euto article cites 3 references, the Shepard article cites 51, with sources such as the Denver Post, LA Times, ABC News, New York Times, CNN, Time Magazine, National Public Radio, The Associated Press, and the Washington Post. That's significant coverage!--JeffJ (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Your statement that "just about every unsolved murder has been covered by America's Most Wanted" is inaccurate. In 2001 alone, (the year that Jill was murdered), there were 4,505 unsolved homicide cases according to FBI Crime Statistics. Using the Advanced Search Tool on AMW's site shows that AMW has a total of just 145 homicide cases profiled in New York for all the years they've profiled these cases. The truth is that America's Most Wanted has only profiled a tiny fraction of unsolved murder cases. In Jill's case, they've known what I continue to know, which is that this is a notable unsolved murder case that had a major impact on a local community and has gained national attention for years after the event. I've already agreed with you that the Shephard case is more significant, but I don't think it's a fair argument that a less notable case should be excluded just because it doesn't compare in scope. Presumably there are any number of less "significant", yet still notable articles for similar reasons on the subject. I also do agree with you that additional references would improve the article. Msdny (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Google News does actually show about 20 "professional" news articles about Jill-Lyn Euto. And Highbeam has 28. --GRuban (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This is getting tiresome. The Highbeam link only brings back about 15 hits, not 28, and most of those were from one newspaper, and several of those only mentioned Euto as part of a list of unsolved murders and did not provide any actual information on the victim or the case. The Google link you provided just brought up all the Highbeam hits. So we're looking at about 15 hits with a majority from one local (i.e.: Not distributed nationally) newspaper, instead if the 48 you claim. You still fall far short of the Matthew Shepard example you cited. --JeffJ (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Alright, then I change my argument to: Should every one of the 4505 (for New York in 2001 alone) unsolved murders be given an article on Knowledge (XXG)? How many of those would qualify as notable according to your standard? Then what about all the other unsolved murders in the rest of the US? The world? Throughout history? How many thousands of articles would there be then that meet your standard? Thousands, tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? --JeffJ (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
How about the ones that get significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? That's our Knowledge (XXG):Notability guideline. --GRuban (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said above: The Highbeam link only brings back about 15 hits, not 28, and most of those were from one newspaper, and several of those only mentioned Euto as part of a list of unsolved murders and did not provide any actual information on the victim or the case. The Google link you provided just brought up all the Highbeam hits. So we're looking at about 15 hits with a majority from one local (i.e.: Not distributed nationally) newspaper, instead if the 48 you claim. You still fall far short of the Matthew Shepard example you cited. --JeffJ (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with GRuben. JeffJ - I think that you and I basically agree on the notability standard itself. We just debated on whether or not this article meets the standard. If the approximate 28 references that GRuban found are eventually added to this article, would you agree to keep this article? I don't know when I'll be able to add them, but I'll do what I can. I think this has been an educational discussion. Msdny (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
28 sounds good, but if they're mostly from the same local paper and each article just rehashes the same old information (just mentions Euto without further detail), then it doesn't really lend to notability. Quantity does not equal quality. In smaller communities, an act of serious vandalism can warrant several articles and a mention in similar articles later. So it's not surprising that an unsolved murder story would be trumped out at every opportunity. And we need to maintain a strict adherence to Notability guidelines or we're going to end up flooded with these memorial pages. I've been reading that New York City had 4500 unsolved murders one year, and the US has had about 200,000 unsolved murders since 1960. Are any of them less Notable than what really amounts to "Average person gets stabbed, police baffled"? Euto's story is a tragic one, but I'm sure that the other 200,000 murders were no less tragic for someone. And Euto has websites out there keeping her memory alive. So other than acting as a memorial, what is the global value of the information contained? Again we must refer to WP:VICTIM and the broader WP:N/CA. --JeffJ (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is practically a verbatim rehash of the Eve Carson AfD discussion which ended as a no consensus and was ultimately kept. One outcome there was to rename the article to "Murder of ...." so that it was focused on the event rather than the person, which I think is a good idea. Again, the Euto event stands apart from the majority of unsolved murders for reasons I've already stated above. I see no value or reason to eradicate it. Hopefully some others can chime in. Msdny (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice try. The Eve Carson case received media coverage in North Carolina and Georgia as well as USA Today, and MTV. The University of North Carolina has also set up a scholarship in her honour. --JeffJ (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't really seen any statement that makes a compelling case that "the Euto event stands apart from the majority of unsolved murders" as you put it. Just what makes it stand out? Euto was just an average person who was fatally stabbed. That's it. No national attention, no impact on society, no different than the thousands of other fatal stabbings (or other violent murders) that occur each year. Euto's life and death in the article can be summed up as:
18-year-old Jill-Lyn Euto (March 20, 1982 – January 28, 2001), from Syracuse, New York was stabbed to death Sunday January 28, 2001 between noon and 3 pm. To date, police have not publicly identified any suspects. No locks were broken, no money was taken. The murder weapon was one of Euto's kitchen knives.
Again, that's it. The rest of the article is not much more than filler (see also WP:MASK). How is this notable? How is this of global interest? How does this "stand apart from the majority of unsolved murders"? Other than America's Most Wanted, show me any other evidence of national attention. I certainly doubt that it "has gained national attention for years after the event" as you claim. --JeffJ (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
And just to be clear, the two newspapers cited are the Syracuse Post Standard, a local paper with a circulation of only 110,000 (compared to mainstream papers as the Washington Post at 650,000 or the New York Times at 1,000,000+), and the Syracuse New Times, a local weekly alternative newspaper with a readership of less that 46,000 (based on the number of copies printed). Not exactly national attention. --JeffJ (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And since no one seems to be reading WP:VICTIM here is the criteria:
"A victim of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a victim. Notability with regards to this is normally defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question.
As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted. Also, consistent with WP:BLP1E, articles on persons primarily known as victims may be appropriate for persons with a large role within well-documented historic events. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role (for example, Matthew Shepard)." --JeffJ (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok JeffJ.. I'm going to rough out what I know for you. All of these details can be found in numerous sources that you can research on your own (and help add to the article if you'd like to contribute. You seem to know your way around WP).
  • Out those 200,000 Unsolved Murder Cases in the US since 1960, this case was chosen by America's Most Wanted as one of only 500 total profiled homicide cases they have online.
What is AMW's criteria for selection?
  • The event received intense local and national media attention after the event for some time in 2001
Intense? National? I've seen no evidence of that.
  • There was a billboard about the case for a long time after the event
The billboard was created by the family because they had the resources to do so. Does not increase Notability.
  • The case still maintains a high profile on several websites dedicated to unsolved murders. Some of these sites only focus on a few high profile cases. ]
These are not mainstream news sources, but private interest websites.
  • Jill is the subject a song written by an artist with some degree of national popularity
"Some degree of national popularity"? Did the song receive radio play? Make the charts?
  • There exists a substantial award for information about the case
So?
  • There are up to 28 newspaper articles on the event over a span of 7-8 years. Some may not be fully relevant.
"Some may not be fully relevant." Then why mention them or add them to your count?
  • The event is also notable due to extraordinary efforts of Euto's mother
That doesn't add to Notability.
Both shows are considered tabloid and not mainstream as is required for Notability.
With respect, Jeff, you're making up that "not mainstream" criterion. They're nationally aired television programs, it's hard to get more mainstream than that. Each show has a large production staff, that choose whom they want to make shows about, fine for establishing Knowledge (XXG):Notability. --GRuban (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
First, look at the Knowledge (XXG) entries for each show; They're described as Tabloid talk shows (I seem to recall Montel conducting psychic readings with Silvia Browne, and other junk like that). Then head over to WP:SOURCES and read about mainstream/reliable sources. Then come back and apologize for accusing me of making stuff up. --JeffJ (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see. You're saying they're sensational, lowbrow, and not respected, and therefore not Knowledge (XXG):reliable sources. Then say so, don't say they're "not mainstream" - mainstream very much includes popular media, no matter how trashy: "the mainstream includes all popular culture, typically disseminated by mass media. The opposite of the mainstream are subcultures, countercultures, cult followings, and (in fiction) genre." --GRuban (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Gosh! Is that what I said? Well GRuban, if you can't dazzle me with brilliance, eh? Apology accepted. JeffJ (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • She established an annual vigil that lasted until 2007
It's nice that her mother kept her daughter's memory alive, but that does not meet Notability requirements.
  • She established a web site with factual information about the case
As above.
  • She was interviewed numerous times about the case by local radio, tv and newspapers up until her death in 2007
How many times is "numerous"? Where are these citations? And I notice that you specify "local".
  • She was involved in a lawsuit against the building owner which sought to place some liabilities on landlords for providing adequate security. This is a legal case that could have reaching impact to other cases (which could be more relevant should this article be allowed to grow.)
If the murder has lead to changes in the law then you would likely have grounds for Notability. Is this the case? People in the U.S. sue each other regularly.--JeffJ (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe there's more, but that's enough and I'm done with this silly debate. I don't know JeffJ.. you're a determined bugger. I sense you're trying to do good, but please be careful out there. I'm not related to Euto, but you'll probably be dealing with the parents and families of murder victims if you continue to pursue this with other similar articles. Characterizations like "mundane insignificant murders" and "just an average person who was stabbed" to make points is really harmful and won't win friends in these circles. Msdny (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to diminish the tragedy of Euto's murder and as a father I'd do everything I could to keep my child's memory alive and try to bring the killer to justice. But this is an encyclopedia and there are plenty of websites, MySpace, Facebook, blogs, etc. that are better suited to a memorial. It's unfortunate to have to use expressions like "fairly mundane murder" (I never said "mundane insignificant murders" as you claim) and "average person who was stabbed" (I never said "just" as you claim - Don't try to besmirch my intentions by misquoting me), but there really needed to be a balance for all the hyperbole that I think was more damaging; If you have to exaggerate (or alter quotations) to make a point, it really damages credibility. Now, if you'll turn your attention to your entry above, I'll try to address your arguments individually. --JeffJ (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
From WP:NTEMP:
Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage. However, Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E). For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. For guidelines on whether an event is notable, see Knowledge (XXG): Notability (events). JeffJ (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
America's Most Wanted isn't a tabloid; the fact that less respected talk shows also covered the murder certainly doesn't reduce its notability. Anyway, note earlier in this discussion "coverage has not been persistent" was cited as a reason to delete; this guideline's primary purpose is to say that coverage doesn't need to be persistent. --GRuban (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the way you quote and ignore the issue I emphasized ("...tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis...") all in the same breath. And you are ignoring the sentence that follows in the policy: "However, Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source..." and so on. You really need to look over all the policies I've quoted and stop trying to pick at each individual argument. There is a very clear guideline in place for notability here if you'll just take the time to educate yourself. And you might want to brush up on WP:OWNERSHIP -- JeffJ (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Holy tldr! For anyone whose eyes glazed over and actually got down this far click on the Google New link to see the sources readily available. Working on murder victim articles is often unpleasant but there is a good article possible here and high profile television show appearances means it easily meets GNG. America's Most Wanted is a national US show aired in primetime, is this case the night before the 2001 Superbowl. Here's a cover story interview from 2001. The Sally Jesse Rafael Show can be cited to taped September 2001 (sadly familiar date) and aired in February of 2002. The Montel Williams Show Guest: World Renown Physic. Sylvia Browne tries to assist family, Date: 6/19/02. The family has also held several fundraisers for the reward fund which seem to have gotten some coverage. I think this case became noted again when the mother passed, she apparently kept the case alive up until her death.. Here's a court case. There are numerous more local news articles etc etc but the subject meets GNG one way or another. -- Banjeboi 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Too bad you didn't read it. Your arguments have already been addressed. --JeffJ (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not arguing, I'm simply stating my opinion after looking at the possible sources that this particular case, IMHO, indeed meets GNG. It may also meet other notability guidelines but if I had to do rewrite I'm confident between the primary and independent sources there is enough here. You and I might have to agree to disagree on this one but my opinion remains just that, my opinion. -- Banjeboi 20:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
"Argument", as in: "a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal". --JeffJ (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Ample coverage for it to meet the general notability guidelines. It was covered on several notable shows, which have millions of viewers. Dream Focus 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Every unsolved murder gets a lot of media coverage, but that does not mean Knowledge (XXG) needs an article on every unsolved murder. The GNG does not say that extensive media coverage is an entry ticket: it says that something with significant coverage is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria, but it goes on to say:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Knowledge (XXG) is not.

