Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 7 - 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 speedy delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Really should be speedily deleted, but doesn't fit any of the categories. PROD probably a waste of time given this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dvbutcher&diff=383522432&oldid=383522242 Non-notable and WP:MADEUP. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability, no third party sources. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be appropriate if it was a real education institution, but it IMO isn't; it appears to be a purely commercial operation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. No third-party coverage. Provided address is second floor of an office block in London, whcih appears to be small, probably 2-3000 square feet. Site looks very spammy. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Musician with no indication of current notability. Prod removed on the basis of an upcoming press release. The objector claims to be the owner of a label that will release material by this musician next year. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and per WP:RS.  Blanchardb -- timed 21:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

This nomination is a horrible joke in response to the mass nomination of Transformers related articles. Nilocla 21:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

This is clearly WP:MADEUP or WP:NOTABLE such as the other articles. How did this stay on the site for years without someone picking this up? Nilocla 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. I cannot find significant coverage of this rapper in independent publications. Smartse (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The squirts 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)

nonsense Smny (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - nonsense. Keristrasza (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Yes, this is nonsense. Google returns nothing for "the squirts team" or "squirstables" which are unique phrases that should show up right away. The Spanish translates to a brief description of a team or group that produces or engages in "pornographic" activity/media focused on female orgasm (thus "squirt"). -Paulmnguyen (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lacks sufficient independent significant coverage. Jayjg 01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD - Non notable software product, no significant coverage available. Codf1977 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep A quick search of GBooks turns up two independent books which discuss this tool's value in assessing the quality of surveys. has several pages describing the tool (written by the authors). However, on pages 13 and 14, the book's editors (independent) discuss the value of the tool. states that the tool was used in developing a questionnaire used in the book. The tool is an implementation of the authors' methods described in their book. The book is reviewed in . It is difficult for me to believe that the AfD nominator made even a cursory search for references. It's very frustrating to me to see this sort of rush to delete articles. — HowardBGolden (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I dispute your assertion that I did not make an effort to look for references, my nomination is based on the lack of significant coverage are you really comfortable claiming that the book you list, plus the other one that comes up in a GBooks search get anyway close to the norms of what is accepted as significant coverage in the WP:GNG ? Codf1977 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Get anyway close to the norms of what is accepted as significant coverage in the WP:GNG"? What does that mean? Is there more "consensus" information that tells the "norms"? Who "accepts" or rejects? These are sincere questions. I'm giving my opinion based on my understanding of WP:GNG.
  • In my opinion, your original nomination ("no significant coverage available") is misleading at best. If you saw the coverage I mentioned above, I believe you should (IMO) have explained why you believed it wasn't significant. Again, IMO, that would have been more intellectually honest. Just as Knowledge (XXG) expects articles to be WP:NPOV, I believe nominations of AfD should be as NPOV as possible. — HowardBGolden (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
What part of "no significant coverage available" is misleading ? I was unable to find anything that "address the subject directly in detail" the links you provide are not independent. Codf1977 (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, significant coverage is available in the authors' own book. I believe you should have cited it. If you believe that the book cannot be considered independent, that is a separate issue. "No significant coverage available" is patently false and misleading. — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. HowardBGolden (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Based on HowardBGolden find. Click on his links, those books seem like third party coverage to me. Dream Focus 18:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this nomination isn't stated very well, it's still valid. The book written by the authors is a primary source and does not demonstrate significant secondary coverage per WP:RS; the book's editors cannot by any means be considered independent of its authors or the tool. The third link provided is immaterial: per WP:N, secondary sources must address the subject in detail; a mention that a particular program was used to prepare a survey does not meet a nontrivial standard. The fourth link you bring up has no abstract, preventing anyone from determining whether it reviews anything, but whether it reviews the book or not, this article is about a computer program, not a book; reviews of a book would be wholly irrelevant. Moreover, even if these sources were to be included, the program doesn't have enough independent secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG. It's a categoric fail. — Chromancer /cont 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Chromancer engages in a creative belittling of reliable sources. First, the authors' book was not self-published nor is it advertising. It was published by a reliable well-known publisher. Second, the statement "the book's editors cannot by any means be considered independent of its authors or the tool" is unsupported by any logic, and it clearly doesn't apply to the academic conference at which the paper was presented. Third, use of a product establishes that it was considered appropriate for its use by the scholars involved. This means that they find it notable. Fourth, the computer program is an implementation of the methodology of the book. The two are different facets of the same gem. The review of the book establishes its notability in its field and thereby establishes the notability of the software which is the result of the same research. Chromancer claims that there isn't enough independent secondary coverage. I'm not aware of any specific number being required by any WP policy or guideline. If such exists, please point it out. — HowardBGolden (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. To address HowardBGolden's objections in detail:
  1. A book written by the designers of the program does not constitute a secondary source on themselves. To quote WP:N: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject."
  2. Neither can you assert that the editors of said book constitute a secondary source. The editors of a book are materially and monetarily involved in the publishing process, and therefore are affiliated with their authors; any other interpretation is disingenuous. You do not become notable because you write an autobiography; neither does an author's work become notable because they write a book about it.
  3. An offhand mention that a program was used does not, as WP:GNG states, "address the subject directly in detail". If it doesn't, it doesn't count as a secondary source. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". We can't pretend that when you mention a computer program once in the entire 258 pages that it constitutes more than a trivial mention.
  4. The argument that book = computer program or computer program = book would contribute towards my argument, leading to the conclusion that if they are not independent of one another, then they certainly cannot be used as WP:RS on one another.
  5. And the implicit fifth: I said there wasn't enough secondary coverage, but never said you needed a certain number of sources. What this program would need to be notable is dedicated coverage independent of it, its authors, and people getting paid based on the work of the authors (i.e., the editors). So far you have one trivial reference and a claimed review of the book- which, let us not forget, is still not the computer program. — Chromancer /cont 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal Your statements are factually incorrect as follows:
  1. Contrary to your repeated misunderstanding, the editors of the conference book are certainly independent of the authors. They are the scholars of the conference committee who chose the articles to present based on their assessment of notability in their own field. Their discussion of the authors' methodology and software on pages 14 and 15 (see above) is likewise independent.
  2. The review of the authors' book in the scholarly journal is also independent. It establishes that the journal article's author and the journal's editors believed that the subject is notable in their field.
  3. The use of the software in the independently written book is noted prominently. The authors of the independent book "address the subject directly in detail." — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The book and the program have been made to provide a tool for assessing the quality of questionnaires. This book was published by Wiley, a reputed company for publishing technical journals. The program has been developed as a tool for Windows by Microsoft. The article does not do the subject justice and should be expanded to meet the inclusion criteria for WP. Just summarily dismissing it would be a waste. --JHvW (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That has not addressed the point of the nomination, that there is no independent significant coverage of the software, just beeing written for Windows by Microsoft does not make it notable. Codf1977 (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

almost certainly a hoax and if not absolutely not a notable tennis player - ATP.com and ITFtennis.com have no record of any such player Mayumashu (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Is this person notable enough for an article on our project? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tetley Tea Promotion ProStars (edit | talk | 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 sure an advertising promotion is worthy of a WP article. —Half Price 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep - Article was determined not to be a complete hoax and was rewritten to substantiated sources. Any further content issues can be discussed on the talk page. — CactusWriter 04:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I am the author of the article, and it is a hoax. I've requested a G7, but it's been refused. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't meet our policy on sources, does it? In any case, per WP:IAR, you probably don't want to keep an article chock-full of fake references and lies. Better to start again. It's not a complete hoax. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
If it is not a complete hoax, and the person is notable, than it should be stubbed. — CactusWriter 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
How are you going to decide which information is made up or not ? Nefesf9 (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The same procedure we use for every article -- by searching for reliable sources. More importantly: are the other articles which you created also hoaxes? — CactusWriter 20:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Jonas Asevičius-Acukas is. The other two aren't. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I've requested a five year block to prevent me from hoaxing. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • NOTE - I have indefinitely blocked the nominator/creator from further editing because of their persistent disruptive editing. At this point, I am uncertain to claims that the articles are hoaxes -- or how much is unsubstantiated. An editor who is familiar with Lithuanian sources should be requested to examine this article as well as Jonas Asevičius-Acukas. — CactusWriter 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Interesting. How much credence does one give to the confession? Especially given the rapid change in characterization from hoax to 'not a complete hoax'. A Google search reveals numerous mentions, and I don't buy the claim this user made on another page, that the family museum borrowed information from the Knowledge (XXG) article --they wouldn't need to. Agreed that what is needed is someone learned in Lithuanian language and culture. Until then I'd not delete on the less than reliable say-so of the article's creator. JNW (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Garreth Westwood (edit | talk | 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 consultant, sources are only partly about him and partly promotional, as is the article which seems largely OR. Maybe related to this AfD as created at same time with the creator of that one also a contributor here. JohnBlackburnedeeds 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Fictional character which fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Definite keep but get rid of the fancruft, fansites and better sourcing. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • CommentI agree this article shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. My beef with inclusionist is they seen to write acres of miscellaneous information. But when someone ask the for evidence to support their statements its either so peripheral or poorly sourced fansites as you yourself well know!!Dwanyewest (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Yeah, this one's notable. Still a horrible mess of fancruft and non-free image overuse, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and that goes for all Transformers related articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ok, so this one's definitely notable, according to those who have commented- perhaps some effort could be made towards cleaning this up. Cut out the massive plot summaries, cut out the trivial lists, cut out the slew of infoboxes, cut out unwarranted non-free content and cut out unreliable sources. Add some reliable sources, add some real-world context, expand the lead, consolidate the plot information. It'd be great if we could get something very positive out of the attempts to cleanup our coverage of Transformers- if the character's definitely notable, perhaps we could push for a GA? J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect All of the stuff only extend within the franchise. Many of these source fail as reliable as they are mostly fansites and messages boards. Which a lot of these articles are plagued with. Also, a well known deceased actor portraying him at one point is not notability. All information on Jazz incarnation should be moved to more relevant character lists. Sarujo (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Fictional character which fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Fictional character which fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Courcelles 04:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. Courcelles 04:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Fictional character which fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Jayjg 01:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Femme (edit | talk | 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-major character. No sources within article that indicate real-world notabiblity. NotARealWord (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Character only appeared in TV special. Article is mostly in-universe stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect. The history needs to be retained for attribution. –xeno 14:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

No sources within article that indicate real-world notabiblity. NotARealWord (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Article with no reliable/non-primary sources that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - It's funny you say no reliable sources can be found when I just added one from A complete history of American comic books By Shirrel Rhoades where he spends a paragraph talking about the collectability and value of this toy. It's not even a book about toys or Transformers. Mathewignash (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Er, are you talking about this link, which is actually a single sentence? ("In fact, he's careful not to remove toys from their packaging, for an unopened transformer Bumblejumper is worth $409 vs $40 for the loose toy.") That section of the book is about collecting comic books, with a brief aside on comic-related toys, name-dropping this one to make an example of how original packaging is valuable. Your characterization of the coverage is very inflated. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Article with no reliable/non-primary sources that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Article with no reliable/non-primary sources that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • So you are saying that the characters haven't appeared in any of the TF series? Because the TF series would be enough to verify basic plot details. —Farix (t | c) 00:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The only Breakaway that was story-important was the fan club character. Maybe information on Breakaway can be put in an article on the fan club and their magazine (that he was a main character in). NotARealWord (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Unless Kamen Rider Blade: Missing Ace is deleted, the history needs to be retained for attribution purposes. –xeno 14:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Lance (edit | talk | 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 references or sources. Character only appeared in one movie it seems. Plus, there's not much of an article anyway. NotARealWord (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - If merging really is necessary (due to the copyright thing), I hope the admin who closes this notices that. Then again, they could just blank the sections and/or get them rewritten. NotARealWord (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Brakedown (edit | talk | 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 with no reliable/non-primary sources that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Article with no reliable sources that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge to a G1 character list from the Japanese continuation of the series. —Farix (t | c) 01:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion and is in keeping with the WP:PRESERVE policy. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 18:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete there really isn't enough sourcable stuff for a merge to be practical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So you are saying that the character hasen't made an appearance in any of the TF series? Because the TF series would be enough to verify basic plot details. —Farix (t | c) 00:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's a non-licensed guide to the fiction (not a simple toy price list) written by someone not associated with Hasbro or Takara. It's not primary. I was told the DK book I cited in some other articles was primary because it was a licensed book. This is NOT. By my understanding that makes the book a secondary source. Mathewignash (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete a toy guide and two fansites are the sources provided. There are no reliable, independent sources that consider the real world impact, relevance and meaning of this fictional thing apart from work of fiction it inhabits. This sort of content is exactly what wikia and the transformer wiki are for. Here? It's just unverified clutter that encourages lower standards for encyclopedia content.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —fetch·comms 02:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1998 Manila blackmail incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Discuss