And WP:NOT includes WP:NOTNEWS: "Knowledge (XXG) considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This murder is a tragic case, like any murder, but I see no enduring notability. JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • In general i agree, however through mainly the efforts of her mother, a foundation was formed, and numerous appearances on national television brought about more coverage. A typical murder case remains locally focussed and may or may not quickly dissipate, this one did not. It has sustained interest for many years. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Banjeboi and Dream.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A "photographer, poet and award-winning graphic artist" who has impressive websites and has been the subject of one article ($4.95) in a Vancouver newspaper and who's had one book reviewed on one website.

He's also won, or been finalist for, a lot of awards from:

  • "National Best Books Awards". These are explained here! There are many exclamation points! It's quite infectious! There are loads of categories and every entrant costs just $69. Here are the awards for 2009. No, wait, before you look there, consider for example what might have won "Audio Book: Fiction, Unabridged". Now look. One winner, by L. Ron Hubbard. Four finalists, three of them by L. Ron Hubbard.
  • Eric Hoffer Awards. Entries for these cost $45 a pop.
  • "Reader Views Literary Awards". Mind boggling stuff. Most of the winners are published by BookSurge, iUniverse, Outskirts Press, and a few others. Not names that trip off my tongue when I think of publishers, though I could be underinformed.
  • "Next Generation Indie Book Awards". Only $75 per entry! The bare-faced messiah scores pretty well here too.

These awards look to me like build-a-résumé components: your money for their ersatz notability. If people want to pay for this, fine, but Knowledge (XXG) needn't take any notice of it.


Zheng's form is "Poetography", whose meaning eludes me, though it's somehow related to tanka. Zheng's wouldn't be the first book by a photographer/poet (I think for example of Jorn Ake). Anyway, the poetography article tells us that the art has one exponent, Zheng.

One of Zheng's books has got one review, "The artisitic fecundity of despair" (outinjersey.net). It's most heartfelt but somewhat difficult to follow. Sample:

Perhaps it is best that we recall our own abilities of vision and voice as we confront the terrors and tribulations of our own world, for much can be seen and much can be said, but nothing can be felt which has not been experienced by those before us and those around us. I contend that those feelings will never diminish in time.

While these come from a small publisher even self-published books would be fine. Several photographers (e.g. Suzuki Kiyoshi) are best known for them. When those books win attention, the photographers merit articles. (A article on Suzuki is in en:WP because his work is in the permanent collection of, and has been written up by, Japan's premier museum of photography.) But I see next to nothing to Zheng's work: no substantial appearances in magazines, no exhibitions in galleries of note. For now at least, NN.

(Incidentally, although the article sports a link to its equivalent in zh:WP, this does not appear to exist.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it appears to have no significance beyond that of Zheng himself:

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

-- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Edited to remove the implication that the Literary Road Press is Zheng's self-publisher. (It is not.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete -- no notability demonstrated. N2e (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • At 18:12, 13 March 2010, Genekellyinla altered Now, self-published books are fine within the nomination to Now, self-published books are fine. The book was not self-published. It was published by Literary Road Press, an independent publisher. Yes, Literary Road Press is an independent publisher. I made a mistake there. If anyone finds any other mistakes in what I wrote, please say so below, rather than tampering. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this does not understand how book competition works. There is no book competition does not require entry fee. He or she who started this discussion complaining about the cost of these competition fee but that is so irrelevant. The winning is winning and not every book has submitted to these competitions won something. I think the person who wrote this complain has very biased view on what Knowledge (XXG) should be. Knowledge (XXG) is a encyclopedia so I think it does not matter how big and how small the publishers and competitions are they should have included without any discriminations.

And for your (to the person who stared the discussion) information his book is not self published.

Dragon8864 (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The person who nominated this for deletion is me. The nomination contained a mistake: the statement (or clear implication) that his books were self published. I had retracted and corrected this before you pointed it out above. ¶ Zheng is of course free to submit his books and competition entrance fees to as many contests as he wishes. However, it's hard to see what the significance is of awards that are handed out to such claptrap as is written by L. Ron Hubbard. ¶ You say that There is no book competition does not require entry fee. Are you sure that this is true of the National Book Award and the like? -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder how it is that Dragon8864, creator of the list of exhibitions, can have such an extensive knowledge of Zheng's exhibitions, past and future. Could there be some relationship with Zheng? Well, let's take a look at the list, as it appears in this, the current version. I'm afraid that this is going to be very repetitive, but anyway here goes. Bits in italics after the double hyphens are mine.

  • 2007/9/21-10/17 Vancouver East Cultural Centre 2525 Michigan Avenue, Bldg. d4, Santa Monica, California 90404 http://www.jamesgraygallery.com -- Zheng's name does not appear on this page. The site has no list of past exhibitions. It does have a page of artists, within which Zheng does not appear.
  • 2007/11/20-2008/1/15 The Perfect Exposure Gallery 3519 West 6th Street, Los Angeles, California 90020 http://www.theperfectexposuregallery.com -- This page doesn't mention Zheng, and the site's page about previous exhibitions doesn't either
  • 2008/6/28-7/27 James Gray Gallery/Bergamot Station Art Center 2525 Michigan Avenue, Bldg. d4, Santa Monica, California 90404 http://www.jamesgraygallery.com -- Zheng's name does not appear on this page. The site has no list of past exhibitions. It does have a page of artists, within which Zheng does not appear.
  • 2008/10/1-11/30 The Center 885 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6V 3E8 Canada http://www.pendulumgallery.bc.ca -- The site's "archive" page doesn't go back this far.
  • 2008/10/2-10/12 Los Angeles Municipal Gallery 133 McMillan Street, Parksville, B.C. V9P 2H5 Canada http://www.oceansideartscouncil.com/ -- The site has a page about 2008 exhibitions, but this doesn't mention Zheng. It advertises a PDF with more details for October, but the link is broken.
  • 2008/12/5-2009/12/25 Infusion Gallery 2425 St. Johns Street, Port Moody, B.C. V3H 2B2 Canada http://pomoartscentre.ca -- No mention of Zheng on this page. The site does talk about the Blackberry Gallery but I see no description about any Infusion Gallery.
  • 2009/1/1-2009/1/31 C & P Coffee Company Gallery 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102 http://www.sfcenter.org/ -- No mention of Zheng on this page, and I don't see either any archive of past events or description of any "C & P Coffee Company Gallery".
  • 2009/1/1-2009/2/28 Q Center Gallery 3519 West 6th Street, Los Angeles, California 90020 http://www.theperfectexposuregallery.com -- This page doesn't mention Zheng, and the site's page about previous exhibitions doesn't either
  • 2009/1/29-3/12 The Perfect Exposure Gallery 3519 West 6th Street, Los Angeles, California 90020 http://www.theperfectexposuregallery.com -- This page doesn't mention Zheng, and the site's page about previous exhibitions doesn't either
  • 2009/2/10-2/22 Nishinomiya Municipal Gallery 15-26 Kawazoicho, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, 662-0944 Japan http://amity.nishi.or.jp -- Unsurprisingly, no mention of Zheng on that page, and the site lacks information on earlier exhibitions. (And yes I can read Japanese sufficiently well to be able to say this.)
  • 2009/4/7-4/30 Bronco Student Center at the C&E Corridor California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California http://www.csupomona.edu -- Unsurprisingly, there's no mention of Zheng on this page. There is a search engine, which takes us to this PDF, which confirms that there was an exhibition but for more information refers us here, which tells me "Words of An Artist: An Exhibit by Ron L. Zheng / You are not authorised to view this resource. / You need to login."
  • 2009/8/1-9/6 James Gray Gallery/Bergamot Station Art Center 2525 Michigan Avenue, Bldg. d4, Santa Monica, California 90404 http://www.jamesgraygallery.com -- Zheng's name does not appear on this page. The site has no list of past exhibitions. It does have a page of artists, within which Zheng does not appear.
  • 2009/8/9-8/29 Pendulum Gallery/HSBC Building Atrium 885 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6V 3E8 Canada http://www.pendulumgallery.bc.ca -- Yes, Here he is. "vancouver summer / it seems to pass so quickly / life has its seasons / one blink and it is winter / all you have are memories". Oh.
  • 2009/8/4-8/29 Oceanside Gallery 133 McMillan Street, Parksville, B.C. V9P 2H5 Canada http://www.oceansideartscouncil.com/ -- No mention of Zheng on this page. The site does not appear to have a list of what it did in 2009.
  • 2009/9/3-11/1 Port Moody Art Centre 2425 St. Johns Street, Port Moody, B.C. V3H 2B2 Canada http://pomoartscentre.ca -- No mention of Zheng on this page. The site does not appear to have information on past exhibitions.
  • 2009/10/13-10/31 Caelum Gallery 508-526 W.26th St. Suite 315, New York, NY 10001 http://www.caelumgallery.com/ -- No mention of Zheng on this page. However, this one does say that he was part of an exhibition with three other artists.
  • 2009/12/1-2010/1/15 SFGLBT Community Center 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102 http://www.sfcenter.org/ -- No mention of Zheng on this page. The site does not appear to have information on past activities.
  • 2009/12/14-2010/2/20 The Perfect Exposure Gallery 3519 West 6th Street, Los Angeles, California 90020 http://www.theperfectexposuregallery.com -- This page doesn't mention Zheng, and the site's page about previous exhibitions doesn't either
  • 2009/12/9-12/20 Propeller Centre for the Visual Arts 984 Queen W. Toronto, O.N. M6J 1H1 Canada http://www.propellerctr.com -- I thought I'd seen crappy web pages, but this one should win some award. The whole thing is a GIF image (and no, it's not even an image map), so clicking on "Archived Exhibitions" does nothing.
  • 2010/3/20-4/17 Santa Monica Art Studios 3026 Airport Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90405 http://www.santamonicaartstudios.com -- The site employs Flash gimmickry, but anyway I don't see any sign of Zheng on it, even though his exhibition should be starting today
  • 2010/04/03-04/31 SAGA Public Art Gallery 70 Hudson Ave NE, Salmon Arm, B.C. V1E 4P6 Canada http://www.sagapublicartgallery.ca/ -- no mention of Zheng on this page. The exhibition schedule does say that he has an exhibition this month, but says nothing about it and doesn't link to any other page that might say more.
  • 2010/5/30-6/30 Museum of Northern BC 100 First Avenue West, Price Rupert, B.C. V8J 3S1 Canada http://www.museumofnorthernbc.com/ -- no sign of Zheng in this site
  • 2010/5/29-6/27 James Gray Gallery/Bergamot Station Art Center 2525 Michigan Avenue, Bldg. d4, Santa Monica, California 90404 http://www.jamesgraygallery.com -- not mentioned in this site, whose list of artists doesn't include Zheng]
  • 2010/8/11-9/5 Sunshine Coast Arts Centre 5714 Medusa, Sechelt, B.C. V0N 3A0 Canada http://www.suncoastarts.com/ -- I see no mention of Zheng in this site
  • 2010/9/11-10/10 James Gray Gallery/Bergamot Station Art Center 2525 Michigan Avenue, Bldg. d4, Santa Monica, California 90404 http://www.jamesgraygallery.com -- again, not mentioned in this site, whose list of artists doesn't include Zheng]
  • 2010/11/20-12/19 James Gray Gallery/Bergamot Station Art Center 2525 Michigan Avenue, Bldg. d4, Santa Monica, California 90404 http://www.jamesgraygallery.com -- again, not mentioned in this site, whose list of artists doesn't include Zheng]
  • 2011 Langham Cultural Centre Art Gallery. 447 A Avenue, Kaslo, B.C. V0G 1M0 Canada http://www.thelangham.ca/ -- Zheng doesn't appear in the list of upcoming events that appears on the top page
  • 2011 Vernon Public Art Gallery 3228 31st Avenue, Vernon, B.C. V1T 2H3 Canada http://www.vernonpublicartgallery.com -- Zheng's name doesn't appear on this page, and there's no page that I can see listing future exhibitions