This is about alleged abductions and murders that supposedly occurred in 1998 that seems to have been revived because of the recent Manila hostage crisis. Due to the severity of the alleged crimes I at first thought it was a legitimate subject for an article but so far all I've found are allegations and the number of sources I am finding seem smaller than I would expect for an alleged incident deserving of an article. The creator claimed it is getting play in Hong Kong but when a third party asked for further evidence beyond the two refs he started with (one in Chinese) he didn't provide any more. I also don't know at what point the line for notability is drawn for crimes before articles on them become crime logs and WP:ROUTINE comes into play. The name of the article doesn't help to distinguish it either and going by its contents is an inaccurate description. If it's kept it should be moved to a more appropriately named page. I am also concerned it is being used as a form of muckraking in the Manila hostage crisis article. Lambanog (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I added those conditional phrases because the article is based mainly on allegations. To not preface the statements with "it is said" or similar is to make a statement of fact not accusation. A close reading of the single English language source provided by the article creator as a reference will show that careful language is also used that avoids statements of fact. Does the Chinese language article referenced not make such a differentiation? People here can judge.
If I did not attribute the statements to someone, I may have missed doing so but it is also likely that the sourced reference did not either. In any event my edits are meant to clarify something that should have been made clear from the outset by the article creator; if there are problems with the attribution I believe the onus should primarily be on him to make things clear. The nebulous attribution of the accusations even if going by the references provided is part of the reason I have nominated this article for deletion. Lambanog (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It's one thing to nominate an article for deletion and state that you think the article is based on unsubstantiated assertions made in one or two newspaper reports, but it's an entirely different matter when you insert weasel words into the article that make things even less clear for those attempting to make an Afd recommendation. The insertion of "it is said" is a type of weasel word (see #2 at Weasel word#Forms) that presumes a somebody who said it. I think if you look closely at the first reference, the assertions are alleged in "documents in the Inquirer’s possession since 2008". The assertions need to point back to the Inquirer or the documents in their possession. I imagine that it's relatively easy to find an "according to" for the other assertions, too. Location (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Undo the edits I made and read that version of the article (addendum: here it is) and then judge whether it hews more closely to what is said in the references. The sourced reference uses the weasel words. That adding phrases generally considered by Knowledge (XXG) to be weasel words results in an article that more closely matches the given reference it is based on is in itself a good indicator of the subject's deficiency. Lambanog (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The 1998 blackmail incident does a little summary at the end to highlight the state of political relationship between Philippine and HK after the 1997 transfer. When I edited it, I wanted to make clear this was NOT another routine kidnap case. I have urged Lambanog to contribute and insert a more Philippine perspective into the article, but he has no interest. If the incident needs to be downplayed, giving it a lower importance rating should be more than enough. These controversial subjects have very few editors that want to get involved. The censoring and blocking only hurts the community even more. Benjwong (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Honestly, I'm guessing that this AfD is a knee-jerk reaction by the nominator after I've inserted it back to the "See also" section of Manila hostage crisis for policy rationale I have cited and explained here, per WP:ALSO. Also, backing it up with the two different (unrelated to each other since one is from Hong Kong and the other from Philippines) newspaper sources. Furthermore, he has insinuated that I am writing from HK perspective when I am in fact from Singapore. The fact that I'm not writing from HK or PH perspective is thus bringing into the article a neutral third party's opinion, and my opinion right now is that this article "1998 Manila blackmail incident" is relevant and has been backed by two different verified reliable sources whereas the nominator has went on a spree of adding weasel word. This, my friend, is no different from behaving like a fanatic. That is all. --Dave 04:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
On the Manila hostage crisis article you reverted a perfectly sound edit claiming WP:SYN but when asked to explain, you are not to be heard from until it was resolved with my edits being implemented. Later you remove a self-explanatory See also link to the widely known Japanese embassy hostage crisis and replace it instead with a link to this questionable article. Curious you even took the time to give a long policy rationale before inserting the link when your contributions to the article before then were negligible. Your actions speak for themselves. Please do not pretend to be a disinterested third party in all of this. Lambanog (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
So you accuse me of behaving as if I own the article, not having manners, behaving like a fanatic, and being a real jerk. Whatever. Now tell everyone how you could countenance linking to this start class article when at the time you did so it presented allegations as fact. Did you look at the sources given? Also explain why at about the same time you removed a link to the Japanese embassy hostage crisis, a B class article of a well covered incident from the Manila hostage crisis article? How do you reconcile such actions to the building of a quality encyclopedia? I cannot fathom any good reasons for it. It is incumbent upon you to address the central issue head on and not dance all around it. Lambanog (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

With no additional voters, I think this delete is plain stalling the discussion. How long can this drag on for? Benjwong (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalling what discussion? The one Dave1185 participated in? I invite anyone concerned by the accusations to see how that was dealt with when a third opinion was called in. But that is largely beside the point, this article being nominated on its own has serious weaknesses. Contrary to what you said above, you did not ask me to contribute to it and yet I did. It is in the course of doing so that I saw all the inherent flaws and decided to nominate it for AfD. As for when this process ends it should in 7 days, so very soon. It is unfortunate uninvolved people have avoided giving their opinion on it. Lambanog (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: "How long can this drag on for?" Benjwong, if you are not familiar with how the Afd process works, please check out Knowledge (XXG):Deletion process. WP:NOTEARLY addresses your specific question. Location (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Courcelles 04:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. Not one of the keep votes provides anything mroe than an assertion, with- all between them- zero proof or evidence provided. Hand waiving at notability is not enough. Courcelles 04:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Article with no reliable sources that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It would at least justify a redirect to the episode list entry. However, this character has also appeared in the original comic series with an apparently larger role. —Farix (t | c) 00:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Unsourced article that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Article sourced only to primary sources that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Norton -- Name one. Your comment is rather dubious.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You guys are way out of line. I happen to agree with Norton and Mathewignash. No need to get nasty! Trying to push people around is not the way to win people over. Please try and be civil. Being civil is important here. (more direct CP) - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Logic-free, discursive AFD votes are uncivil and are insulting to the editors trying to grapple with the facts at hand. Trying to skew AFD arguments with patent nonesense is no way to win people over. So please try and be civil. Make a real argument or don't comment.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is notable character article and I agree that at the the rate the deletionists are nominating these articles, how can they expect work to be done on them! These deletionists really do hurt Knowledge (XXG). As for the "Logic-free" insult well I guess the best thing to do is to ignore and move on. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced stub article with rambling unclear description of gameplay. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Autobot Clone (edit | talk | 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 article that fails WP:GNG for fictional characters. The usual plan for such non-notable characters is to redirect/merge to a minor characters list but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable company. Miracle Pen (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. As an editor who's nominated a pile of Transformers articles for deletion recently, I'm pretty sure no-one's going to complain if I close this early as a Keep. Regardless of the socking, it was a ludicrous nomination anyway. There might not be many notable characters in the franchise, but this is one of them. The non-free abuse still needs fixing, though, and I will do so soon if no-one else does. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable toy/fictional character. Fails WP:GNG - no significant reliable independent coverage exists. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete or Redirect All of the stuff only extend within the franchise. Many of these source fail as reliable as they are mostly fansites and messages boards. Which a lot of these articles are plagued with. Characters getting their own toys, appearing in various books within the franchise are not characteristics of nobility All information on Soundwave incarnation should be moved to more relevant character lists. Sarujo (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know much about Transformers and so trawled the sources where I found masses of information. This characters is a leader of the Decepticons and has been noticed by numerous publications including Time magazine and the New Yorker. There are sourcebooks which provide lots of detailed information and there will be no difficulty in supporting an article here. The general approach to these articles should be to merge/redirect where the character is a bit part or retention/development where the character is a major one like this. This is our policy and deletion is not needed to implement it. The spamming of AFD with all these nominations seems disruptive contrary to our deletion policy. Note that the nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Just to point out, Soundwave has never been leader. Sarujo (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Just to point out, he has been leader- in the Marvel UK Transformers comic - to quote the article "Soundwave also attained the leadership position in the future world of 2008, following the death of Shockwave (who had seized power when Galvatron travelled back in time). Soundwave led his era's Decepticons back to 1989 to participate in the Time Wars when the fabric of reality began to crumble, but before as the conflict came to a head they fled back to their own time.". Mathewignash (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Fictional character does not meet WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment- I'd rather not delete major characters like this while there's still so many obscure ones not yet nominated (like Fractyl). If even this deserves deletion, than someone should get rid of articles on most of the individual Power Rangers and a whole lot of other stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment-If this has to get deleted, I think then (almost) every individual G.I. Joe character should have it's article deleted. NotARealWord (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment-Maybe some but a good number of the Major ones like Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe) and Storm Shadow (G.I. Joe) have good independent sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Question - The Stormshadow page references a printed guide to GI Joe as a source. There are guides to Transformers like that, but I've always been told they are NOT conisdered good third party sources. If I can quote a Simon Furmon DK guide or other Transformers guidebook, a lot of Transformers articles will get tons of sources REAL quick! Can I use them? Mathewignash (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Maybe every other Dinobot should get deleted. NotARealWord (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Constructicons (edit | talk | 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 group of fictional characters- no significant coverage in independent reliable sources (fails WP:GNG). Blest Withouten Match (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about deleting this. The Constructicons are less obscure than the characters I nominated for deletion. Really, there's lots more obvious deletion candidates than this. NotARealWord (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW and the nominator being blocked as a sock. See here. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Fictional character which does not meet WP:GNG as there are no reliable independent sources which provide significant coverage. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep- Bumblebee is much less obscure compared to the ones I nominated for deletion. Really, if we delete this, I can maybe use that in an argument to remove most individual Kamen Riders. NotARealWord (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel pretty much the same way about Grimlock and Jazz (Transformers), although neither is as iconic as Bumblebee; I'll have to find the time to review the other recent Transformers AFDs though. BOZ (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect Seriously, all I'm seeing here is a bunch of fan people who are bent on protecting a bunch train wrecks cause the subjects had some role in a franchise every afternoon after school. Although he may have some nobility, none has been provided here. Many of the source used here automatically fail as reliable. Which a lot of these articles are plagued with. Until proper notability can be established, all information on Bumblebee incarnations should be moved to more relevant character lists. Sarujo (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wouldn't think many secondary fictional characters (short of Falstaff) are really "encyclopedic", but Knowledge (XXG) has largely redefined what "encyclopedic" means. Bumblebee seems at least as significant to the Transformer's universe as Mew is to the Pokemon universe. Please pick your poison and apply it universally. If you go by "third-party sources", Bumblebee seems to qualify. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • NOTE The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. An uninvolved administrator should probably close this now. See ANI for details, if you really want 'em. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep as a sockpuppet nomination by Claritas (talk · contribs). No prejudices against renomination after a week to give time for the other butt-load of Transformers AfDs to worth themselves through, which may give guidance on what to do with this article. —Farix (t | c) 23:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This character co-starred in FOUR major motion pictures. He has dozens of toys. He's appeared in countless comic books. Who knows how many video games? Heck, he even got killed by G.I.Joe once. Lots42 (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable fictional character. The article is rated start-class but there's really not much to expand upon besides in-universe stuff and toy description. Delete, please. NotARealWord (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Courcelles 04:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. Without any independent sources to show notability, which no one has managed to even hint exists, the article cannot be kept. Consensus among the comments based in policy is clearly for deletion. Courcelles 04:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Character is not notable. Delete NotARealWord (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