Perhaps somebody would care to convert all the stuff in Zheng's article into a list of verifiable exhibitions, deleting the remainder. (This wouldn't be a bad model.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tim Buckley (artist) (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)

Concerns about notability. Only two references are both by the man himself, and the Ctrl+Alt+Del webcomic is in itself not notable. Whilst the charity work is nice, the rest of the information doesn't really seem to be notable either, he is an artist who has attended some conventions, and released two comics.

A search for sources on these two comics doesn't seem to turn up anything third party, although maybe I am missing something. I think a discussion would be best, especially since there was a recent related AfD that closed as delete, seen here: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del. Taelus (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Note, the previous AfD here was closed to redirect and merge to Ctrl+Alt+Del, which has since been deleted at Articles for Deletion, thus I don't think there are any attribution issues here. Even if there are, we could probably histmerge to that target and then restore its current function as a redirect. --Taelus (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not directly relevant to WikiProject VideoGames, but a related discussion was listed there, thus they may be interested. --Taelus (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak dematerialization (Shroud of Turin) (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 the notability required of fringe theories that the idea receive outside notice. The only notice this idea has received is among proponents. It is so obscure that it is flying under the radar sensitivity of the Shroud of Turin controversies. The sources for this article are all soapboxing, and certainly are not the independent, reliable, secondary sources we need to verify notability. The person proposing the "theory" isn't even notable enough to have a Knowledge (XXG) article. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. The article author claimed a large number of sources as helping to establish notability, but it seems most of them are really just sources he thinks support the theory as true, without actually mentioning it. Only one of the sources looks as if it covers the subject in some detail, but it's hard to tell because the article is written so badly that I have no idea what the subject is actually supposed to be. All the uncertainties make my !delete vote weak as a matter of policy interpretation. But as a matter of maintaining the quality of this encyclopedia I feel very strongly that the article should be deleted because its author is apparently unable to present the subject comprehensibly and it's very unlikely that anybody else will be sufficiently interested. Hans Adler 12:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per talk page, looks like a bad-faith nomination. I think WP:POINTing takes place here to affirm the sole notion on Shroud, while there is no scientific consensus on image origin as showed in the Shroud of Turin. I’ve provided some critical insight, but not a single scientific source, indicating WD’s flaws, has been provided by opponents . The whole lynching-like action seems to be a shifting to some obscure view of the image origin, not currently tested. The article demonstrates that the theory has a following within the scientific community as per alternative theoretical formulations, passed in Arbcom’s pseudoscience request. Brand 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:FRINGE. And, I think, WP:FLAT is also very relevant.—S Marshall /Cont 14:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shortly, the article tries to make a scientific-looking analysis based on the supposed "fact" of Jesus resurrection, for which no evidence is given. Barvinok (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Gentlemen, let’s get it plain. Per WP:FRINGE, fringe ideas depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. What is the prevailing or mainstream view in sindonology on image origin? Brand 18:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • CommentThe mainstream scientific view is that the relic was created in the Middle Ages and the image was artificially produced. Asking for a "mainstream sindonology " view may presuppose faith in miracles and rejection of negative scientific evidence. Edison (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea. There seems to be a lot of original research in that article and a lot of fringe views getting too much weight. I am glad you agree. Hans Adler 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
— Diane Stranz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Why would we want to be citing a philosopher on a question of physics? Many of the worst pseudoscientific gaffes take place when academics venture outside their areas of expertise. *** Crotalus *** 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no "cutting edge developments in physics" that could be used to substantiate any of the processes proposed in the article. But even if (unlikely) they existed, it does not matter, as the mainstream scientific consensus is against it anyway. --Barvinok (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete and just mention that it exists as "some theory" on the shroud page, but no more than a few sentences. It is not a high quality article and not worth a page on its own. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A not notable person who is "best known for his upcoming role". With some minor jobs doesn't look to be notable yet. Those myspace, twitter and youtube sources reek of lack of proper career. feydey (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete, author blanked. ... discospinster talk 22:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Giodoro Romanov (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 biography of a sixteen year old boy. Claim of importance is being related to royalty but a Google search only brings up Wikiepdia . It is important that articles about living people are based on information verified by citing reliable sources, it doesn't appear that this would be possible for this article. Guest9999 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

North Bay Entertainment (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 company appears to fail WP:CORP, as a Google search for "North Bay Entertainment" and "Leflar" (the surname of the company's owner) results in eight hits, much of which are the official website and assorted PDF files. The article also reads like an ad (complete with contact telephone number at the end), and the fact that it was created by User:NBE2008 (who contested the prod) suggets a conflict of interest. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Benjamin and Marian Schuster Performing Arts Center. JForget 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Schuster Center (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)
Withdraw as nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Redirected as suggested. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Daquiri Beer (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 made up drink.

Quoting from the article: "The beer was made up by a college Proffessor; Dr. Ezio Auditore da Firenze. The Proffessor was given a challenge to mix the original Dauiquiri and an ordinary Pale Ale into a tasty Beer." Shadowjams (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Shanghi International Airport (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)

Firstly, there is no airport that is called 'Shanghi International Airport'. Secondly, this is a talk page, not the article's main page. Aviator006 (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm going to move all this stuff over to the article space and change the AfD title appropriatly. Looks like an IP created the article on the talk page since that's the only place an IP can create a page. --Nick—/Contribs 05:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Done (I think). I've moved the article and this discussion page from the talk to the article namespace, as well as fixed every incoming link I found. Sorry if I missed anything. I've also tagged the old talk and the old AfD page for deletion under G7. --Nick—/Contribs 06:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy. Userfy to User:Coolalldaway/Burzese family goats - if/when it has reliable sources, it can be moved to main space -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Burzese family goats (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)

While this goat herd may have some local significance, it does not appear to satisfy the general notability guideline. I cannot find reliable third party sources to verify any of the information and/or the notability of the subject. Nick—/Contribs 05:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete I was hoping to find sources, but even a generic Google web search for the words Burzese and goat does not turn up anything about these goats. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As the author of the page, I can assure you that the goats are real. Unfortunately, this article was not compiled based on online references, but rather, word of mouth passed down through generations of our family. Because our small petting farm does not have a website, we are unable to provide any external links that verify these claims other than factual verification of the existence of our pizza store and the breed of goat found. We are attempting to have a local newspaper do a story on the herd, but until then, we cannot provide definitive electronic supporting evidence. I hope that you will withhold deleting the article until we can find a way to verify its factual basis. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolalldaway (talk • contribs) 06:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I liked the article, but WP can't have an article on something until after it is documented in published sources. I would like to visit the goats if I am in that part of the country. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wikimedia foundations mission statement, "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." I always thought Knowledge (XXG) was ultimately working toward a goal of free information flow, combining as many sources as possible to create a unique source of educational knowledge. That's why I chose to write about my family's goat herd on here - it seemed like the perfect forum to discuss an interesting part of American history that many people may not have been exposed to. I don't understand how a lack of third party sources is that big of an issue, given that the article is clearly not a vanity article, and would make no sense written as a joke. It is not malicious or opinionated - it is merely an account of a previously undocumented historical phenomenon. 68.73.200.214 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)coolalldaway

But your personal account of your family's history (and goats) has not been verified by a reliable source. We insist on sourcing to avoid the possibility of false information being put into the encyclopedia. That's not to say I think you're lying, but without an insistence on sourcing, Knowledge (XXG) could no longer call itself a reference work: it would be a blog.
Without sourcing, your article will be deleted. That's a cold hard reality of Knowledge (XXG).--Father Goose (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (Nomination withdrawn - nominator !voted keep) —SpacemanSpiff 06:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Pandippada (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)

Seems to fail WP:FILM. I cleaned it up, but I can't find adequate sources for it to pass WP:GNG, and it doesn't have many nationally known reviews, as far as I can tell, although it is quite often mentioned on blogs and the like. NativeForeigner /Contribs 05:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

you are welcome. i have run into exactly the same problem before. the more popular the vernacular film (Tamil, Telugu or Malayalam), the more coverage it has on blogs, forums and fansites and they obscure the reliable source google hits. :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill Banuchi (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)

NN person, no G News hits on him and only one on the institution CTJF83 chat 04:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. is the consensus after the articles have been improved and the nominator has withdrawn JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1300 in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of a series of list articles, each with one entry, prodded by User:147.70.242.54. Prod removed by originator with the edit comment "lengthened". Not only is a one-entry "list" article not supported by WP:LIST, this actually borders on nonsense as it stands.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also one-item "list articles":

1693 in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1285 in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1260 in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1158 in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep all (but modify). Since many countries such as England have the same sort of aim, I think that possibly from 1000 - 1800 we should have decades or centuries (i.e. Years of the 1600s in Italy), rather than an individual article. I just created the pages to have them grow. Could you possibly redirect them.--Theologiae (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, you can start doing that for the "list" articles with only two or three entries (especially since those with only two entries are vulnerable to nomination for deletion discussion), but the better idea to save these one item "lists" is to find enough information to add and make them actual lists (I'd recommend at least three entries to start each list). As far as the suggestion for merging, that can still be considered here, but since the AfD discussion has started, bold redirection would be considered disruptive (addition to the articles is not). B.Wind (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, it's difficult to redirect to articles that don't exist. I'd copy the content out into a sandbox page with a view to creating articles with bigger lists.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You would need to rename your articles (as 1066 in England was renamed 1060s in England and expand them by moving content from the lists for individual years - it's an entire wikiproject really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Even with a few added entries, this is still scraping the bottom of the barrel to the level of a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. How about much wider timeline list articles than just one year apiece, to build unquestionably substantial articles? Perhaps 1100s, 1200s, 1300s and 1600s in Italy? Or they could be named for the 12th, 13th, 14th and 17th Centuries in Italy, depending on precedent from other articles. If not by century then the History of Italy is the only other unquestionably appropriate place. Doing one year apiece will set a trend for recurring AfD fodder. Ikluft (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm remaining with a Delete position for now. There aren't current history-by-country-by-century articles by century to merge into. It sounds like consolidation to history-by-country-by-century is the idea which would achieve the most agreement in this discussion. That's the level where there's consistently enough material to make substantial articles. Continuing with history-by-country-by-year would leave little AfD-fodder articles scattered everywhere. Ikluft (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

*Merge all into an article on the history of Italy. Dew Kane (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Keep all. I do agree that lists take time to grow. Nevertheless, lists like these do meet Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. It is pretty easy for a dedicated researcher to find multiple events in a single year in the history of Italy. Dew Kane (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete all except first Keep first three; delete fourth as the editor who prodded the original series of one- and two-item "list articles." There are several good suggestions in this discussion and on the author's talk page... and I'd strongly suggest putting the series under the aegis of an appropriate WikiProject (WP:WikiProject Italy perhaps?). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Articles need to grow. I've added 4 more to 1300. It took a few minutes. I think that deals with what B.Wind wants--for anything in a historically well-studied period and country it will always be possible to do this. I'll do the others tomorrow. They are not indiscriminate--indiscriminate would be listing everything that took place in the period. A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Knowledge (XXG) subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. It is considerably easier keeping articles of this sort and adding content, than merging and then unmerging. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, DGG, that hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. If we can get the other four nominees in similar shape, I'd be more than happy to withdraw my nomination of all five of them (another similar-looking dozen have been posted on my talk page - IP has already expanded about two-thirds of them). Thanks. Currently I have no objection to keeping the first as expanded by DGG. B.Wind (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep In principle there is nothing unencyclopedic in " in " articles. This is what an encyclopedia, especially an online one, is for: looking for information by year, by place, by name, by concepts and so on. So we should at the very least keep the ones having more than one item, populate them and, in time, create more. Goochelaar (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • 'Comment every one of those listed here, and a number others listed on B.wind's talk page, have now been populated. Using only information on Knowledge (XXG) it took about 10 minutes a year. It's sop easy, a bot could do it. Personally, I think the advantage of an online progressively growing encyclopedia is that it can be done an item at a time, as they occur--the need to do a whole batch year by year would only be present if we were preparing a one-time print publication. If it comes to that, I think this could be done for every country in Europe for every year from 1100 or 1200 up to the present and by 10 year periods for the earlier 2 or 3 centuries & the peak centuries of the classical world. (some really undocumented periods and areas might need going by century). Others with the necessary knowledge could probably do it for Asia as well.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure items (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 an unsourced list of fan trivia. It consists of little more than original research and plot summary. Reyk YO! 03:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Despite the possible single-purpose account !votes, it has not been shown that the subject is notable outside of one event. Regards, Arbitrarily0  18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Marinza Bruineman (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. Fails BLP1e - this individual is notable only because of her relationship with Oliver Jovanovic, the man convicted and subsequently acquitted in the Cybersex Rape Case Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: She is marginal, but I have added cited info that shows that she has taken up a few other causes that dodge the 1E . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Answertwo (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I still think that's too marginal, but maybe the Sam Sloan connection will swing it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

***KEEP*** 'Fails BLP1e' needs to be substantiated. Otherwise too trivial an objection to warrant deletion of bio." —Preceding unsigned comment added by VillaMaybach (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — VillaMaybach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

On the contrary, the burden falls on those wishing to keep to show that she is notable for anything other than being Jovanovic's girlfriend and supporter.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - the sources of anything outside the rape case is from marginal sources. I can't see how this has any relevance past yesterday's news. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • KEEP: Based on the founder's own credo: "I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008. Furthermore, nothing marginal about someone's fight for justice and the betterment of it for ALL - not just Jovanovic's.4Justice2 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — 4Justice2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP* - The matter is far from over! It's all about a Prosecutor who deliberately overlooked evidence and the fundamental question is .. ''why would she do that, what is her motiveItalic text? Being a lawyer myself I strongly disagree with anyone argueing that it would be marginal - please Mr. Lawyer, explain why it is just marginal when a Prosecutor overlooks evidence in order to send someone to jail long enough to destroy an entire life! In the mean time I get the nasty feeling that someone is not pleased with this publication about Marinza Bruineman. Who could that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansummertime (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — Indiansummertime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
All of which is relevant to Jovanovic, not Bruineman, and would have no place in an article about Bruineman anyway. Please take your daft conspiracy theories elsewhere, she is only marginally notable for her activities in relation to the Jovanovic case, and that's the only reason this article was nominated for deletion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The subject does not satisfy WP:BIO since the only assertion of notability is that the subject is the former girlfriend and supporter of someone involved in bizarre and protracted court proceedings (and who is now acquitted released). The references confirm that the subject was involved with the notable person (and with two other incidental issues unrelated to notability), but the references do not establish the subject's notability. Per WP:CRYSTAL we do not create articles in advance; if developments make the subject notable, a new article can be created. For reference, this AfD page has been edited by several users with a short contribution history: 4Justice2, Answertwo, Indiansummertime, Mytwosense, VillaMaybach. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • PLEASE NOTE Regardless of the opinions about the above, and since we're all interested in the crux of the matter, Jovanovic was NOT ACQUITTED. His case was dismissed. His case was dismissed because the victim did not want to testify again. There is a big difference between being acquitted of a crime, or having one's case dismissed. Please do not propagate falsehoods while discussing this article. (Not sure what a short contribution history has to do with facts.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Justice2 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. I have struck out my incorrect language. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice theory, but sadly not true. Read Knowledge (XXG) guidelines on Notability - one artice does not constitute notability and nototiety for one event does not constitute notability.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 03:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I can't find any indication that this person passes WP:N. As an athlete, he reached a high of sorts, as a high school student. Surely that is not enough to warrant an article. If you feel like saving this article, do so--on the basis of reliable sources, please. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Protected redirect created to List_of_phobias#Jocular_and_fictional_phobias. -- Flyguy649 05:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A joke phobia from a comic strip. No evidence of notability. Xuz (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete- I agree with the nominator. Also, can some friendly passing admin check to see if this article is substantially the same as the one that was deleted in 2005? It might be a candidate for speedying as a recreating of a previously deleted article. Reyk YO! 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I have checked the deletion log and the deleted versions. This article has been deleted ten times during the last five years. In the process, it has kept being rewritten and then deleted. Eight versions of the article have been simple mentions that Gary Larson came up with this idea, just like it is now. One was pure vandalism and one was a redirect to -phobia. Therefore I can say it does indeed meet the criterion you mention above. JIP | Talk 09:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete NN per above CTJF83 chat 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete an salt. Deleted over 10 times now,absolutely no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: As an administrator, I have the power to delete, protect and salt pages. I agree with User:TenPoundHammer's opinion that this article should be deleted if it can't have any other sources than being mentioned by Gary Larson. I am thinking of either deleting and salting the page or making a protected redirect to -phobia. Can I do so? Which one should I do? JIP | Talk 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't bother with a redirect. There's no way in Hell it would ever warrant a mention at the list of phobias — absolutely no secondary source has mentioned it, and there's no point in making a redirect if the subject is unlikely to be mentioned in the target. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and describe it as an imaginary phobia. People WILL look it up, and if it is correctly described as imaginary, then perhaps it will stop the constant deletions and additions. Patehler (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Salt. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Could you please provide a little more detailed argument than just "salt"? JIP | Talk 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry that was a bit curt. I was referring to this article's repeated recreation, discussed above, which in my view justifies creation protection. There is, in my view, no mergeable content. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the explanation. I feel the same way too. The only thing preventing me from supporting your view is that because this has been mentioned in a very popular comic, people will come to Knowledge (XXG) to look it up, and if they can't find it, they will create an article about it, not knowing that it has been deleted ten times already. If this is the case, Knowledge (XXG) should acknowledge the existence of the fact that "anatidaephobia" has been mentioned in a comic in some way. That does not mean it should have an article of its own. JIP | Talk 23:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. Black Kite 19:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Biohazard 3 Original Soundtrack (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 soundtrack article neither establishes its notability nor has a corresponding artist article. Recommendation: Speedy delete per A9. Fleet Command (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Administrator Dlohcierekim has already rejected speedy deletion per A9 on the pretext of automatic inheritance of notability from Resident Evil. However, contrary to this assertion, WP:MUSIC does not mention that notability may be inherited from anything other than a composer or musician. Fleet Command (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Resident Evil 2. Black Kite 19:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Biohazard 2 Original Soundtrack (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 soundtrack article neither establishes its notability nor has a corresponding artist article. Recommendation: Speedy delete per A9. Fleet Command (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Administrator Dlohcierekim has already rejected speedy deletion per A9 on the pretext of automatic inheritance of notability from Resident Evil. However, contrary to this assertion, WP:MUSIC does not mention that notability may be inherited from anything other than a composer or musician. Fleet Command (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Resident Evil 2. Black Kite 19:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Biohazard 2 Complete Track (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 soundtrack article neither establishes its notability nor has a corresponding artist article. Recommendation: Speedy delete per A9. Fleet Command (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Administrator Dlohcierekim has already rejected speedy deletion per A9 on the pretext of automatic inheritance of notability from Resident Evil. However, contrary to this assertion, WP:MUSIC does not mention that notability may be inherited from anything other than a composer or musician. Fleet Command (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Resident Evil Code: Veronica. Black Kite 19:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Biohazard Code: Veronica Complete Original Soundtrack (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 soundtrack article neither establishes its notability nor has a corresponding artist article. Recommendation: Speedy delete per A9. Fleet Command (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Administrator Dlohcierekim has already rejected speedy deletion per A9 on the pretext of automatic inheritance of notability from Resident Evil. However, contrary to this assertion, WP:MUSIC does not mention that notability may be inherited from anything other than a composer or musician. Fleet Command (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. I would argue that either Resident Evil or CAPCOM would be considered the artist here as far as WP:MUSIC is concerned - both of which scream notability - but FleetCommand makes a good point. Perhaps that policy should be reviewed to specifically mention situations like this one? As per notability - I think that because the music is heavily featured in reviews of these particular games, it lends some extra weight to an officially released soundtrack. I would not be opposed to this information simply being merged into the article about the game specifically. Addionne (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • If that is so, Addionne, you have seven days to assert notability by providing citations. However, as for considering Resident Evil or CAPCOM as an artist, there is a void of policy support and much doubt of validity on my part. For the time being, the policy says that Resident Evil and CAPCOM may both be notable topics, but notability is not inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If keeping the soundtrack articles separate is unworkable, maybe it would be easier and more efficient to just merge the soundtrack info with their respective games' articles, like the Resident Evil 4 article? U.A.A. (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Works, as long as you (1) prove its notability or (2) provide critical commentary about it. Because both non-notable and indiscriminate content do not merit being in Knowledge (XXG) and are deleted nonetheless. Fleet Command (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I am wrong. No, you don't need to prove any notability when you merge and you don't need any critical commentary if you merge it into a notable article, such as its parent game or an article such as Discography of Resident Evil. My apologies. Fleet Command (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles. Black Kite 19:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Biohazard: The Umbrella Chronicles Original Soundtrack (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 soundtrack article neither establishes its notability nor has a corresponding artist article. Recommendation: Speedy delete per A9. Fleet Command (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Administrator Dlohcierekim has already rejected speedy deletion per A9 on the pretext of automatic inheritance of notability from Resident Evil. However, contrary to this assertion, WP:MUSIC does not mention that notability may be inherited from anything other than a composer or musician. Fleet Command (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Resident Evil. Black Kite 19:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Biohazard Sound Chronicle (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 soundtrack article neither establishes its notability nor has a corresponding artist article. Recommendation: Speedy delete per A9. Fleet Command (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Administrator Dlohcierekim has already rejected speedy deletion per A9 on the pretext of automatic inheritance of notability from Resident Evil. However, contrary to this assertion, WP:MUSIC does not mention that notability may be inherited from anything other than a composer or musician. Fleet Command (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I had prodded the article questioning the lack of reliable source. The prod was removed with a statement which said, more or less, the person is exceptionally notable. No reliable sources were added. The person surely exists, but I've not been able to still find reliable sources for notability. Request AfD ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ ―Œ 04:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Further comment. I know that these may not be cast-iron reliable sources, but the subject is one of the dozen or two singers mentioned in these two overviews of Bengali music, implying that she may well be "exceptionally notable". The problem is that it's very difficult to find online English sources for Bengali singers who were active half a century ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Problems with translating language sources are unfortunate. But much less unfortunate than bios floating around with no sources whatsoever or unreliable sources. This article is nowhere near passing notability standards. Unless that changes, it must go. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