This person does not appear to meet the basic requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia, or more specifically WP:AUTHOR. The article is almost certainly an autobiography and I cannot find any independent sources to verify that they are notable. Smartse (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. This article about Russian art historian who writes about the known and well-known Russian artists of the Soviet era - representatives of the Leningrad School of Painting (see for example Alexander Samokhvalov, Sergei Osipov, Mikhail Natarevich, and others). He is the author of the well-known еncyclopedic edition "Unknown Socialist Realism. The Leningrad School" (in Russian and English), which is "a first inclusive publication on the history of the Leningrad School, one of the brightest and significant phenomena in the Soviet Art of 1930-1980 that strongly influenced its contents and development". In the article there are numerous external links on use of his book by major American and European fine art galleries, libraries, and museums as an important source for studying both the history of Soviet art in general, and creativity of its individual members. There is a solid contribution to Knowledge (XXG) on the subject (over 200 articles in english and russian, and over 400 media files), marked by The Commons Barnstar. As you can see, the article was created May 6, 2010 and until August 30 to the article there were no complaints. Is not the reason for the removal of article conflicts arising in connection with the removal of his edits? Leningradartist (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless more sources are added demonstrating notability of the author. Right now the only solidly verifiable bit of info we have is the publication of the "Unknown Socialist Realism. The Leningrad School" book. However, the links provided above by User:Leningradartist are not sufficient to demonstrate even the notability of the book, let alone of its author. Several of these links, are library catalog entries - they certainly do not demonstrate notability. Notability of the book could be demonstrated by published reviews of it or significant specific discussion of the book in other books, scholarly articles, etc. Among the links Leningradartist provides above, there is one which does have one paragraph worth of discussion of the book. But it would be necessary to have considerably more such examples of coverage to demonstrate notability of the book, and even more to infer the notability of the author - the book would have to be a real hit to make the author notable just on the basis of writing that book. It may well be that the subject of the article is notable but the refs included in the current text of the article are quite insufficient to justify notability. If there are significant academic awards/honors or something else in terms of signficiant and specific coverage of the subject himself independent sources, they are yet to be produced. Finally, this is definitely a WP:AUTO case - the info at the userpage User:Leningradartist identifies him as Sergei Ivanov, the subject of the article we are discussing. For WP:AUTO situations the evidence of notability would have to be particularly convincing to justify inclusion. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete This is essentially the work of an editor whose article was deleted from the Russian wikipedia and is currently flooding this wikipedia with literally hundreds of mediocre articles and imagery...Modernist (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Brushguard (edit | talk | 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 and obscure fictional character. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - Just to be clear, Brushguard didn't appear in the Cybertron TV series, which was produced in Japan by Takara, since he was an invention of the US partner company Hasbro, he appeared in the accompanying comic book stories, which were written in the US. Mathewignash (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable fictional character. Rather obscure due to being a fan club character. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Obscure character no effort to provide reliable sources Delete.Dwanyewest (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete- obscure and non-notable even by minor Transformers characters standards. And, Mathew, it is a bit rich to complain that these articles are being nominated en masse when for two years you've made a point of ignoring anyone who tells you that the articles have serious issues. Reyk YO! 07:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I remember at the time this was released there actually ended up being some news coverage because of a mistake Hasbro made in naming the combined form that Heatwave was the last part of. They called it "Nexus Maximus", and that ended up being the name of a sexual aid. I remember several non-Transformers news sites covering this. Anyone know of any articles on this? Mathewignash (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the sites where reporting the name issue, wouldn't that be more appropriate in an article for Nexus? If it's just about the name, then I'm not sure if those reports can make either notable, maybe they'd make Heatwave's instruction sheet notable? (considernig that "Nexus Maximus" was from that instruction sheet). NotARealWord (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - A news item reporting a goof on a toy's instruction sheet might not establish notability for the character the toy represents. Plus, there's not really enough stuff for a whole article without resorting to overly-detailed plot summarization. He appeared (as an individual) in one panel in the 2008 convention comic, one website strip and 5 parts of "Reunification. Considering that "Reunification" was about 36 pages in total and only released to fan club subscribers (as a serial in the magazine), I don't think he actually deserves an article. Heatwave is obscure. NotARealWord (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with the previous delete comments. (and yes, a news story about a minor name screw up wouldn't justify a stand alone article all about a non-notable fictional character -- nevermind that it isn't clear if such an article exists).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Courcelles 09:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. Courcelles 09:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tripredacus (edit | talk | 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 fictional character(s) that didn't really get much screentime. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG) does not need articles on non-notable fictional characters. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. no reliable source = no article. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Lars Pearson (edit | talk | 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 person. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Update - This is my mistake for rushing through this. Juice Magazine is part of The Des Moines Register, which is one of Iowa's larger newspapers. The Juice web site is actually part of the Des Moines Register's domain (dmjuice.desmoinesregister.com). I would think they are suffciently reliable, but I will still keep checking for other stuff. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment: dmjuice is in the Des Moines Register's domain, but it's a blogging resource, just like blogspot. Anybody can get a blog there. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment - This is my mistake again. I apologize to my fellow Wikipedians for not being more verbose. Juice is a tabloid put out by the Des Moines Register, which is where the interview was printed. Joe Lawler is a staff reporter and music critic for the Des Moines Register and also writes for Juice. He was the reporter who wrote the article about Lars Pearson. I should have stated that more clearly. Hope that clears up the confusion. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Extra verbose-ness - And Eric Rowley is the Assistant Photo Editor at the Des Moines Register and he is the the photographer that took the picture of Lars Pearson for the article. Just in case somebody was wondering. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per excellent improvements by editor Hydroxonium. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The references add up to a whole lot of nothing, they are either self-published or not from RS. The couple that are RS aren't actually about Pearson, in the best of them, he gets a single trivial mention. The fact that he has written quite a few books is irrelevent, it's not what you write, it's what people write about you that we are concerned with. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've updated this article for those who are interested and included a reference to an interview with U.S. News & World Report. Please note the interview is not "about him" it is "with him", regarding his expertise on collectables. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Appears to fail WP:BLP1E, coverage of the event is also here: Pakistani_cricket_team_in_England_in_2010#Betting_allegations. Errant 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He owns a minor football club. And he appears to invested a fair bit of money in it. He owns a mid-sized property company.

Keep This is turning into a major worldwide story that will rock the entire sport and could go back several years. He is also the agent of several players, has confessed to using Croydon Athletic Football Club to launder money and has a very suspicious track record as a director of companies. There is a good chance that the future of the players involved will be seriously affected by this and it appears Majeed is the instrumental figure behind it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.230.19 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep Majeed is central to a major furore in world of cricket, there are plenty of articles and reports about his role that show he is central to this story. Plus it seems that more revelations/allegations are to follow.
Keep While normally, I would not consider the events above to be worthy of a BLP1E, the allegations coming out that he was also involved in match-fixing a match between Pakistan and Australia and possibly spot-fixing matches during the World Twenty20 tournament, means the article passes BLP1E, and should stay. SirFozzie (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep It doesn't take a genius to realise how much this man has been in the press lately. Mar4d (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep Involved in a major controversy which was rocked the sport. The controversy has had major international coverage and could date back to over 82 matches Pakistan have played in all forms of the game. Per WP:CRIC I would say he is notable enough to have a stand alone article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E as per nomination. In the news ≠ notable for encyclopedic purposes, especially while no charges have been laid (hasn't he been bailed without charge?) and certainly no convictions recorded. Everything of note in this article could be in an article on the event. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete A lay-down and very prejudicial BLP1E. Everything of relevance can be covered proportionately in an event or general match fixing article. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E/nom. As of now, all the article consists almost entirely of allegations (albeit filmed by NOTW) of one incident. Incidental mentions when players thank him or his brother at public events (as their agent) do not count towards notability. Any aspect related to his involvement in the match fixing incident can be covered in that article, without need for a separate one. I wouldn't be opposed to a protected redirect either. —SpacemanSpiff 10:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
What about all the publicity which has surrounded Majeed, regardless of allegations? He's already been cast in dozens of news channels and even front pages of reputable newspapers. Don't see how he is not notable now by any standards. Mar4d (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
a) news coverage does not auto-establish notability and b) I can't find anything in the news about him other than this incident. --Errant 11:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Scroll up, click provided links. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeh, purchasing the football club, maybe, but it is quite tenuous. The betting scam is a vastly bigger part of his notability (and w/o it the club ownership would be trivial)--Errant 12:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If he is found guilty, we can have an article per WP:PERP criterion 3. Otherwise, it would be best simply to mention him in the article on the scandal. Claritas § 10:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna say Keep by a razor's edge. While all the literal points about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP are applicable, I think a little foresight is called for. The points about there being just allegations and no conviction yet, a criminal investigation and judicial proceeding could and prolly will take 1-2 years to complete, if at all - it seems silly for Knowledge (XXG) to delete this article and wait for the final verdict, while millions already draw their own, and then re-create. That ambiguity itself makes it important to know about the man at the center of it all, as opposed to being a plain-and-simple bookie caught in an open-and-shut case. What makes a difference is his long-term legit involvements with Pakistani players and co-ownership of a football club - involvements of some importance in the sporting world. There is also insight into the inner workings of match-fixing through this man's biography. Finally, HE was the target of a major sting operation by a major news organization, not the players themselves. Whether guilty or innocent, or both, this episode will likely be always remembered as the "Mazhar Majeed scandal" or something. Shiva (Visnu) 03:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Finally, I think the Essjay controversy was somewhat similar. Shiva (Visnu) 03:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The point being made is that, at this time, he is not notable outside the event - so per WP:BLP1E we should stick to an article about the incident. --Errant 11:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is now a separate criminal investigation into suggestions that he used Croydon Athletic F.C. for laundering tens of millions of pounds. See also

@Errant: I wasn't suggesting the consideration of another article. And the Essjay controversy was an example of someone not notable outside the event (which was, IMO, quite minor compared to this). Shiva (Visnu) 11:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Essjay controversy did not involve the President of Pakistan.
  • Keep. First, the match-fixing and spot-fixing allegations are two events, not one, as they refer to totally different games with totally different natures. Add in the coverage he received back in July 2008 as Croydon Athletic owner (, ) and in July when they won their league (), and it becomes near impossible to see how this falls under BLP1E. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Suggest redirect to 2010 Pakistan cricket spot-fixing controversy. The danger here is that all the coverage is adverse and we need to have a proper rounded article for a person subject to this level of controversy. I'd say this is BLP1E material but this is clearly too high profile and significant to fall into that category but aggregating all the material in the related article will prevent this being a negative BLP. Spartaz 03:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
There is coverage of his buying a football team and then winning the league, which is not negative. There is also coverage of his real estate activities that are not negative. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • merge As per Shiva. With him involved in a few things relating to this, there was no single article suitable for putting it all in one place, with the new article about the whole thing, that'd be a suitable place to also mention croydon etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.218.90 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Doesn't meet the qualifications of WP:MILPEOPLE Staffwaterboy 15:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:BIO. As the coverage he did receive was related to one event, the article also fails WP:BIO1E and WP:PERP. This person is very briefly mentioned in the testimony of one witness before an Interstate Commerce Commission hearing. I (or any of the editors in the last AfD) could find no other better sources. After the first AfD, there has been no improvement to the article, and it has sat tagged since June. I do not think there are better or additional sources to be found. ALXVA (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Smerge (selectively merge) (Similar to comments on the first AFD) a tiny bit of this related to the elevator incident to Grain elevator. In the target article, there is presently no mention of conflicts related to the market power of the railroads/grain elevator owners and the rise of cooperatively owned elevators. In the history of American agriculture the novel "The Octopus" by Norris also dealt with the monopoly power of the grain industry. This man is does not satisfy WP:BIO. He is alleged to have started a fire, but the outcome of his arrest is "unknown" according to the article. He gets a bare mention in some testimony, where the speaker was not sure of his name. I am not seeing multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of Watke. The article has all this biographical detail of his ancestors and family which would be more at home at some genealogical website. Edison (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Marasmusine (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 games of all time! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay, steaming pile of opinionated WP:OR WuhWuzDat 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

List of tornadoes spawned by Hurricane Earl (1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The problem with this article is that it's not notable. Tornado outbreaks happen all the time, particularly with landfalling tropical cyclones. The hurricane associated with the event isn't that notable (unlike, say, a tornado outbreak associated with Katrina), and the tornado outbreak itself isn't either - only one death and a few million damage. More pressing, most (if not all) of the content is already in the main article. The only thing the list article has is the table up top, which isn't really that necessary. In essence, it's a content fork. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues with this being deleted, your argument is quite valid. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While no strong consensus exists, the standing rule has been to keep such family relationship articles. Until the consensus clearly changes, such an article must be kept. It is a ugly stub that needs work, but that is not the purpose of AfD. It only needs to be encyclopedic to survive, which it is. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

A list of dictionary definitions. Georgia guy (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Most of the "article" deals with different types of nieces and nephews, none of which is very encyclopediac. It should be redirected to cousin, extended family, or just family. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The article was based upon the Encyclopaedia Britannica and so the suggestion that it is not encyclopaedic is therefore counterfactual. When one searches for other sources, as advised by our deletion policy, one immediately finds other good sources such as The Primitive Family in Its Origin and Development. Please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. A most excellent article, especially for people who come from different cultures who may not understand Anglo familial relation terms. I can't think of the name of the culture right now, but there are some cultures where they do not have a separate word for son and nephew, as their culture considers all offspring of their siblings as their own. —CodeHydro 15:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Move. The definition of nephew and niece belong in either the Wiktionairy, where some of the definitions would be an addition or in an article on genealogy where some of the definitions might also be an addition. I do agree with CodeHydro that a distinction is usefull, especially to those from other cultures who might wish to reference this in Knowledge (XXG). In Dutch for example there is no difference between a cousin and a nephew. Cousins are called nephews or nieces, regardless of degrees of separation. --JHvW (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 'Keep' No one reads wikionary, never has, and never will. Keep as a Knowledge (XXG) article. This is mentioned in a print encyclopedia, so no reason why Knowledge (XXG) wouldn't have it. Dream Focus 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful article with no question of notability. --Korruski (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete LiteralKa (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Unobjectionable, and mostly has common-sense definitions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs cleanup that's all. Loads of sources out there discussing this. Aiken (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and redirect. There's no way this can evade WP:NOTDIC. Arguments in favor that it has 'common-sense definitions' (again, WP:NOTDIC) or 'nobody reads Wiktionary' (neither relevant nor true) run contrary to policy. We already have plenty of articles that service understanding of the topic, and the bulleted list of terms has no apparent source (checking Wikisource, it's not from the 1911). Furthermore, it appears all of the sourced information, and some that's unsourced, has already been transwikied: see , , , et cetera. — Chromancer /cont 00:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - per CodeHydro above. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Dictionary definition and WP:OR. And worthless as a definition page, because it is internally contradictory. (For example, at one point it says that a nephew is the son of one's sister or brother; at another point it says son of a sister or brother or cousin - that's not a use of the term "nephew" I have ever seen. Also, the first paragraph contradicts itself about whether the son of one's sibling-in-law is really a nephew or not.) Completely unsourced. (Although the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is cited, virtually nothing in the article actually comes from that source; the rest is all WP:Original Research). --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, per MelanieN. Dictionary terms, no reason to be here. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Not to have an article about such a notable and common topic would mean Knowledge (XXG) is not a true encyclopedia. We should really have an article about any topic in one of the major paper 'pedias, like Britannica. People yelling NOTDICT aren't helping advance Knowledge (XXG), nor have they been looking up sources about nieces and nephews in families. Articles can and should be improved, not deleted simply because everyone is too lazy to go and make it less of a dictionary definition than it is now. —fetch·comms 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Fetchcomms, this is a very common topic and is included in paper encyclopedias. I think the article needs a rewrite, and better sources need to be found, but I think it is a important topic. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Middletown Township Public School District. —fetch·comms 02:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thorne Middle 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)