American Machine Tool Distributors Association (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 organization is probably notable, the article just does not establish this. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 01:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Cookin' Soul (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)

Allegedly Spanish producer. Looks more like hoax or garage rip-off to me. Claimed they produced Soulja Boy . ORLY? Xuz (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The article is short of good sources, reads like an promotional ad for a guru. No dedicated sources found and the only sources are indicating a reflected notability. Follow on previous AfD where no consensus was reached. (User) Mb (Talk) 12:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Delete No new sources published since previous AfD. See discussion on the previous AfD Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Bhaktivedanta_Narayana_(2nd_nomination) where no consensus was reached. (User) Mb (Talk) 12:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable guru. His coverage in sources is not notable, and there are few. There is nothing that this person is notable for, nor significant coverage to demonstrate notability. As such, delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain, why do you think that "His coverage in sources is not notable"? I believe he gets significant coverage in multiple RS.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. In the end, the original nomination reason remains: no reliable independent sources about this emblem. Fram (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A nonnotable subject about an emblem suggested at AOL message board by an anonymous person. No independent reliable sources to affirm notability. Timurite (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep -- Has achieved wide dissemination within the BDSM community, as seen in its mention in the BDSM article itself, the fact that it was linked from Template:BDSM for years before this recent edit by Timurite etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Not too sure what this really amounts to - there's no official BDSM body which could give it formal "approved" status (as opposed to "proposed"), but in practice it (or variants of it) have achieved relatively wide acceptance among its intended target group (and certainly very wide recognizability)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge but to Leather Pride flag under variations along with the BDSM emblem flag article also at AfD. The BDSM article is quite large and I'm unconvinced this really adds much there whereas the Leather Pride flag article is small and combined with the BDSM emblem flag would seem to make sense and allow for easy comparisons between the flags. -- Banjeboi 12:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I would oppose such a merge, unless the resulting merged article were to be renamed with a neutral title such as BDSM symbols. Other than both being BDSM sysmbols, the Leather pride flag and BDSM emblem really don't have all that much in common (and in fact, one reason why the BDSM emblem was created was because the Leather pride flag was perceived by at least some to be somewhat narrowly associated with the gay leather subculture, rather than broadly with BDSM in general). AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete This specific emblem is not the BDSM community emblem, but an old copyright dispute. The article should be completely rewritten to omit the disputed image and instead discuss the BDSM emblem. If not rewritten, then deleting it will allow it to fade into obscurity so that someday, if notable, an article on the background of the BDSM emblem will resurface. Atom (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not a "copyright dispute" as such, and the emblem really doesn't owe most of its promulgation to Knowledge (XXG) -- the article "BDSM emblem" didn't exist on Knowledge (XXG) until Autumn 2006, but I remember the emblem achieving relatively widespread prominence on a number of BDSM websites in the late 1990's... AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
      • P.S. In any case, deleting the article won't come close to deleting all references to the emblem from Knowledge (XXG), since there are about ten different altered versions of the emblem (different enough to be free of copyright claims) in the Commons "BDSM symbols" category (some of which are used in a number of places on non-English Wikipedias), and which would remain unaffected by the deletion of the BDSM emblem article here. AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence presented that the emblem accepted by significant BDSM community. Xuz (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • strong Delete - the article has no reliable sources about the emblem besides a description that a crook tried to extort money under false copyright pretenses, also published on a website of unknown authorship. Mukadderat (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Whatever -- Do you have slightest reliable evidence that he's a "crook"?? I strongly doubt it... AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't hold my own claim that he is a crook. This is what I inferred from the cited ref and I wrote so here: "description that a crook tried to extort money" . If you imply that this reference is not reliable, than the ref must be removed from the article, thus making it even more deletable. Mukadderat (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I have very little idea what you think you're talking about (and I doubt whether you do either, frankly). If you're referring (in an oblique and incorrect manner) to the "atruerose" website link, then that's a purely personal page on the site of someone who has been in conflict with the BDSM emblem creator in the past. It was added to the BDSM emblem article to provide some rough "opposing views" balance or pseudo-balance, but it would almost certainly not satisfy the criteria laid down in WP:EL. Furthermore, as I've said repeatedly before, it is really not the role of Knowledge (XXG) to take sides with respect to conflicting legal claims which have not been adjudicated in any court of law... AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Either you have troubles with logical thinking or my English was unclear. In the latter case the proper approach to ask for clarification, rather than making snide personal remarks. Here I am rephrasing: I was not taking any sides, nor expressing any opinion: I was summarizing the content of the reference (given in the article) in which someone accuses the inventor of the "emblem" in attempts to unfairly force people to pay money for copyright he does not own. I have no idea and don't care whether these accusations are true or false. All I was saying in the vote that the article has no third-party verifiable sources other than this feudish one, hence it has no place in wikipedia. Mukadderat (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
            • I have no problem whatsoever in understanding that you have no absolutely no foundation of valid evidence for your rather extreme (and defamatory!) allegations and accusations that Quagmyr is a "crook", except that for some reason you have decided to engage in some form of partisan advocacy on behalf of "atruerose" against "Quagmyr". Frankly, I find such behavior to be pointless and unhelpful in the extreme, and if that's all that you're capable of, then there's really not much point in you trying to participate in AfD discussions. AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

            • My impression is that "Quagmyr" the designer of the emblem, had the best of intentions to offer something to the community. The desire to copyright came later. By copyright law, something of that nature is automatically copyrighted upon creation. The problem is that the original emblem designed is not copyrightable as it is not distinctive enough. The modified emblem, where copyright is claimed, is probably not copyrightable either, but (as far a I know) has not faced a challenge. In any event, the article should be rewritten to focus on the emblem and its meaning and acceptance or lack thereof, and not on the copyright issue.Atom (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
              • By the way, the problem of "controversy" sections of a Knowledge (XXG) article outrunning in length the main discussion of a topic is by no means unique to this article, but recurs in a number of articles. I guess people are often motivated to write about what they feel passionately about, or have strong opinions about... AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Straightforward case: being "proposed" is crystal ball, lack of sources and notability, possibly exists as advertisement for merchandise solely. Only argument for keeping above seems to be that it's mentioned on other pages on Knowledge (XXG)? This AfD can be closed. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • It's actually been "proposed" continuously since 1995, and has already achieved reasonable prominence among its intended target audience for approximately the last ten years or so, so I really don't know what "crystal balls" have do with anything. AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:CBALL - having an article on a proposed symbol is not particularly encyclopedic. It seems to be looking forward to being adopted, and in that sense that is how crystal ball is related. That it hasn't caught on in ten years' time doesn't speak well of its chances. I don't find evidence of "reasonable prominence" and would be curious where you have found it; add it to the article. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
        • You seem to be indulging in some degree of semantic hair-splitting -- the only real reason why it's called "proposed" is that there's no official BDSM body which could formally bless it with any official "approved" status (as I already stated in my comments of "09:28, 6 March 2010" a week and a half ago above), and in practice it has in fact achieved reasonable prominence among its intended target audience for approximately the last ten years or so. There's actually an easily available abundance of evidence for this -- but unfortunately rarely in the rigid format required for Knowledge (XXG)-approved "reliable sources". For example, just go to Google images search and put in "BDSM emblem" or "BDSM triskelion" or "BDSM symbol" or "Quagmyr" and it's fairly clear that there are hundreds of websites that have images of Quagmyr's symbol, or derived similar versions of the symbol. AnonMoos (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

          • It doesn't strike me as semantics. Though if there's nobody to officially adopt it, then "proposed" isn't really a good word, as there's nobody to officially propose it either. Aren't there some print references that could be found, like for rainbow flag? If there's not, if it's just some degree of enthusiasm on the internet that can be "proven" by a Google image search, then it's not really Knowledge (XXG)'s place to do original research regarding how widespread it is, or how old it is, etc. and some actual group needs to adopt it, or some publications needs to write about it. Personally, I'd be fine with even BDSM publications not even mainstream ones, but I may be alone in that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • You are confusing the emblem that Quagmyr claims copyright on with the BDSM Emblem that is in the public domain. The public domain image was first proposed in 1995, the specific image that is copyrighted (claimed) is not that emblem. The Emblem described on the page being proposed for deletion is the later. If the article were to be rewritten to describe the emblem that has become adopted by the BDSM community, it would be different. Atom (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
        • We've gone around and around on this at Talk:BDSM Emblem, and you haven't been able to bring forward any specific concrete evidence (such as from Google Groups search of alt.sex.bondage or soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm archives) for your personal theory of an alternative "sequence of events", and you haven't come up with a concrete instance of what you consider to be the "real BDSM emblem" (other than File:BDSM_logo.svg, an image whose origins I know a lot about, since I was intimately involved), so I really don't think I'm "confused". AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. No evidence at all that this has any notability, not even the limited notability we want for a merge. No sources but the primary one. Fram (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BDSM Rights Flag (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)

Undue promotion of an emblem from some BDSM website Timurite (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, unlike ‎BDSM Emblem (which is a slam-dunk "keep"), this one is a little bit more questionable. It's achieved a certain limited degree of prominence among certain segments of the on-line BDSM community (as a convenient copyright- and trademark-free alternative to the BDSM emblem, if for no other reason), but it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate a conventional Knowledge (XXG)-required level of notability from Knowledge (XXG)-approved reliable sources. Timurite's accusations that this is nothing more than "website promotion" seems to be a manifestation of tedious tiresome heavy-handed cynicism without much grounding in fact -- but on the other hand, it's definitely problematic that it was Tanos himself who first created the article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please keep your personal insults to yourself. Timurite (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Whatever -- I evaluated your edits with respect to whether they served their ostensible ends, and seemed to be actually motivated by the goal of improvement of Knowledge (XXG) or fell short in that respect. You were the one who inserted disparaging commentary about the personal motivations of Tanos into your AFD nomination. AnonMoos (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Then you haven't kept up with developments such as Operation Spanner, have you now? -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete if it can't get more reliable sources. Currently it only mentions a primary source and Wipipedia, which I'm not sure if it can be used as a reliable source. JIP | Talk 09:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge but to Leather Pride flag under variations along with the BDSM emblem article also at AfD. The BDSM article is quite large and I'm unconvinced this really adds much there whereas the Leather Pride flag article is small and combined with the BDSM emblem content would seem to make sense and allow for easy comparisons between the flags. -- Banjeboi 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the "BDSM emblem" article can be usefully merged with Leather Pride flag (see that article's deletion discussion), but you're right that "BDSM Rights Flag" certainly could be. AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this article is a content fork of Hip Hop. I will provide a user space copy of the article if anyone wants it to work on. Xymmax So let it be done 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

American hip hop (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 appears to be an unsourced content fork from Hip hop music that cannot be salvaged or effectively merged. Hoppingalong (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment -- Hip Hop is American music. Having both articles is like having an article about both Salsa and Cuban Salsa or Bossa nova and Brasilian bossa nova or jazz and American jazz. I might agree that some of the other regional hip hop articles (e.g., Hip hop in the Dominican Republic) are acceptable because they focus on this American music as interpreted and played in other places (e.g., in another context there is Jazz in Germany). As they are, the American hip hop and hip hop articles are a content fork and not really a spinoff. I would be fine with fixing one and redirecting the other. It seems to me that it would be artificial and redundant to maintain two articles on the same subject. And speaking of inappropriate, please do not make edit histories like "Wtf." You will note on the talk page of the article that another editor indicated the article was so bad it should go to Afd. I don't exactly agree with that editor's reasoning, but this didn't come from nowhere. Assume good faith and make arguments based on WP guidelines rather than just saying what seems clear to you. I am certainly willing to see your point of view (and I acknowledge that this is not a slam dunk case). Try to do that for others. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm just a bit shocked that you are considering deleting an article which it seems so obvious to me should exist, I am assuming good faith but I don't currently think that you have provided enough reasons as to why this article should be deleted. I agree that the article is in a bad state, but that means it should be edited to be into a better shape. It is true that hip-hop started in America but it has since spread around the world. To have all the articles in Template:Hip hop, but not an American hip hop article just does not make sense to me. I know British hip hop well and can't see how the hip hop article could be seen to cover all of hip hop if there was not a separate american hip hop article. The comment on the talk page you refer to was "It's just a random, unverified, and uncited list of hip hop artists" - this is not an argument for deletion as I have tried to explain, but a reason for improvement. Smartse (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note - The proper focus of this AfD is on whether or not this is a content fork and/or if that's appropriate. There's an obviously notable hip hop article, and American hip-hop is an obviously notable segment of that, but WP:FORK, is the relevant issue here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you mean WP:CFORK. Looking at that guideline it seems to me as though having a separate article is necessary (Knowledge (XXG):Content_forking#Article_spinouts.C2.A0.E2.80.93_.22Summary_style.22_articles), can you please explain more on why it is a content fork and why it is not suitable to have a hip hop article summarising all forms of hip hop (much of which will be American) and to also have an article solely dealing with American hip hop? Smartse (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Hip hop music article goes into the history of the music, is sourced, and had pointer wikilinks to the various subregional varients of American hip hop. If the main Hip hop article talks about Hip hop writ large, and yet is specific enough to point to the East Coast hip hop, what would be added by having an American hip hop article? The regional discussion should go in the East Coast hip hop and its sibling articles, with the macro discussion going in the main Hip hop music article (keeping in mind there is also a Hip hop article dealing with more than just music). You wouldn't support a North American hip hop article to be a little more specific than Hip hop music but less specific than American hip hop, would you? Or a European Union hip hop? Or a Bristish Isles hip hop? It is not that I think American hip hop is unimportant. Rather, it is too important to let parallel articles grow-up to create content forks. I have just deleted most of the non-sourced material from the American hip hop article, but it is now little more than a small stub. My argument is that any additions to that article are either macro enough to go into the Hip hop article, or regional enough to go into an East Coast hip hop (or the same level) article. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Smartse reverted the edit that I referenced in my last comment apparently so the old version is visible to editors debating the AfD (according to the edit summary, apparently not because of a disagreement over the substance of the edit). I just now reverted his reversion because it represented the reintroduction of entirely unsourced, opinion, and other problem text. So as not to hide the ball, here is a link to the old version of the article it was when I originally Afded the article. Here is a link to the cut-down version. Either way, I think the article should go. As it was it was a content fork, and as the cut down version could be improved it would inevitably become a content fork for the more general Hip hop music or for the regional hip hop articles such as East Coast hip hop-- which are about on the same level in a theoretical hierarchy with the other national hip hop music articles like British hip hop -- or a content fork from both. Hoppingalong (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Those aren't sufficient grounds for deletion, but reasons for the article to be rewritten. I wish I had time but I really don't at the moment. I haven't seen anyone making an attempt to add sources to the article as should be done per WP:BEFORE. This article should summarise all the articles we have that cover american hip hop, there will be repitition of hip hop music and the east coast/west coast articles but I don't see why this is a problem. Smartse (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
If the article in it's current form is a POV fork, or if longer is unwarranted and unsalvagable as to require a rewrite, there is nothing wrong with deleting so that one can start from anew. Also, please tell me how I was supposed to adequately cite the many, many opinions, original research, and synthesis that was on the old version (long) of this article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. While hip hop is international at this point, it is still overwhelmingly dominated by American artists. I can see no reason for breaking this out. — Gwalla | Talk 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Den (Pharaoh)#Family. Tone 11:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Qaineit (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)