Despite the claim of national attention for it, this school appears to be a non-notable middle school. Per norm, should be a redirect to the city or school district. matic 14:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Timberlane Regional Performing Arts 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)

Non-notable buildings attached to regional schools. matic 14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Hopewell Valley Regional School District. —fetch·comms 02:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Timberlane Middle 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)

Non-notable school. I tried redirecting to the town per normal schools below high-school level (this is grades 6-8), but was reverted. matic 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


  • I don't think this is a non-notable school. Look at the categories under "middle schools in NJ". All of them have a Knowledge (XXG) page, so you would have to delete those too. other notable middle schools in the area such as Montgomery Upper Middle School have a article. This is a well-written page about a good school district, and does not meet any of the deletion criteria -tom8866
While not dispositive, WP:OUTCOMES#Education has this to say: "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD." matic 14:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


  • Merge/Redirect per Dior. And based on what tom8866 says, there are a lot more middle schools in New Jersey that also need to be merged/redirected - except for the rare school that achieves enough independent coverage to rank as generally notable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. For those who are tallying !votes, there were slightly more !deletes than !keeps, but a fairly even split with more than 30 persons expressing their view of what an online encyclopedia should or should not contain. Everyone is to be commended for conducting this as a very civil discussion. Mandsford 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

List of spoilers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
since moved to List of notable plot twists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of trivia. If these spoilers are notable in some way, they would be better covered in the relevent film/book/game/etc. article. Korruski (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not trivia. This is a list of spoilers. How is this different from List of unusual articles?http://www.object404.com (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's different because list of unusual articles is a redirect out of articlespace. And too many of those are either subjective or the result of original research. Strong delete. DS (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I submitted that to Reddit. So what?
So, this would constitute stealth canvassing --Korruski (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not aware of this policy. Am new to Knowledge (XXG). Object404 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory --Korruski (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Is that a serious comment? "Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information" _Maybe_ even thoguh it's not listed as an example. We're not defining spoilers, we're listing spoilers. 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.74.39 (talk)
Question: why is Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron which you proudly brandish in your personal user page deserving of a Knowledge (XXG) entry when it is simply a directory of people (Knowledge (XXG):DIRECTORY) which falls under Knowledge (XXG):Not, which is exactly why you want the the article deleted? Object404 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This page is an attempt to list the most significant & notable spoilers in media, literature & history. It is not an indiscriminate list, nor is it random. Such an article deserves existence, and if there are things wrong with the list, it can be remedied by proper editing. http://www.object404.com (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article in its current form may have problems, but that's no reason to delete it. The topic is fairly encyclopedic as far as lists are concerned, and makes for a good, concise reference. Throwaway85 (talk)
A 'spoiler' is really just a significant plot detail , so this article is no more than a potentially infinite list of indiscriminate plot details which, I firmly believe, breaches WP:NOT. I would be slightly happier if it were, for example, a list of notable spoilers and covered spoilers which have received some notoreity of their own. For example, the fact that Vader is Luke's father, and the twist to The Sixth Sense have probably received enough independent coverage to be seen as 'famous spoilers'. Even then, though, they would be better off simply included in Spoiler (Media) --Korruski (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Funny you should say that, because this is terribly unencyclopedic. An article like "List of significant plot twists" might be good but not this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. An article by a newcomer being not up to wikipedia standards is no reason to delete it. Just wikify and improve it. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Just 'Wikifying' this isn't going to make it an article worth keeping. I don't see what there is to 'fix'. My proposed solution is to delete it. --Korruski (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I din't suggest merely wikifying. If you think that the subject matter would be better treated as a "list of notable spoilers", then let's rename and adjust the list accordingly. Deleting a two hour-old article by a newcomer when there is salvageable content in it strikes me as bitey and counter to our purposes. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't clear, I realise. If this was treated as a "list of notable spoilers" then I would see more justification for it, but I would still propose merging it with Spoiler (Media). Actually, even a merge seems unecessary as I can find no useful/salvageable content in this article. --Korruski (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I know you don't like the article. You nom'd it after 28 minutes of existence and 12 edits. I think we should give it time and energy, flesh it out and improve it. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree. You haven't given it enough time to be fleshed out properly. Now renamed as per user:xeno's suggestion. Better? This page would probably be need to be split up into individual pages for the sub-categories as the content fills up.Object404 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Fleshing it out is not the issue. Either way, I can see this remaining simply an indiscriminate collection of poorly sourced information. If this page does remain after the AfD then I strongly feel that no 'twist' should appear without a decent source establishing the notability of the plot twist itself and not simply the notability of the original work. --Korruski (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
These are the most discussed plot twists in the entirety of the internet. These do not fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE at all. There is a need to compile a list of these. Will add article citations to remedy this. Acceptable? Object404 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
404, while I agree that the list has value, some of the items on it will need to come off. Only those which can be reliably sourced as being "notable" would be able to stay. Thus, "Snape kills Dumbledore" would be notable because of the coverage it has received in mainstream press, while some of the others may not. A stylistic rewrite is in order, but I see this article as a good-faith creation, that has some value to the project and could be turned into an article that meets our standards. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Done! I think it looks better that way. Good job!Object404 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Benvewikilerim, you would do your case more good if you could avoid adding joke entries. IMHO, this only serves to reinforce my feeling that making this article useful, and then keeping it useful, well-sourced and vandalism-free is going to be well-nigh impossible. --Korruski (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - "List of notable plot twists" is not a useful encyclopedia article. It sounds like a bad "In popular culture" section expanded to fill an entire article. And each list entry would have to be cited with a source showing its notability. Not worth it. --Cyde Weys 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Not worth it -> That's not your problem. If you don't want to do it yourself, then let the people contributing to the article take care of that. Object404 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
What is my problem is that this article continues getting expanded with increasingly irrelevant entries while your promise of taking care of the citations of the article is increasingly broken. It is every Wikipedian's responsibility to ensure that everything on Knowledge (XXG) is properly sourced. The issue is not that I'm too lazy to "do it myself", it's that a lot of what is entering into the article is at worst a fabrication, at best a joke, and it needs to be removed completely. If I was lazy I wouldn't be addressing the issue by contributing here and elsewhere; I'd just be ignoring it. --Cyde Weys 19:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is a need for some people to peruse all notable spoilers in a single repository. It is quite unreasonable to create a "spoiler" section on every single Knowledge (XXG) article, nor is it reasonable to create a spoiler page for each article. As compiling this list would be a monumental task and would take the efforts of many researchers, there is no better place for this than with Knowledge (XXG).Object404 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: Even though this "isn't a vote", you still can't !vote twice. If your comment is in response to someone, simply reply underneath their comment. If it's a general comment, just preface it with Comment instead of Keep. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As a point of order, a 'spoiler' is when someone reveals a plot twist. There's not many notable spoilers, though there are a good many notable plot twists. –xeno 15:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Some of the items on this list (the snape kills dumbledore affair, for instance) are clearly spoilers, whereas others are plot twists. The two should be in separate lists/articles, should those individual articles merit creation. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, and to further clarify what I was driving at, revealing a plot twist to someone who wasn't aware is almost always a spoiler, but a spoiler is not always a plot twist. –xeno 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, indiscriminate list. Who says "most notable" about these? Doubt it could ever be more than an essay. List of films considered the worst‎ has strong criteria for inclusion -- I can't see how you would come up with similar criteria here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, as stated above— it's an indiscriminate list in that there isn't an objective criteria for inclusion which doesn't span practically all fiction. The useful purposes of this article could be better addressed using a category or a collection of categories (E.g. "Films with surprise endings"). To whatever extent a useful, well cited, objectively selected article of this kind could exist it wouldn't benefit from this article as a starting point. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only those aspects that are notable, with the twist as a part of the coverage. --\/\/slack (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, a useful addition to the topic of plot twists. Also, as the article has been renamed, half the comments here (for or againsst) are no longer valid. —Pengo 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, even at the time you wrote the above a significant super-majority of the comments here were post-rename. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Almost every work of fiction has some detail that could be considered a "plot twist", otherwise it would be boring and predictable. This is just a list of trivia. Mr.Z-man 16:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
By that definition, then List of unusual articles should be deleted. How was that article different from "a list of trivia"? As mentioned before, there is a need to list down notable plot twists in a single repository. For people looking for this kind of data, it would be difficult to scour every single article for plot twists. This entry would be an invaluable resource. There is no better way to create such an article/repository than with Knowledge (XXG) and its contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Object404 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Um. There is no List of unusual articles article. There is a Knowledge (XXG):Unusual articles page outside of the main namespace. Knowledge (XXG) internal amusement and navigational aids are not subject to the same criteria as encyclopedia articles. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)List of unusual articles isn't an article. Its a link to a list in the Knowledge (XXG) namespace. The redirect probably should be deleted as an inappropriate CNR. Most of these facts of yours have no basis. How is there a need? Where is the demand for it? Who are these people looking for this data? Mr.Z-man 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
*COMPLETE WRONG*. That entry started as a list of unusual articles. Give this article entry time, it's just a few hours old and hasn't been fleshed out yet. Mr., stupid as this sounds, just research the internet. You haven't given people the chance to flesh out the article with citations yet. As for proof, just go to Google.com, start typing "List of spoilers" or "List of plot twists" and you will see that Google will try to autocomplete those phrases for you. That means many people are looking precisely for this list. Object404 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Very funny. Someone just deleted list of unusual articles and stopped it redirecting to Knowledge (XXG):Unusual articles just to make a point here. How mature of you. Object404 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Go look at the logs on the unusual articles page, it was not created as an article as far as I can tell… and even if it were, that would have been an obvious mistake. It's not article material, it's Knowledge (XXG) navel gazing though amusing wikipedia navel gazing. Perhaps you should spend a little more time getting to know Knowledge (XXG) before you begin with the all-caps bold-text assertions? --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Why should I spend my time researching something that you already claim to know the answer to? You claim that people have a use for this, but can't point to anything except a vague "search the internet." Google auto-completes lots of stuff, some of it pure nonsense, that's not even close to an indication of importance or utility. Mr.Z-man 19:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Almost exactly as per User:Gmaxwell. This could be a very useful starting point for a (set of) category(ies) encompassing these topics, but as an article it lacks any coherent criteria for inclusion, is almost entirely uncited, and seems to be focused on lulzy wording rather than encyclopedic info. The article and its reddit post were mentioned on IRC, which is how I found the article and its AFD, but no one has asked/told me to vote in any way here. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    Weak keep. Changing my vote based on the progress the article has made. I can see how this could become a useful, encyclopedic source of information, but I also fear it would be a constant, neverending duel between the "only independently notable, cited examples" people and the "everyone knows about it, so it's notable!" people. In the past 24 hours, that battle has already started shaping up, and given that I think the purpose could also be served almost as well by a set of categories, I'm not sure if keeping the article would end up being worth it. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete— Per WP:NOT. At present, this is attempting to be "a list of everything that has ever existed" within a large realm. There's clearly no effort to constrain this to a specific notable subset; this is a bunch of people submitting witty comments about a random bunch of movies. There's no point in trying to salvage this. -- ngroot (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article is presently (just a lulzy kindof non-encyclopedic romp), without prejudice to it being recreated in proper tone with appropriate sources to support each plot twist that is asserted to be notable. –xeno 19:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - how about this as an objective value of significance/notability? "Some of these plot twists have been referenced so much that they have become in themselves accepted terms or memes, and have become part of pop culture." The fact that a number of these plot twists have become part of culture is proof of their significance and notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Object404 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    This marks your third bolded "keep" left on this AFD. Do note Throwaway's comments to you above. –xeno 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Fixed Object404 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
If this is the case, then you need to demonstrate it through reliable, independent sources. This would be a better use of your time than continuing to add yet more unsourced examples. --Korruski (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I actually began the article as a semi-reaction to the recent major media brouhaha by Agatha Christie's family criticizing Knowledge (XXG) for revealing the plot of The Mousetrap.