So far as I can discover, all we know is that her name was on a stela and she may have been Den's wife, and she was not buried with him but nearby. See . I don't think one mention on a stela is sufficient for an article. I've searched for other information to no avail except to find a mention of a Qainneith 'known from a seal of unknown provenance' so possibly a different person Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Queen of Egypt sounds pretty notable. Despite having only one known contemporaneous source, she is mentioned in subsequent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if she wasn't Den's wife, that means that she wasn't a queen. But I think that is the best thing to do that we redirect this article to Den_(Pharaoh)#Family.--Mychele Trempetich (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Madea Goes to Jail. Black Kite 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Madea Goes to Jail (play) (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 fails general notability guidelines. No significant coverage in secondary sources. It almost but not quite looks like a vanity piece. It has been around since April 2006 and the only reference is imdb. --Bejnar (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge both this article Madea Goes to Jail (play) (about the play) and the separate article Madea Goes to Jail (film) (about the movie) into Madea Goes to Jail, which is currently a disambig page listing the play and the movie. The film is highly notable with reviews in major papers like the NYT and the Boston Globe. The play, not so much. The play/film combination is clearly notable, but it doesn't need three articles. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Keep. The research below by Arxiloxos is persuasive. The play is clearly notable. And while I find it clumsy to have separate articles for play and movie with a disambig page, there is plenty of precedent here for doing it that way - both with Tyler Perry's work and with many other situations where there was a play or book as well as a movie. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. If the decision is to simply delete this page, then the disambig page Madea Goes to Jail should also be deleted - or better it should become a redirect to the film. Whatever the decision is about this page, I believe we should end up with just one article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of a merger, but I disagree with your reasoning. Notability is not transferred, and there is no need for a redirect with the tag "(play)" if there is only one article. So merge and delete. --Bejnar (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This play, like all of Perry's "Madea" theatrical productions, was massively successful, toured widely, and was extensively covered and reviewed. A search of <"Madea Goes to Jail" play> at Google News produces hundreds of hits, and while many of them aren't about the play, here are some that are: Philadelphia Inquirer; Syracuse Post-Standard; Call & Post; Chicago Sun-Times ("his play "Madea Goes to Jail" is selling out in theaters across the country"); Boston.com; Monsters and Critics (review of Newark performance); Minneapolis Star-Tribune("The mighty `Madea' visits Minneapolis; As in other cities, Tyler Perry's mostly black fans are flocking to his show, mixing soul concert, sass, song, sermon and sweet inspiration." . . . "Now he is making his Minneapolis debut in "Madea Goes to Jail," which opened to whoops and hollers Thursday at the Orpheum Theatre.") ; Dallas Observer. I can keep going, but I think the point is made. If the editors decide it's better to deal with each Perry property in a combined article about the corresponding play and movie, that might be a legitimate editorial decision, but it sure as heck isn't because the plays aren't notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Since most, if not all of the articles that Arxiloxos cites, discuss the "Madea" plays together, with emphasis on Diary of a Mad Black Woman, rather than this one, putting them in one article seems appropriate. Since the author's article is not too long, and currently does not mention his plays, Merge to Tyler Perry would seem to be appropriate, ensuring only "concise plot summaries" WP:PLOT in the process. The level of coverage suggested by Arxiloxos comments above are not quite borne out by the texts of the articles, please do read them. For example, the article in The Boston Globe reads in its entierty:
"Madea comes to Worcester"   Over the past six years, Tyler Perry has become an industry. His success began with plays, such as the new Madea Goes to Jail, which is at the DCU Center in Worcester this weekend. Madea, Tyler's popular character, has spawned smash films, such as Diary of a Mad Black Woman. Madea began as a tribute to Perry's mother and aunt and was never intended to be the franchise it has become. But after the first production, Madea was too popular for Perry to put on the shelf. Perry says he will retire Madea after Madea Goes to Jail, at least for a couple of years while he works on other projects. He begins production on Daddy's Little Girls next month, which he will produce and direct from his own screenplay, before moving on to Jazzman's Blues, another of his scripts. Madea might return after that, but for now, Perry will be happy to have a break. I want to step back for a minute and take it all in, he says. Madea Goes to Jail runs tonight through Sunday at the DCU Center in Worcester. $52.50-$55.50. 617-931-2000, www.ticketmaster.com. --Bejnar (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The articles I selected were taken from the first few pages of search results; they were all written in connection with a production of "Madea Goes to Jail." Some are straight reviews, some are background, some are brief, but it's not true to say that they all place "emphasis on Diary of a Mad Black Woman", and there are many, many more pages of search results, bearing in mind that many of them are at pay sites so you can usually see just a few lines. But this is a little bit beside the point. Merging the articles for each Madea play/film, or even merging all the Madea articles into one, as a matter of editorial discretion, is one thing, although I certainly don't think it would be appropriate to do this at Tyler Perry since he is now connected with considerably more that just Madea. The key point is that a merger decision for one property in a big, hugely popular series, shouldn't be done via a narrowed AfD based on a nomination claiming, contrary to the evidence, that the subject had "no significant coverage in significant sources" and was akin to a "vanity piece".
Perry's Madea plays have been a massively successful, very long lived project, with significant impact in African-American popular culture, and they deserve thorough encyclopedic treatment. Currently, it appears that each of Perry's plays has its own article, and and any substantial change in this structure ought to be discussed with reference to the whole corpus, not just one small part of it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Prod was contested in November 2009 and I decided to give it some time to see what came of this article. Fails WP:N and WP:CORP I have been unable to find sufficient reliable 3rd party coverage that would allow it to pass either. -- RP459 /Contributions 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - A startup with no independent coverage that I could find. A Google News search was interesting as all the mentions I could find were actually comment spam attached to articles. -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete fails WP:MUSIC This is a Spanish hiphop band. I didn't find any significant coverage in secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
delete both. No evidence of independent notability. Xuz (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

NetDNA (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)

Promotion for non-notable company, article by single-purpose user. 0 gnews hits and I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage that would indicate the subject passes WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the sources thrown at this article are reliable. Its press release after press release. The article therefore falls well short of notability, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The reliable part is critical because when our articles can only cite press releases, wikipedia essentially becomes a promotional tool rather than an encyclopaedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy journalism (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 topic is not notable, at best.

A search for "Conspiracy journalism" at educational sites, using ":edu" returns only two links. One is dead, and the other goes to a post at a mailing list. A search for "Conspiracy journalism" at Amazon returns only three links, one user-generated reading list and two user-generated tags.

The first listed source is Paranoia Magazine, which is not authoritative about journalism (its reliability or not on any other topic is a different matter). Its second source is to a lecture. Apart from anything else, lectures aren't normally published, and thus cannot be verified. Etc. Maurreen (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Other sources cited have axes to grid, such as the MRC. The topic may, in the future, arise to encyclopedic status, but the current article seems more of an attack on 9/11 Truth movement and others than an objective treatment. Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as well as WP:OR and as an attack article. --Bejnar (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, patent nonsense. -- Calicocat
  • KEEP Term appears in scholarly publications, notable for possible coinage via Adam Ellick. Given the speed of the internet and controversey of this topic, recommend refinement and review. Althoug examples via truther movement are cited, they are simply the most convenient and readily available. Phrase appears in discussions and characterizations of all manner of journalism across the web. Far from WP:OR, this represnets a capturing and cataloging of an externally defined view of journalism. Jettparmer (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I await any such scholarly sources. In the meantime, I just searched for "Conspiracy journalism" at the sites of the Columbia Journalism Review, the American Journalism Review, and the Poynter Institute. I found nothing. (AJR and CJR are the two leading print periodicals about journalism in the United States. The Poynter Institute is a major U.S. journalism organization, focusing on midcareer traning but doing other work also. At least within the United States, it is probably the most dominant Web site about journalism.) Further, about speed of the topic being an issue, WP:NOTNEWS. Maurreen (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Seems like there is more and more usage of the phrase Conspiracy Journalism. I encourage you to visit Mr. Ellick's site - he may have coined the phrase with his 2004 lecture. As he is a respeted NYT journalist, I would count that as good. I would also consider Pulitzer Prize Winner, Jonathan Yardley's use of the term in the November 2006 Smithsonian as certain validation.Jettparmer (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Ellick's lecture is apparently not published, and thus not a source for WP purposes. Yardley's mention is at least in a more-respected publication than the others. But Yardley only mentions "conspiracy journalism." WP:N calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources," which has not been demonstrated. Maurreen (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Compromise potential? -- Given the meager number of participants at this AFD, it seems unlikely that a consensus will be declared either way. Can you think of some other title that does not imply that "conspiracy journalism" is on a par with, for example, "business journalism"? Some title that would not imply "conspiracy journalism" is a recognized branch of journalism? Maurreen (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I can not think of another title which conveys the proper categorization of this aspect of journalism. Although the title may seem negative in connotation - it is extremely specific in identifying the nature of this type of journalism. There is a category of journalism which exists and is expressed through various outlets (Nation of Islam's the Call, the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight and others) which are directly promoting a conspiracy viewpoint. This is certainly not advocacy journalism or investigative journalism, although it reflects a subset of the two. I would think some survey of curricula of top journalism schools may help, but then we start to wander down the WP:OR rabbit hole. Perhaps we would be better served by soliciting help in improving the article.Jettparmer (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • For reasons unrelated to WP, I have surveyed curricula at top journalism schools some and saw nothing like this. But I still see no "significant coverage in reliable sources." The most-reputable sources that you indicate only mention the topic, which is insufficient. Maurreen (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
        • If you think this is covered in journalism school, the best place to find it might be textbooks that survey mass media studies. Maurreen (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
          • User:Jettparmer gives two references with no sources and does not give citations to where those mentioned used the term. That aside, the article itself does not substantiate the validity of the supposed genre, so it's kind of sounding like the fallacy of argument from authority, rather than actual reasons for keeping the article. Calicocat (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
            • So aside from Calicocat's displeasure with the comprehensiveness of this article, let's examine a few facts. The phrase "conspiracy journalism" is used repeatedly and profusely throughout the internet. The term seems to have a commonly understood definition by the users, from all sides of the political / ideological spectrum. There are a number of usages of this word by respected authors and researchers. I regret not being able to pin down the text of Ellick's lecture, as I think this is seminal. There are strong reasons to keep the article, mostly that there appears to be an issue worthy of placing into the encyclopedic repository of Knowledge (XXG). Jettparmer (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

{{od}]

  1. Which of your citations do you consider to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources? It is not indicated by use "repeatedly and profusely throughout the internet." And if such use was actually throughout the Internet, why were my focused findings above so minimal? That is, nothing substantive on Amazon, educational sites, or three major U.S. sites about journalism.
  2. Regardless of the usage of the phrase, there is a difference between an article about a phrase and an article about a practice. This article appears intended to be about the practice. I would be more open to an article about the phrase.
  3. About "a commonly understood definition by the users, from all sides of the political / ideological spectrum." I don't see any of that as relevant. WP is not a dictionary. "The users" appear connected only in that they use the term. Politics might have some bearing regarding conspiracies, but political views are not inherently meaningful about journalism. Maurreen (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
On further examination, it appears that of all your citations (reliable or not), the only one to give significant coverage is a lecture, which is apparently unpublished and thus immaterial for WP purposes. Maurreen (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge that your external links section includes a paper that appears to give significant coverage. It also appears to be a student paper, based on the URL. The paper itself doesn't indicate who it's by or the context under which it was produced. Maurreen (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
On looking again, the paper is even less worthy for the purpose at hand. The paper is about a documentary. The paper only uses the phrase once. Maurreen (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The paper is unsigned and I have been unable to locate the author's name or the course for which it was written. You seem to have a lot of animosity towards the very subject of this topic. If you google the phrase "conspiracy journalism", you will come up with a host of direct references, all of which are consistent in their usage. It strikes me as the phrase "political correctness", it exists - it's simply understood by fiat. The quality of my sourcing may not be the best - but that's what wikipedia is for - evolution of the understanding. Thus, deletion would seem counter to its purpose. Jettparmer (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
What Knowledge (XXG) is for is based on Knowledge (XXG):Notability. Maurreen (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Atom Tha Immortal (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 rapper with little media coverage of substance, no charting hits, all albums self-released (one was re-issued on an actual label, though not a notable one). Fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Viscera Trail (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)
Roadkill (Viscera Trail demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Piled Up Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Humiliation-Ridden Evisceration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:BAND. Sources are a forum, user-submitted websites and otherwise unreliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 15:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable band. Only sources are a directory listing or Myspace or Metal Archives, which appears to be user submitted. Only notability is that Elad Manor was a session guest musician on one album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 15:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Only sources are directories and forums. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 15:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm not convinced that Albanian football club presidents are inherently notable, and there seemed to be no English language links to suggest otherwise. I'm not sure whether there are Albanian-language links that support notability, or whether he was a former footballer at a significant level Eldumpo (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Benefit of the doubt is not good enough. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, we can't have a proper encyclopaedic article. If sources can be presented, I'd be happy to change my mind, but until then, deletion is warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - In my opinion, presidents of Albanian Superliga clubs are not inherently notable, although that point is definately debatable. This guy definately fails WP:GNG as far the english language media is concerned. I'd more than willing to change my vote if someone were to provide significant coverage from the Albanian media (or any other for that matter), but until we find significant coverage, we must assume that it does not exist. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: I have brought up the matter of a notability guideline for sports clubs' chairmen and presidents before but at the moment there isn't one so this man is not inherently notable. Understandable lack of coverage in English sources but also, it appears, in Albanian sources. Also no evidence that he has played football at a professional level himself to pass WP:ATHLETE. Unless someone can find anything that would prove his notability this page should be deleted as it will never become an encyclopedic article. -- BigDom 07:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I've been searching and looking through the books I have, eg Aidan Dodson, and find no evidence for either Shesh I or Shesh II. Sesheshet is occasionally called Shesh, but she was Teti's mother and neither of these alleged Queens is said to be Teti's mother. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason.:

Shesh II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus as it stands is in favour of deleting this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Consultative selling (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, while at first appearing to be valid, consists entirely of original research or of synthesised original research. Requests for citations have not been fulfilled. While the topic of consultative selling exists as a concept it is the simple difference between talking to the customer and meeting their needs as opposed to taking money at a cash desk. I'm hardly even sure that the topic merits more than a dictionary definition..

Yes, there are references to books, but a book does not of itself make a notable topic, and the books appear to me to be used to synthesise original research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Please Keep I've never contributed to Knowledge (XXG) so I don't know all the ins and outs about Knowledge (XXG) policy. While this article may not currently have the depth of treatment about the topic that is preferred, simply having the topic listed invites others to contribute to it. As a verteran sales trainer I know that consultative selling has a lot more shades of grey to it than a previous contributor suggests. My action step as the result of reading this article will be to alert folks involved with selling on LinkedIn to contribute to is. It's richness may increase if allowed to remain posted.Chicagosalestrnr (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Jargon. redirect perhaps, to Salesmanship or something of the sort. As the article says, it's always been practiced. You go into a store, and they have from time immemorial asked you what you are looking for and you tell them. Making a name for this does not make it notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, unreadable and trivial content, likely intended to promote somebody's salesmanship seminar: Consultative Selling is an approach to selling based on a dialogue between the salesperson and the customer. First, the customer is encouraged to express his/her needs. The salesperson then selects the product or service that best meets these needs and adapts the sales message to the customer's needs and language. I get it! You find out what people want, and you sell it to them. How long did it take to figure this out? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As presently written, it's a list of statements of the blindingly obvious. Sales is the process of asking the other person to define a problem, and then recommending products and services that will solve it. Everyone from doctors and solicitors through to double glazing telemarketers does this. But we ought to have an article about it even if it is obvious -- see WP:OBVIOUS.

    I think the content we are considering is best covered as a section of Selling technique rather than as a separate article. So I will recommend merge to Selling technique.—S Marshall /Cont 14:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. It is irrelevant whether the information in the article is trivial or whether everyone has always been doing this. And if the article is unreadable (Easter egg alert: that is not the same as patent nonsense), so fix it, don't delete it. The only relevant criterion is whether the topic is notable, a requirement that is fulfilled if there exists non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There are many book hits; I have not attempted to evaluate how reliable they are and how non-trivial the mention is, but some books have this even in the title, and it would thus seem plausible there is enough material out there.  --Lambiam 23:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    Well, there's actually more to AfD than the question of notability. Two things that have the same name should only have one article. By analogy, Barack Obama is notable. So is President Obama. Lots of non-trivial mentions of both, but the rule is, one subject, one article.—S Marshall /Cont 23:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    OK, in general there may be more to it, but while the names "Barack Obama" and "President Obama" are synonymous here, hopefully you'll agree that there are other selling techniques than what has been dubbed "consultative selling", such as bait and switch, Tupperware parties and in general party plans and other forms of multi-level marketing, telemarketing and other forms of cold calling, and in-store demonstrations. So the rule "one subject, one article" does not apply here.  --Lambiam 15:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    I certainly agree that the "advice" model of selling is not the only one. But I don't think we would be helping encyclopaedia users by fragmenting the selling techniques article into a half a dozen separate short pieces, each written and watchlisted by a small number of interested editors. What works is to have a smaller number of articles, each of which is more in-depth. In this case it has the benefit of being able to include a useful discussion of the relationship between different techniques (so you could use an "advice" sales model while telemarketing, for example).—S Marshall /Cont 20:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hent (queen) (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 for a Queen of this name. See Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt: "Dodson and Hilton's Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt mentions a "Khenthap" as a possible wife. Ditto Tyldesley's Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt. No "Hent" in Shaw and Nicholson's Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, nor Baker's Encyclopedia of The Egyptian Pharaohs Volume 1. I was able to find a reference to a princess "Hent-tawy" in an article on JSTOR, but she was a Late Period princess of the pharaoh Pinudjem." Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott Hanselman (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)

Much less suitable for encyclopedic inclusion than an initial search showed. Here's the problem: Hanselman is a spokesperson for Microsoft, so he gets quoted in a large number of articles. However, they are short on personal information, as he's simply a mouthpiece for his employer. A story about business trips at NYTimes actually contains biographical information, but this fails WP:SIGCOV: "sources address the subject directly in detail". He isn't the main topic, it might help, but the information mentioned isn't even the point of the article.

It appears there is another Scott Hanselman who works for Corillian, a company that doesn't have a wiki entry. It is possibly the same Hanselman. However, given that this article is currently written from a WP:COI viewpoint, it's surprising it doesn't mention Corillian, but goes into detail about Hanselman's podcasting motto, NerdDinner.com, and software written for toddlers.

This is a good search excluding Microsoft and Corillian; another option is to not exclude those companies, but it'll take significantly more work than I've put into finding any depth of coverage about Hanselman.

This isn't a case where an individual doesn't exist and appears a hoax. Hanselman certainly passes the existence test. Hanselman appears to be a fantastic technical evangelist. The issue is if he is notable, or if only the companies he works/worked for are notable. tedder (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After weighing up the arguments, I think a consensus to delete does exist. Numerically, there are 2 keeps (one being a conditional), 2 deletes (including the nominator), and two on-the-fences. However, the one unconditional keep used notability as the main basis of the argument, which was not the main concern; the two concerns were WP:SYN and WP:OR. The deletes gave detailed reasons why this article failed to meet those standards. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hulk vs. Thing (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)

Amounts to "The characters have fought and Marvel has made it a recurring plot idea." This isn't going to be anything more than a list of comic book issues where the fight stories were printed. J Greb (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • On the fence I dunno, it's a toss up for me. It seems like the page could definitely be improved and sourced better to establish notability. There is already a couple of things in the "other media" section, and (at least) 2 of the fights were ranked (one from Marvel) for a reception section. CTJF83 chat 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe If someone wanted to learn about the history of the Hulk vs.Thing rivalry this would be the place. Author(s) clearly have a sincere desire to inform us and did a good job of researching and writing the article. I know a lot more about it then I did 10 minutes ago. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the research right now is WP:OR, and this is not likely to change. And within the primary author's comment below it looks like the expansion would be to make this look like a fight card/stats file with excessive plot summary. - J Greb (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The article can be expanded to include plot summaries of each story and more overall analysis of the Thing/Hulk fights, including how each fighter fares and "which" Hulks the Thing has fought. The Hulk/Thing rivalry is something Marvel has touched upon many times over the characters' history and I believe it is notable enough for an article.--Marcus Brute (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • If plot summaries are added for the fights, it makes a lot more sense to has one article providing an overview of the comics (which include a miniseries and original graphic novel) that separate articles for each story.--Marcus Brute (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep if the article is about the issue of an same name. Don't keep if the article is an plot summary. What's next Superman vs. Batman. There's just no need to create an article on rivalrys in itself.Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Which one issue? The article is not so much on the rivalry itself as it is an overview of stories that explore the same theme.--Marcus Brute (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I do realize that defianetly by just reading the article. The problem is an article about an rivalry is not really encyclopedia worthy. Now if there is an issue called Hulk vs. Think or an issue that mainly focused on it that would have been alright but I am not sure an biography on rivralies in itself qualifies. I do like the article though and I would like it to stay in some kind of way. Perhaps this could be merged somewhere. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Articles on those collected editions may be fine such as Hulk vs. The Thing #1 and Hulk and Thing: Hard Knock. That's what I mean about it being an certain issue. Defianetly since they are both redirected here and this could be used as an disambiguation article for them. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete if this stays as a list of the battles between Hulk and Thing as that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. If it is refocused to deal with the storyline "The Hulk vs The Thing" in Fantastic Four #25-26 then I might reconsider - it is that storyline that has received the most attention, but even then 7th greatest Hulk battle and 13th greatest comic battles suggests there are plenty more out there that have received much more critical plaudits and so do we have an article on all of them too? Where do we draw the line? The idea that this might become a precedent for dozens of more similar articles gives me The Fear. This kind of thing is better off on a fan site but I don't see it as being encyclopaedic - perhaps it is better to transwiki this to the Comics and Marvel Comics wikia pages. That said I am open to a more focused, better sourced article because even if I think this kind of article is A Bad Idea it is possible there are exceptions as long as it is focused on the storyline (and is better sourced and possibly award winning, not cropping up part way down a couple of lists). (Emperor (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus as it stands is in favour of retaining this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Jer's Vision (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 not notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

JER'S VISION
BN/Registration Number: 863207981RR0001
Charity Status: Registered
Effective Date of Status: 2005-02-01
Designation Description: Public Foundation
Charity Type: Education
Category: Support of Schools and Education
Address: JEREMY DIAS 54 SOMERSET ST W., SUITE 1
City: OTTAWA
Province/Territory/Other: ONTARIO
Country: CA
Postal Code/Zip Code: K2P0H5
It certainly does have multiple independent reliable sources establishing notability; they're even right in the article and everything! Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G11 spam, G12 copyvio. Tim Song (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Artrin (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 spam. Primary editor has deleted CSD tags, but is not the creator of the article. GregJackP (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Failure to prove notability per reliable, secondary sources. Being reviewed is not a strong enough rationale, and does not necessarily prove notability. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Boomerang Kid (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)

"Interactive play" which seems to me to be a play that wasn't notable CynofGavuf 09:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This production was a unique artifact in the history of Interactive Theater. In addition, it garnered a lot of press when it opened in Los Angeles. It was one of the most covered productions of 2007 in LA theatre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.235.184 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to American Public Media. Black Kite 19:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment I am not familiar with the guidelines for them, but this should probably be treated not as WP:CORP, but rather as a production studio. A basic Google search shows plenty of evidence that in fact American RadioWorks is the name of the unit of American Public Media that produces a number of notable programs. Under what circumstances is a production studio notable? I don't know. Avram (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
American Public Media has many programs, etc. with separate articles. Also, see the organizational wikilinks in the main article, American Public Media Group.
American Public Media
Productions
Personalities
Minnesota Public Radio
News
Classical
The Current
Southern California Public Radio
Other Assets
--Timeshifter (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. See, for example, Adrienne Shelly, who passes this criterion by being notable independent of her status as a victim.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