Please read the following article: Agatha Christie’s family criticise Knowledge (XXG) for revealing Mousetrap ending - The family of Agatha Christie has criticised Knowledge (XXG) for revealing the ending of The Mousetrap, the world’s longest running play. There's been a number of discussions on it on the internet like this for example. So really, there is more to the creation of this article than just internet lulz and is also about internet rights. What do you guys think? Object404 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If so, I think it's funny that that mention of The Mousetrap wasn't added until much later, and your plea for reddit users to come stack this discussion took the form of "Help! Cranky Knowledge (XXG) editor trolls are trying to destroy good clean fun!". None the less— there is nothing about "internet rights" to even discuss here. Don't fall for the drivel pushed out by worthless "news" organizations on slow news days. This kind of information exists all over Knowledge (XXG) in the appropriate articles already, and there is absolutely no danger of any of it being removed.
If anything this list does a disservice to the most compelling argument related to "spoilers": that we can't have a complete encyclopaedia coverage of a subject without divulging these critical details. By failing to be especially informative, encyclopaedic, or even accurate this lulzy list doesn't make for a good justification. If this was the only way that 'spoilers' existed in Knowledge (XXG), I might argue that it simply isn't worth having them at all. I'd suggest taking this article to TV Tropes since it already imitates their organizational style far more than it does Knowledge (XXG)'s— but really the writing there is far better than this article is, or really, better than it could ever hope to be. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, 404 didn't make the "plea" you reference, I did. When I first saw the article, I thought it was jocular, but that there was salvageable content. Deleting it simply because it does not, in its current form, conform to our standards seemed to me, and still does, to be short-sighted. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It's all a matter of proper writing style and citation then. Give the article time to be fleshed out. It's not easy to finish it in the span of a few hours, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Object404 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It isn't "all a matter of proper writing style and citation", though the improvement of that isn't helped by your edit warring. I stand by my initial statement— that this probably ought to just be a (set of) categor(y|ies). You've yet to suggest why you think that wouldn't be a reasonable solution. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. While that would be a marked improvement, I still think the overall list would suffer from POV issues, scope, etc. I find myself more compelled by the argument that the information belongs in the relevant article about that work, such as the movie or book. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Based on the current state of the article where lots of IP users keep removing sourced info and adding unsourced info, I fear this has no chance of actually meeting guidelines. It should go. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with Spoiler (media). There are many spoilers that have become notable in their own right, meaning they have been the subject of discussion in reputable media apart from general discussion of the film/novel/whatever. That's not indiscriminate. The Mousetrap spoiler is the great example. You could probably write a well-sourced article just on that spoiler and the controversy over it. I say merge because with such a criterion, the list might actually be too short to qualify as an article rather than absurdly long. – Þ  03:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Even ignoring the fact that this list could potentially stretch on forever, this particular article serves no purpose besides aggregating individual unrelated plot twists that would make more sense to be listed on their own pages. There are a ridiculous number of plot twists in each book on its own, in addition to the major plot twist. Leave the plot twists on their own pages. --V2Blast (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment and proposal - This AfD will be open for a week, barring a hasty close. It's pretty clear that the majority opinion is that the article should not exist, at least not in its current form. 404, i'd like to work with you to bring it up to a higher standard. This will necessitate culling many of the items in the list as they now stand, and finding sources that attest to the notability of others. I'd like the closing admin to consider the article in its final state, rather than its current one, when judging the rationales given above. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The current article is definitely improved. That article in 'TheAge' is exactly the kind of source that is needed if this concept is ever to work. My concern remains that this kind of source is hard to find, and most editors will not bother, meaning this article will either stay very short and incomplete or (more likely) slowly revert to being full of jokes, nonsense and a potentially infinite list of plot twists with no meaningful sources. My current preference would still be to simply make this a category (e.g. 'Films with notable plot twists') and then establish the notability of the twist on the film page itself. However, I guess I'm open to being convinced otherwise. --Korruski (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete on principle - potentially endless list even if confined to cinema, but especially impossible if you do what it says and include twists from 19th, 20th, 21st century literature, computer games, comic books, an other "various media". At best, you could Merge the existing with Spoiler (media). NZ forever (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The important differences are that List of minor planets has a very clear and definite scope and criteria, and is a list recorded by an recognised authority. This article does not have a clear and definite scope (what defines a twist?), the criteria for inclusion appears to be entirely POV (what makes a twist notable?), and there is no recognised authority on the subject. --Escape Orbit 09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a technical difficulty here. I started reading the article then realised that it was going to spoil works which I have not read or viewed yet. This makes it difficult to improve the article within the timescale of AFD - one has to approach the matter indirectly. The recent Mousetrap case clearly indicates that spoilers and/or plot twists may have great notability, and so this article adds value by assisting readers in navigation to these cases, if they don't mind the risk. If particular entries are unsatisfactory then they may be dealt with by ordinary editing and deletion would be unhelpful and contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Your problem would be solved by the suggestion to make this a category, and this would still assist readers in navigating to these cases without spoiling plots that they don't want spoilt. --Korruski (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree entirely with Korruski. If this is to work at all it should be a category. --Escape Orbit 09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some plot twists (and spoilers about them) are not just relevant in the context of the movie/whatever that contains them, but are also notable on their own just for being a remarkable plot twist, with reliable sources and references in popular culture. We could merge this list into Plot twist or Spoiler (media), but I think a long list like this is better kept as an independent article. --memset (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt anyone disagrees that some plot twists are notable on their own, but why isn't the response to that a discussion about them in the articles you mentioned? What informative value does a great big list offer when those articles exists and provide a framework for a comprehensive discussion of the subject?--Gmaxwell (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It is my honest belief that there is a need for a centralized repository/catalogue of this kind of content and said repository page will outgrow those two articles above mentioned by memset, Plot twist and Spoiler (media). Moreover, it would serve as a very useful reference in the future for people doing research on the subject, and will be a big help for future generations. Object404 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this article is notable and has encyclopedic qualities. Here is your criteria: the fiction work is notable as it has its own article and more than one reliable source labels it as a spoiler. Categories are great as well to provide improved navigation per WP:CLN.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Topic seems too vaguely defined. I don't think even TV Tropes has a page like this. NotARealWord (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are plot twists that are surely notable per se: The Mousetrap is perhaps the most known example, but also the one of Planet of the Apes, for example, is cited often in popular culture and probably references can be found. The article needs a lot of cleanup and referencing, but in the end seems to me a valuable list. Inclusion criteria can be tailored in the article talk page. --Cyclopia 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • KeepComment If someone can find magazine articles or books See which discusses "The top 10 spoilers of all time" which lists six top spoilers amidst a discussion of why people object to spoilers, which lists five top spoilers in a discussion of spoilers, and . There is some commonality and overlap among the listings. Such published selective listings of particularly annoying spoilers, wherein a literary killjoy gives away the silly plot twists and "SHOCKING ENDINGS" that motivate a certain mediocre genre of play, book or movie, support this article. (edited after finding some such listings) Edison (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as a perfect example of an indiscriminate list. No criteria are available to determine what plots should be listed here, apart from polling among editors (aka WP:OR). Referencing items to some kind of relevant review is just an attempt to avoid the OR tag, and is not going to work because there is no established procedure in the arts for assessing plot twists: someone will write an article and comment on a plot simply to fill space, so some plots could be included or excluded purely by chance. Lists should be restricted to those with at least a hope of objective inclusion criteria (for example, winners of a particular award). Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is definitely delete case per trivia and it is indiscriminate as of now, and unless someone does some huge expansion from reliable sources without OR, this needs to be deleted, Sadads (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I more or less agree with Johnuniq. The list is indiscriminate and relies upon editors' original research. Reyk YO! 14:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivia, wobbly inclusion criteria. Is there anything particularly notable about the plot of "Bioshock"? Hairhorn (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    Other than that it's got one of the better-known and well-regarded plot twists (and plots, generally) of video games? –xeno 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It is disappointing when people blather about "It is all original research" and ignore the citations I provided above showing reliable sources with listings of notable spoilers, which can be used to support the commonly listed notable spoilers. Edison (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I'm quite confused as to how providing a citation that identifies a plot twist as noteworthy is considered original research. –xeno 19:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure what real value this has, and its also a huge spoiler space. But at the saem time its not more trivial then a lot of silly lists. I think I lean towards delete but only becasue this seems to be a list of massive spoilers that has no eclyclopedic value.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comparison Comment guys, take a look at List of Internet phenomena. Doesn't that have many of the exact same issues for Keep/Delete comments being discussed here? I think list of notable plot twists has mostly the same problems as List of Internet phenomena, and yet the latter has been allowed. Double-standards from inclusion opponents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.133.212 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, would seem to be a rather loose inclusion criteria. Although obviously WP:SPOILER exists, I'm not sure why anyone would want to list all of them outside of their respective articles. Bob talk 11:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep All these presently here can certainly be sourced by secondary sources not just as being plot elements, but as being notable surprise endings. A few dozen more could easily be added. If it becomes a few hundred, no harm will be done, as long as they are properly referenced-- NOT PAPER. It is a perfectly reasonable function of an encyclopedia to provide this material.If someone wishes to prepare such a list without giving away the ending, that's fine too, but it wouldn't belong on Knowledge (XXG).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. —fetch·comms 02:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

AI Magazine (edit | talk | 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, all content is already in the main article, AAAI Brambleclawx 12:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Not really that important a character. Nothing to indicate that it has real-world notability. Delete NotARealWord (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Only has importance within the franchise. So all information should be redirected to relavant character lists. Originaly I had redirected to the War for Cybertron article. Sarujo (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I'm not sure about rediercting to War for Cybertron. Considering:

  1. The name "Zeta Prime" was not made up for the game.
  2. Hasbro's official name for the War for Cybertron character might be Sentinel Zeta Prime. (see here)

NotARealWord (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Other Wikis and Wikias are not reliable sources. Either way, the character is not notable. Sarujo (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I still think merging (if at all) should be done with something else. NotARealWord (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That just it. If a character has mutiple incarnations, then all incarnations need to be place in the appropriate character lists. The current Zeta in War For Cybertron, The original in the original in the original character list. See? Sarujo (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
So... merge with this? NotARealWord (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm against deletion or merging, there are already so many obscure comic book characters and characters from other franchises in wikipedia. Is it really going to hurt the quality of wikipedia to leave this article? My magic eight ball says "Not likely".M4bwav (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It doesn't do any harm. NotARealWord (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In truth, that article should be tagged too. There no nobility it anywhere to show that the title of Prime has extended past the confines of the franchise. Sarujo (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment' - But he's NOT a comic-only character. The guy from War for Cybertron is kinda, him, and he was mentioned in The Allspark Almanac Volume II, which retconned him into a character from the original cartoon. But really he's still not notable . NotARealWord (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - It was my understanding that he first appeared in the animated series. To be precise, the episode Five Faces of Darkness. Sarujo (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, via a hidden retcon. NotARealWord (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion and is in keeping with the WP:PRESERVE policy. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. —Farix (t | c) 18:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I earlier tagged this with a notability issue tag, but User:Mathewignash had it removed. Which is why I decided to niminate this article for deletion. Even if it doesn't get deleted, at least I can make it clear that the subject doesn't deserve it's own article and Mathewignash can't stop that. I'm guessing it's not the kind of disruptive act mentioned here, since it's clear that Zeta Prime isn't actually worthy of an article. NotARealWord (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced, no indication of notability. Google turns up nothing - WP mirrors for the full name, lots more unrelated hits without the "James" or "The American Tory". JohnBlackburnedeeds 12:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Rock Hill, South Carolina Area (edit | talk | 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 describes an actual location, it's a big mass of synthesis. I can find no evidence that this is a recognized region, except for a single document from the Rock Hill city website that appears to restrict this region to a portion of York County, South Carolina — no sources appear to exist for the existence of a three-county sub-metropolitan area. Because the very idea that such a sub-metropolitan area exists appears to be made up by one or more Knowledge (XXG) editors, it's not a valid article topic; yes, these counties are part of a metropolitan area, but it's the Charlotte metropolitan area, and US metropolitan areas can't have metropolitan areas within them. Please consider this document, which contains official definitions for metropolitan areas in the USA; you'll see that Chester and Lancaster counties aren't in any metropolitan area, while York County is included in the Charlotte metropolitan area. Finally, please know that I considered merging to the Charlotte metro article, but this isn't a good choice, simply because the data included in this article are a mix of Charlotte metro and non-Charlotte metro information. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Loud (Rihanna 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)

Like Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Only Girl, upcoming Rihanna release, all sources here are either fan sites, blogs or twitter feeds. The only links here that are slightly acceptable are from MTV, whose articles quote the same things in the blogs and fan sites. None of these confirm the album's title. No official announcement from Def Jam. Too soon. WP:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL. - eo (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment the problem is that this article (as it is now) is based almost solely on Rihanna fan sites and blogs. Aside from the MTV link, and now the Billboard link, everything else fails WP:RS. Take everything out of the article that is sourced with an unacceptable link, and what is left? This should be written as an encyclopedia article, not the place for people to come to get the latest Rihanna news. - eo (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I understand what you are saying and you I am in total agreement with you, some who edit Knowledge (XXG) are fans who don't know that Knowledge (XXG) does have standards it needs to maintain. I would be willing to take the page on my own accord and find some reliable, ideally official sources, but I'm just not willing to do so as there is a chance the page will be deleted and the time invested in sorting the page out will be wasted Stevo1000 (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, if you want to improve the article, go ahead. There's nothing wrong with putting it on a subpage of your own and working on it until there is enough third-party information to warrant its own page. And even if the page is deleted (as opposed to redirected), the deleted versions of the page can be restored at a later time by an admin (so no matter which way you do it, all is not "lost" forever). - eo (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - For the majority of references are not site faithful, should be deleted.*Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Incubate or Redirect - I agree that it is pointless that the article be deleted only to be reinstated soon. Is it possible that it could be incubated and worked on in the incubator until closer to the release date? If not, it is best to just redirect it to Rihanna's main article. Adam 94 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment Might be a good idea to improve the page first. Like I say deleting it would be pointless as the page will pop up again within a few weeks and we'll be at square one again. Also the deletion question mark looming over the page probably deters good Knowledge (XXG) users from improving the article as they know their investment in the page will be wasted if it does get deleted. If anything we need to give the page time, I for one would be interested in adding reliable sources and overall improving the page, but the threat that contributions could be wasted deters me from doing so Stevo1000 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect or at least delete the 'release history' part which is ludicrous as it has not been released yet. No encyclopedia would contain future events and, as I have seen mentoined before on this site: 'Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball' 14:22, 9 September 2010
  • Delete or incubate so far i have yet to read a valid reason for a keep. Albums fails WP:HAMMER (No Cover, No Tracklisting). Fails WP:NALBUM. The references are crap, blog after blog after blog and fansites? are we joking?. Album is three months away, article is no where near notable yet. I would strongly suggest an incubation. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • undeniable REDIRECT, there is not a case for this to be kept. More than half of the sources are unreliable or impropper. As an impending release it should be redirected although I think its also obvious that it will need protection to because users will keep reopening this article. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • undeniable, obvious KEEP come on people. if there is a page for Kanye West's "Dark Twisted Fantasy" (a redirect from "5th Studio Album") then what's the problem with this entry? i don't see how an MTV link, a Billboard link and Rihanna's own words are not enough. Whose reporting are you waiting for, the London Independent? the Montreal Gazette? let's keep this article and clean it up as we go along! (Mikoism (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC))
Not a valid reason. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF "The nature of Knowledge (XXG) means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


  • Keep Just keep it, it's going to be re-opened again anyway or have to be created again which is stupid and a waste of time. Album is two months from released, a single has already been released. The page can only expand from now onwards. To me, it's an obvious keep, or a re-direct from the albums name back to "Rihanna". It's just hassle to delete to and have to re-do it all again. The album and title has been confirmed by both Rihanna and the label. I think i have made my point. calvin999 21:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - even if it will never be released, the album seems to meet the general notability guideline as it is. Arbitrarily0  17:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Kate branch (edit | talk | 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 was created as a result of this paid editing bid on elance.com in violation of our policy that Knowledge (XXG) is not a vehicle for promotion. The subject appears to be nonnotable (being a Playboy model is not in itself an indicator of notability) as she hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 12:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical veracity of the Apostles (edit | talk | 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 Original research. This is an original synthesis with no evidence at all that the opinions expressed come from anyone other than the author of the article. (PROD was removed by the author of the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks. There may be some ideas and assertions in this text that are correct and possibly verifiable but the article is written entirely as a lengthy and argumentative pure WP:OR essay and is simply unsalvageable. Someone else, if and when an appropriate expert might be found, may at some point in the future want to write a WP article on this topic that has at least some semblance of compliance with Knowledge (XXG) content policies, but it would have to be done totally from scratch. The current text is not salvageable and not improvable and must be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Disputed prod. No evidence of real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Disputed prod. No evidence of real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

no real claim to notability, no evidence of multiple significant roles in notable productions, no evidence awards are major, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. sourcing is listings or not covering Alessi past trivial or not reliable or self published. original research. probable coi. nothing satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER duffbeerforme (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I feel this article does not need a deletion as Paul is/was involved in numerous television shows on network television. As well as numerous films and other information. Sources will be updated as per comment requests, I also move that Duffbeerforme be reviewed and questioned as to his multiple deletion records on numerous articles. Please advise me if there is another place to dispute this. I am a fan of Paul's and would like to know why this article was deleted with such gusto by Duffbeerforme. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.76.112 (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. Notability also seems to be lacking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

This person does not seem notable to me. I see no achievement in the description. SyG (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - Dare I say hoax? From the piece: For over a decade, he has conducted ethnographic research in the inflatable amusements industry studying the phenomenon of temporality and social interaction. Are we using big words to indicate that this is a scholar of inflatable fuck-dolls? That's my take. Maybe he's a highly esteemed student of "inflatable amusements," but I reckon WP can do without this article either way... Carrite (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Make that a Speedy as copy vio from Amazon.com... Carrite (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Salix (talk): 08:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete No independent sources cited at all, and no indication of notability. Every prize offered internally by a school, college, or university to its students is not notable. PROD was removed with edit summary saying "I think this merits discussion", but no attempt to start such a discussion, as far as I can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Parasitic technology (edit | talk | 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 There is no evidence of any significant coverage of this neologism. There are blogs, definition listings, etc, sources that briefly use the term in the course of referring to other subjects, but very little material about the concept. The references in the article are all to related organisations that exist to promote "intellectual property rights", and certainly not independent coverage (only one of these is not a blog post). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The History Press (edit | talk | 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 was written by an employee of the company and not one of the references is independent. It either needs a rewrite with independent sources, or removal. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I contributed to the article and definitely do not work for the company. I am an author with them however. Does this make be biased?? Keep the article and expand. Peterlewis (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Nakazato has served as a director for four video games. I don't think these few credits are quite notable enough for an article; I can't find any information about the person himself. It does not seem to be possible to expand the article beyond a short credits list, with actual biographical information. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. G5; both substantial contributors have been blocked as sockpuppets. —fetch·comms 02:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

We alreday have 31 lists of EastEnders characters, including a List of past EastEnders characters. There is no compelling reason to have another list of only those that actually died in the series, if needed those that are fictionally dead can be noted in the list of past characters. Lists of characters based on some story element (list of emigrated characters of EastEnders, list of imprisoned characters of EastEnders, ...) is a never-ending source of new trivia. Basically, this grouping fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Anemone, could you point me to a policy on that please? As I see it, once created, an article becomes common property (WP:OWN). This article is not a hoax, is not spam, and is not vandalism; in its current condition, is factual, accurte, and clean. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:CSD#G5. The article has had no substantial edits from users other than the creator (only tagging and minor cleanup) so this criteria for speedy deletion still applies. I didn't say the article was a hoax, I just gave that as a reason for the user being blocked. After the block, I realised the user was a sockpuppet, and was in violation of their block when the article was created. Therefore, this is a criteria for speedy deltion. I already deleted all the user's other creations under WP:CSD#G5 but I left this one because it was at AFD. However, it is still partially a recreation of a deleted article. (But it isn't actually entirely accurate.) AnemoneProjectors 10:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The list has been significantly expanded by an additional editor.Kudpung (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't mean you can remove the AFD notice from the article. (sorry, that wasn't you) It is still a recreation of a previously deleted article, is still completely "in universe", contains no sources and is still inaccurate. The deleted article was recreated as a subpage of WikiProject EastEnders for reference but it was deemed trivial with no encyclopaedic value (Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders) which is why it was deleted. This has not changed. AnemoneProjectors 10:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Besides, the other user is the same user with another sockpuppet account, so they are also blocked. So it's still a creation by a blocked user with no significant contributions from other users. AnemoneProjectors 16:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Critter (edit | talk | 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 would have speedied it except it'd only slip through because it's completely ambiguous. I think it's some fictional character for a game... In any case it's not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Burns playground (edit | talk | 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 separate article about some park in a city? Seriously? Article fails WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. This article is not notable, and has no content. -- Rixs (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not impossible for a local park to be notable if valid sources are present...but they're not present here. I'm willing to support the keep side if real sources demonstrating notability can be added, but as currently written it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mirshad Buckman (edit | talk | 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:MUSICBIO, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". No activity independent of the band is shown. PROD contested with no improvement or explanation. Muhandes (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete personal promotion

--Wipeouting (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dhanushka Samarasinghe (edit | talk | 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:MUSICBIO, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". No activity independent of the band is shown Muhandes (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete personal promotion

--Wipeouting (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Shanka Samarasinghe (edit | talk | 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:MUSICBIO, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". No activity independent of the band is shown. PROD contested with no improvement or explanation. Muhandes (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete personal promotion

--Wipeouting (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bruce shoop (edit | talk | 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 minister/political activist does not appear to be sufficiently notable, either by WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. The only independent source provided in the article was on him being in court facing drug possession charges. No significant coverage was found through a Google and a Google News search. –Grondemar 05:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

List of ZTE customers (edit | talk | 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 contested on the grounds that "the list could help someone, maybe." Here's an alternative: add an external link on the article ZTE to the company's website, and from there anyone interested might find a list of customers. That's where the information came from anyway. Seriously, Knowledge (XXG) is not a repository of indiscriminate information. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 05:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sergio Floro (edit | talk | 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 footballer Sandman888 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Association of Occupational Therapy Students (edit | talk | 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 student group in India. No clear claim to notability, sole source is the group's blog. Prod declined with no real improvement. Hairhorn (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

i would like say something... i have linked the article with a web page called Occupational Therapy Health Mela which was solely the work Of Association of Occupational Therapy students. and about non notable group, let me tell you, its an registered Organization under Under SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT OF xxi, 1860 tell me anything else to prove its originality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitkochhar (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC) — Amitkochhar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • No one doubts that the club exists. The question is whether it is notable--please see WP:N. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The association clearly exists and does good work, but it is not "notable" in the Knowledge (XXG) sense. That is, other independent sources have not written about it or taken note of it. Only self-referential sources found. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable musician. Apparently won a local battle of the bands, and that's about it. Only one reliable sources cited from a local newspaper; the rest is a listing in an event programme and refs from their own web site. Fails WP:BAND. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Article has been unreferenced since 2006, and I couldn't find any references for it. It is basically a dictionary definition. Google returns no usable result, but the the top Google results for the terms "horseplay" and "roughhousing" point to dictionaries. The small and not-very-useful amount of material in the article is probably mostly more-or-less true, but it reads like something written off the top of someone's head. Does not contribute to the sum of human knowledge as it is uncitable and unusable due to its inability to be referenced, and the existence of the article gives the false impression that we have something useful to say about the subject. I believe that it is probably possible to write a decent short article on the subject, and I'll bet that somewhere there is source material in child study literature for such an article, but anybody writing a real article might as well start from scratch. Herostratus (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is a reason to delete it! We only put things on Knowledge (XXG) that can be verified/sourced to outside reliable sources. If it is nowhere else but here, it is WP:Original research and doesn't belong here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Basically original research, no citations or references provided or found. Agree with Herostratus that there could be an article about this subject (not sure that "play fighting" would be the best name for it) - but it would have to be based on published work (say on sociology, anthropology or animal behavior), rather than simply asserted as this article is. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Minor street in a small town, with no properly sourced indication of notability. Was previously prodded, but prod tag was removed. Subsequent edits provided a couple of references which confirmed the street's existence (namely Google Maps and a local real estate directory), but still nothing which actually demonstrated that it belongs in an encyclopedia. I still don't see how this is anything but a delete, really. Bearcat (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Joel Chan (actor) (edit | talk | 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 removed a BLP PROD from this article on the grounds that there is a link to the subject's IMDB entry, but the original BLP-prodder reinserted the tag. Whether or not IMDB meets WP:RS is of no concern to the WP:BLPPROD process, but if it doesn't, and is still used as the only source, then the article should be deleted either through a regular PROD or an AfD. Neutral until I look into the issue, but I must say the article is in dire need of reliable references.  Blanchardb -- timed 23:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Other articles really dont enter into consideration of this article.--RadioFan (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The existence of the tag "{{BLP IMDB refimprove}}" indicates the IMdB is acceptable for verifying the details of someone's career. I've seen occasional details disputed, & I've seen people with 1 or 2 credits who looked somewhat questionable, but for someone with substantial credits I have not in 4 years seen any instances where it was shown to be fundamentally misleading. But of course that's just WP:V, and better sources are , well, better. A career of this sort in notable works gives some indication of notability; it needs to be worked on by someone who can deal with the Chinese sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment there has been debate about the use of IMDB as a reference. Some feel it's unreliable due to the fact that it's almost entirely written by it's user community, not unlike Knowledge (XXG). Others point to the minimal editorial control that is there. Both sides of the argument will probably agree that it is certainly not sufficient as the only reference to demonstrate notability. Personally I like seeing IMDB links in a biographic article but would much rather see more reliable sources used. IMDB's requirements for being listed there are far lower than Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. There is no prerequisite for any 3rd party coverage of a film or tv role . Unless we want to see friends of student filmakers with Knowledge (XXG) articles because they have an IMDB listing from the one credit in their roomates zero budget student film, IMDB alone as a reference isn't going demonstrate notability very well.--RadioFan (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 03:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagged for rescue (see my keep above) --Senra (Talk) 17:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment So, thus far, we a nomination for an award has been found (with references) and roles on notable shows. Notability isn't transferrable so we'll need more to help this person meet WP:BIO.--RadioFan (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed but issue here (for me at least) is the language barrier --Senra (Talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Page is written like an advertisement for this MLM company, with serious NPOV violations. Problems have persisted for over a year (and are getting worse with time, not better), and various editors have been consistently deleting the maintenance tags during this time. The advertisement tag has now been present for 3 months, with the only substantive edits being removal of the tags contary to talk page consensus. Since it seems unlikely at this point that the article will be re-written to correct these issues without action, it seems that the article should be deleted until/unless someone is willing to step up to re-write it in accordance with Knowledge (XXG) policies. Alereon (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. I'm in two minds over this. I think the coy is notable per WP:CORP but see little in the article that's salvagable and so a complete rewrite is probably whats needed. I'd lean towards a delete unless someone volunteered to do a major tidy and soon. I'm not in a position to do much personally in the short term. –Moondyne 04:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article as it is now is incredibly promotional and I'm not sure the sources that are relevant support anything less than what's there now. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hopelessly promotional in tone, to the point that this ought to be speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. This is more of a content problem as the company is clearly notable, and I hate to see content problems solved with deletion. As it stands, the the article is little more than an ad for a 'really, we're not an MLM' company and there has been a strong history of rewrites from throwaway accounts and IPs. I would suggest someone scour the article, and anything uncited removed. I would also not accept any "according to the company" lines and stick to solid third party references; including unaudited 'sales' figures. I'll take a shot at it later this week if I get a chance, and will revisit my delete !vote if someone else does the clean up before I circle around. Kuru (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC);
I take your point, but if you do that, we'd be left with a stub at best. I'm not convinced it's actually notable for a company. NZ forever (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
True; not much better than a stub as most of the verifiable information I can find easily is legal coverage. Our bar for corporate notability is surprisingly low, however... Kuru (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak deleteI know my vote isn't worth much as I'm not a registered user. Seems to be notable as among MLMs (even if they deny being one), but page is hopelessly biased at the moment. I came across the article thru a reading binge on various MLMs marketing (and overhyping/overcharging for) a previously little known plant product. Seeing these guys mentioned in the same breath as those purveying mangosteen and noni juice is some level of notability I guess, but at least the articles for the mangosteen and noni companies are fairly unbiased.70.245.236.202 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, this article is just an ad. NZ forever (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. The deprodder's rationale is explained in detail on the talk page but is unconvincing. The sources used to establish notability are from sponsors, and therefore not independent. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 02:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Do NOT Delete: I object to the deletion proposal for this article. I have listed additional sources on the article's Talk page, which will be noted in the article as soon as I have the time to write the listed enhancements. Hawei (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is none of those appear to be both significant and independent, both are needed if an organisation is to be shown as notable. You may also like to have a read of Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Codf1977 (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have re-read your criteria (WP:ORG, WP:RS) and added links to three reliable sources. Please see the article's talk page for further details and judge again. Again/still: Keep. Hawei (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting the reliable sources. Knowledge (XXG) has two standards for notability of a non-commercial organization (which the IGSO is) listed in WP:CLUB - and both are met: 1) IGSO's activities are on an international scale and 2) the information can be verified satisfying primary criteria (see above). Based on this officially agreed standard I would like to see your argument, why you think it is not notable. Again/still: Keep Hawei (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Proof by intimidation. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Proof by verbosity (edit | talk | 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 essay. r.e.b. (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Low quality, non-notable fictional character stub; no sources and no significant coverage to be found. Prod was contested; I can't see why, since there are no WP:RS, and no assertion in the article that it meets even the minimum standards of WP:GNG. — Chromancer /cont 01:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete- Really doesn't deserve an article. I don't think a redirect is necessary either. NotARealWord (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Low-quality non-notable minor fictional character stub. Almost entirely in-universe, and is sourced to a fan site and a YouTube clip. Character fails WP:GNG categorically. — Chromancer /cont 02:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't use illegal WP:YOUTUBE videos third person evidence, delete this nonsense. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A Sailor Went to Sea (edit | talk | 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 had been prodded but article creator left a note on talk page indicating deletion is not uncontroversial. Original prod rationale by Kudpung (talk · contribs) was that it fails WP:IINFO.

For my part, I also say delete per original prod nom. —KuyaBriBri 17:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Jason Thacker (edit | talk | 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 fighter. He had 1 MMA fight in his career. He clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep A discussion on the best name for the article might be in order, but that can be done on the articles talk page via WP:RM. Salix (talk): 08:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wald's maximin model (edit | talk | 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. The term "Wald's maximin model" is a neologism by Sniedovich. Hippopotamus Logic (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • O RLY? Then why, exactly, can article cite papers by Wald himself, Resnik, and French as sources describing this model?
    Keep and thoroughly investigate Hippopotamus Logic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose sole contributions are bogus AFDs. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Do a simple google search to verify that the term "Wald's Maximin model" has been indeed in common use for many years. It is different from the Maximin model used in game theory. Sniedo (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • PS: Actually, it would be better to google search for "Wald's Maximin criterion". This is one of the most important models/criteria in decision theory. It is used in most text books on decision theory. Sniedo (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic is notable and covered by reliable sources. It appears to me that indeed "Wald's maximin criterion" is the most common name for this topic, and we do have a policy of using the most common name as the article title, but that is a separate discussion, and a sub-optimal name is not a ground for deletion.  --Lambiam 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the most common name is Wald's Maximin criterion, the most suitable name is Wald's Maximin model. Sniedo (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    As I wrote, that goes against policy. Over 67% of the references I found in a Google search use "criterion", and only 4% use "model". Suitability is subjective. Next thing some editor will maintain that, although "Australia" is more common, "Down Under" is more suitable as the name for the topic.  --Lambiam 02:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    Suitability is indeed subjective and there is nothing wrong with that. Technical terms should properly reflect the context in which they are used. The "criterion" option is suitable in the context of discussions on "decision criteria". Here, the article is dedicated to a mathematical model named after Wald, and is not studied for the purpose of a comparison with other models. It is a topic of its own. There are indeed cases where "Australia" is more suitable then "Down Under" and vice versa. Regarding the Maximin, a (subjective) human input, say one based on 40 years of teaching the subject, can be very helpful here. Sniedo (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google books finds a variety of names: Wald's maximin model, criterion, method, technique, etc. I'd vote for 'Wald's maximin' all by itself as a move target since it seems to be used that way too. Being a neologism alone is not sufficient for deletion (though being a neologism invented by the article's creator is). There is clearly some conflict of interest issues here by Sniedovich being one of the primary editors of the article and listed as a reference.--RDBury (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I need your advice, on "conflict of interest", RDBury. What should I do in cases where the results under consideration appear only in my (Sniedovich) peer-reviewed articles? Sniedo (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The policies are given at Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest#Citing oneself and Knowledge (XXG):No original research#Citing oneself. It's not prohibited but there should probably some impartial review to make sure the article follows the guidelines. The main thing is we don't want WP to be used a vehicle for people to promote their own work or fill up with overly specialized material.--RDBury (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, RDBury. No worries. Sniedo (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Quaternionic matrix (edit | talk | 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 with no indication of notability. Seems like fairly trivial OR to me: quaternions in a 2x2 matrix, and a Google search turns up nothing like this. JohnBlackburnedeeds 11:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep: A trivial Google Scholar search returns tons of academic papers on the subject (the Google of the nominator must have been broken ). The information on the matrix multiplication is far from being trivial (at least for non-mathematicians). --Cyclopia 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    Please, show at least one link which deals with so named "octonionic product", either for quaternions or for matrices over another non-commutative ring. If there are no sources on such structure, then it must be removed and the rest of article become a trivial application of the matrix ring concept to the quaternions division ring. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    Problems that can be dealt with editing are not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. Feel free to remove OR from the article. --Cyclopia 17:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • comment I did search, though a normal one not a scholar one, and turned up some of the same papers. But I could not find a definition, other than it's just a matrix of quaternions, or find anything that looked like this article (most of the articles seemed to be on more general n×n matrices). A search on both "Hamiltonian product" and "quaternionic matrix" turns up only mirrors of this page and a scholar search turns up nothing. So while the term exists much of the article seems unsourced. It would be good to hear from the page creator on this, as although as it stands it looks like OR it also looks like reasonable maths that could be sourced somewhere.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 19:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't understand where did you get the impression that the article is only on 2x2 matrices. --Cyclopia 19:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The definition ("matrix of quaternions") applies in any dimension and the first product given trivially generalises but the second doesn't, it only works as described in 2D. So in higher dimensions its not clear if this product is defined or if there are other maybe multiple products which simplify to this in 2D.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The definition is a bit of a tautology, and the sources were probably assuming readers would fill in the gaps. I'm thinking probably covers the subject enough to establish notability. The article doesn't list any sources though, and it's unclear to me how much of the material should be removed. The definition alone isn't enough to justify the existence of the article.--RDBury (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • comment The determinant and therefore the eignenvalue problem are where you're going to have problems with such matrices. When calculating the determinant of a real or complex matrix you can do so in a variety of ways with order of multiplication usually ignored, but order matters when multiplying quaternions. A lot of the sources seem to be concerned with this problem, but more as something they're all trying to address, perhaps in different ways, rather than a known definition they can all agree on so which we can be pretty sure of.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • comment We need definitions and results we can use for the article, which I don't see in any of the sources which all seem recent. It's not the place of Knowledge (XXG) to try and summarise ongoing, maybe even contentious, results. this looks more promising but I can't read beyond the first page.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 23:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, no, Knowledge (XXG) is the correct place to report what RS (in this case, academic papers and books) report on a subject, regardless of its ongoing status and controversiality. --Cyclopia 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quaternionic matrices, i.e. square matrices whose elements are quaternions, are well-known and useful objects — for example, the compact symplectic group is realized as the maximal compact subgroup of GL(n,H). However, we already have an article matrix ring which deals with matrices over an arbitrary associative ring and I simply do not see the need for duplicating the same material in the special case of quaternions. On the other hand, the so-called "Hamiltonian" and "Octonionic" products, whose description at present comprises all of the article under discussion, are non-standard and possibly OR. (It is hard to be certain and it would be difficult to sort out notability issues because, historically, quaternionists have behaved as a sect, with their own societies and journals, and the fruits of their studies are quite isolated from mainstream mathematics.) Arcfrk (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the insightful comment. However I see in the literature many articles specifically dealing with quaternionic matrices, while the matrix ring article does not cite the special case of quaternionic matrices at all. It doesn't talk about eigenvalues, too, while there seems to be substantial literature about the problem of defining the eigenvalue of a quaternionic matrix. The article needs OR to be hashed out, but even if it is a special case, it seems a sourced one and therefore notable. --Cyclopia 07:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Quaternionic matrices seem to have specific application in quantum mechanics that wouldn't be captured in a more generic article. Also, I don't think we should assume that everyone who might be interested in this is going to be familiar with more abstract ideas such as associated algebras.--RDBury (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are also many articles in the literature dealing with rational matrices, real matrices, and complex matrices, but would that be a sufficient reason to create articles "Rational matrix", "Real matrix" and "Complex matrix"? The argument about quantum mechanics seems equally spurious to me: if there is no mathematical theory underlying this ostensible application (with which I am not familiar) then it should be described within its natural context, i.e. in the article on whatever quantum mechanical phenomenon it is relevant to. Arcfrk (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
As long as there is a specific literature on the subject, I would say yes. We have integer matrix, and complex matrix seems a reasonable article to me, given some of the literature results deal with specific algorithms about them. Make no mistake: even if I'm no expert I understand there can be reasons for a merge, but given that the current matrix ring article doesn't contain anything on the notable subcases, I'd keep the article for now and then work on a merge, rather than bluntly deleting it -the latter outcome does a disservice to readers. --Cyclopia 11:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The so-called "Hamiltonian" product is simply the usual associative product of matrix multiplication. If an n×n quaternionic matrix is represented using a 2n × 2n complex matrix or a 4n × 4n real matrix with particular structure, the product of the two quaternionic matrices on this definition properly matches up with the corresponding usual matrix product of the complex matrices or real matrices representing it. I am not sure about the meaning of a quaternionic determinant, and how it would relate to the corresponding determinants of the corresponding complex or the real matrices, but this is something that the article could usefully discuss. We have articles on various forms of matrices with particular types of structure, so I don't see an objection to an article on these matrices, if there is something interesting to say about them.
The motivation for the "Octonian" product is less apparent to me, and it could do with some sourcing. Possibly it is interesting and useful, but there seem to be no easily found references to it that jump out, at least at a surface level; and, perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see an obvious connection between this product and the Octonian product of a pair of quaternions defined by the Cayley-Dickson construction. So this at the very least needs some clarification. Jheald (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: For reasons given in my comments above. The article has severe problems and it might be better to start over from scratch, but I think some of the material is salvageable.--RDBury (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I took a stab at getting the article to at least the stub level of quality. This was based on a single reference so I'm pretty sure more could be added.--RDBury (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that just kicks the can down the road, because all it does is create a quaternionic content fork for Matrix ring. In my opinion (also expressed at the talk page), it would be far better to add the relevant material there directly and to delete or redirect the page under discussion. Arcfrk (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't have bothered if there was only general material here. But I think the material on determinants is sufficiently specific that the article is not a content fork. Also, I think there is a case for having a version for people who are not familiar with abstract algebra since it appears that the applications are in physics.--RDBury (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Matrix ring only deals with square matrices.  --Lambiam 20:06, 8 September 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, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Godzilla (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Movie currently in the planning stages, and even that is uncertain. Fails WP:NFF. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin: It appears that some of the references used in the article as of this writing appeared in the media while this discussion was open and did not exist at the time of this nomination. These must be taken in consideration when closing this discussion. -- Blanchardb -- timed 15:30, 3 September 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, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly enough reliable sources now. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I actually tried adding more sources in an early edit and it was reverted. The film attempt is notable, particularly considering it is a franchise project and is based on an endearing icon. There's definitely a lot of interest in the project, even among non-fans, as the Google statistic above shows. And I will point out Godzilla 3D To The Max had it's own article for quite a while during production and it never reached filming either. --JohnVMaster (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The original nominator added substantial content to the article, including references. For the most part, the consensus is split between keeping the article or merging it to European Article Number. TreasuryTag's points concerning need for more independent and reliable sources to establish notability are noted, and it appears that other editors are locating those. Mandsford 00:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bookland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Autobio with no real evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep per WP:MUSIC. Cruz meets criteria 8 - he has written the music for a notable television series (The Nostradamus Effect). The fact that he has won three Telly awards, while not independently indicative of notability, does it for me. Claritas § 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    I think you actually mean criterion 10. However, it seems that we are using the wrong criteria altogether. Recent changes to the article make it clear that his "notable" work is as a composer, not a performer. The composer criteria are somewhat different. I'm having a hard time deciding if he meets composer criterion 1 or not. Some music editor input please? --UncleDouggie (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete unless good third party sources turn up, that is the usual standard for notability. As I read it he fails criterion 8, since that calls for him to win or be nominated for a major award, "such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury", etc; the "Tellys" are not a major award, and the wiki entry on the award is enlightenling... they don't seem hard to get (plus you have to pay for them). And criterion 10 ("Has performed music for a work of media that is notable") also reads "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article". Hairhorn (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow  19:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Other awards have to be paid for as well, ie: Grammys. The Telly Award recognizes the works of television and the post production of television. You do not pay to win an award. You pay for a statue just like the other awards. Once nominated for an award, you are reviewed an judged by the Telly Award council to declare if your works entitle you to win an award. I don't think its appropriate to down play the achievements of the Telly Awards. Telly Awards include commercials, documentaries as well as reality show. I believe that is a decent form notoriety. By the way, the Telly Awards have a article on Wiki...As for "The Nostradamus Effect", that show was the highest rated "non hosted" series on the History Channel. And "How Stuff Works" on Discovery channel is a well favored series as well as a website community of it's own. If a reality show actress (who's only notoriety is being followed by cameras) can be in the wiki, then a composer with work that has been included on known television shows should be as well.* —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottCruz (talk • contribs) 20:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. It comes down to specific vs. general notability here. Yes, he meets criterion #10 for musicians at WP:MUSIC. However, note the header at the top of the list: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria." Performing a theme song does not make one automatically notable; the general standards of notability still apply, and that means significant coverage in reliable sources. There is no evidence of significant coverage. If he's been written about in a newspaper or magazine article, that would change things, but as of right now, there's a lot of unverifiable content in this article and not a lot of sources for the article to rely on. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Performing a theme song is NOT the only piece of work mentioned. 11 television shows, 2 thematic pieces and 3 awards received in the span of 18 months, IMO, is notable. To me this is more boiling down to "celebrity status". Not criteria. Since when is IMDB not a reliable source of proof / credit.? So to me the debate REALLY is "Is Scott's work big enough to be on wiki" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottCruz (talk • contribs) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. The issue is notability, backed up by reliable, third party sources. A good rule of thumb is that if you are truly notable, someone else will create a page about you. Hairhorn (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. He fails criterion 8 because the three awards are all Bronze Telly Awards, which are handed out in large numbers. There are so many that they don't even post the full list like they do with the Silver Awards, you can only search the Bronze database. I agree that they are judged and the awards may increase his notability within the industry, but they do not meet criterion 8 in any way. He does appear to meet criterion 10, depending on whether we consider his work other than "The Nostradamus Effect" to count, which would mean adding him to the The Nostradamus Effect article is insufficient. I will defer to those more versed in music on that matter, hence the "weak" keep. In any case, the article has obvious WP:COI issues still that are hard to fix without more published sources. I've added him to "The Nostradamus Effect", which is the first incoming link. --UncleDouggie (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you UncleDouggie..You are very helpful.. As for "Hairhorn"- Scott Cruz did NOT create this article. The username is a representation of the article that it was meant to be used for.NOT the user itself. --Scott Cruz Productions 01:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottCruz (talk • contribs)

  • Well if it's not an autobiography or a conflict of interest, you'll be able to tell us where all the detailed information in the entry comes from. ("Since the age of four, Cruz has always gravitated towards music and performance.", "By the age of seventeen, Cruz began to expand his expression through songwriting.", etc). It's third party references that will save this entry; no refs and deletion is pretty much inevitable. Hairhorn (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: Self-promotion of a WP:NN dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Doria Pamphilj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • I am proposing that this article is deleted or rather, redirected to Doria-Pamphili-Landi. The article currently lacks any credible indication of the subject's notability outside of that inherited.
  1. In Italy, noble or royal titles ceased and are no longer recognized. A claim of ancestry or calling yourself a noble or a prince doesn't make it so. Italy does not recognize Pamphilj's claims of nobility.
  2. The article states that he is a descendant of the "Princely house of Doria-Pamphili-Landi - a Genoese family of Roman extraction", however, that bloodline ended at the death of Princess Orietta. Pamphilj is not a descendant of this bloodline.
  3. While the art collection may be notable, Pamphilj himself is not, simply as owner and/or curator.
  4. While the residence may be considered notable as a building of historical significance, guardianship and management of real estate does not establish notability.
  5. Author states that Pamphilj is a significant player in LGBT rights in Italy. However, being gay and marching in a parade does not establish notability. No other information or documentation is provided to support the claims of significance or notability in this manner.
  6. Serving as a voice over tour guide in a museum or gallery does not establish notability.
  7. Pamphilj has done nothing "independently" to establish notability, outside of his unrecognized claims of nobility? I believe the appropriate action in this case would be to redirect to the Doria-Pamphili-Landi article which mentions him in passing. Cindamuse (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Deletion: Meets WP:Notability criteria which states that, "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". JDP has had coverage in the media ranging from that in the US (New York Times and Vanity Fair), Italy (Corriere della sera and Il Tempo), and the UK (Guardian, Independent, and Telegraph). This coverage relates to his work in managing the internationally famous Palazzo Doria art collection and palace, but particularly because of the high-profile court case that he is involved in to challenge Italian inheritance laws around surrogacy. The case has received more than a trivial mention. The media sources cited have editorial integrity, are mainstream, and are multiple; They are also independent of the subject. The gay rights role is not simply about marching but about challenging the rights over inheritance by children of same-sex parents - thus it is significant for LGBT rights in Italy. Nor is the issue of Italy not recognising noble titles a problem - otherwise why would we have articles on Russian aristocrats or King Constantine of Greece? While I agree the bloodline died out with his mother - he is nevertheless her adopted heir and as such her successor to the lineage etc and is recognised as a prince in international peerage compendiums. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment/Reply.
  1. You state that unprovided coverage relates to his management of an art collection and palace. As I stated above, while the art collection and palace may be notable, Pamphilj's management does not establish notability.
  2. Pamphilj is participating in a high profile court case. Interesting to note that this court case involves his challenge to the denial of inheritance established by Italian legislation and ordinance. Notability as a gay rights activist is neither presented nor established due to his participation in this court case. See WP:NOTNEWS.
  3. The link provided to www.peerage.com is not an official peerage society, and is highly unreliable, when not accurately sourced to official documentation. It is an individual's genealogical compilation of names connected to royal family lines. His "sources" are generally emails received from fellow genealogists and family researchers. His notations often state "So-and-so wrote me an email, so I included it in the list." He is not recognized as a member of the peerage by any official peerage society. Pamphilj is at best a Pretender.
  4. King Constantine of Greece is a disambiguation page providing links to two individuals: Constantine I of Greece accurately titled as King; and Constantine II of Greece, who served as King until the abolition of the monarchy in 1973. Constantine has never officially abdicated and remains a pretender to the Greek throne. That said, Constantine's notability is established as a former king, outside of a pretender's claim to nobility. There is a great divide between the established notability of Constantine I of Greece and the claimed notability (and nobility) of Pamphilj.
  5. Lineage refers to descendancy from a common ancestor. Adopted individuals are not lineage "successors". In terms of peerage and royalty, there are successors to a crown or title, but as such, Pamphilj is not recognized by either according to the Italian government. Cindamuse (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Now I understand the issue with this article. The problem is that he's regarded as a "pretender". Your points above are useful but my original point still stands. The subject is notable because he has received substantial coverage in the international press. Incidentally, if you want a link from the gay press about the significance of the court case to LGBT rights in Italy then I'm happy to provide. And even if the argument on lineage does not stand, he would nevertheless be notable simply by virtue of being the adopted son of Princess Orietta Doria-Pamfilj (who, you must accept, did have a formal title).Contaldo80 (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: After some deliberation, I must agree with Cindamuse's nomination. Pamphilj's media attention is due only to a court case, everything else is tangential, in particular his involvement with the art collection. Regarding the arguments for keeping, Andrew Duffell fails to present any, and the example involving the two Constantines is a bit specious. Both of them have received massive coverage—more than sufficient for them to pass the general requirements. Favonian (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see the value of relisting. What is the point of dragging things out indefinately? We've had 3 interventions. One to redirect and 2 to keep as it stands - surely that's consensus enough. It's not that controversial as a subject, surely. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm disputing the argument put forward by Cindamuse that JDP is not recognised as a prince. This article from The Times states (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6871878.ece) that "Prince Jonathan and Princess Gesine inherited 14 noble titles, two palaces, including a 1,000-room palazzo in central Rome, and one of the world’s greatest private art collections after the death of their adopted mother in December 2000." I'd like to get hold of the Annuario della nobilta Italiana to confirm, but afraid I can. But would welcome contributions from others who may have access to it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Consensus is not akin to a vote, but rather viable recommendations, based on established policy and guidelines. As such, consensus has not yet been met, and according to the deletion process, the discussion is appropriately relisted. It is my position that the subject of this article fails notability. The subject has not established notability independent of his family. The "argument" that Pamphilj is not a prince is not mine, but according to the Constitution of the Republic of Italy adopted in 1948, which clearly states that titles of nobility are not recognised. I really don't think a UK newspaper article can override the Constitution (and the yearbook really can't offer support in this situation either). Cindamuse (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If someone doesn't think he meets the notability requirement then that's fine, but we really do not to give some proper justification please. Nor do I buy the argument about the Italian constitution. There are many examples through history of where aristocrats have continued to retain their titles despite republics not formally recognising them. It's simply disingenuous. And why do we have to establish notability beyond his family links? How odd. That's like saying there shouldn't be an article on Prince William of England, because we only know about him because of who his father is. I mean what else is he notable for? Consensus is not, it seems, going to be achieved on this article - but we have one person who wants to direct, 2 to keep, and one to delete completely (argument why not established).Contaldo80 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus is that he meets the criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Criminal who fails Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guideline for criminals, and does not meet the general notability guideline because coverage was essentially routine (as per Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source). Claritas § 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Not sure why this was relisted, as no consensus is not the same thing as no discussion. I'd urge anyone looking at this to look at the last AFD. Assuming the translations are correct, he's notable, and the article is well sourced - if a bit rough in the prose department. But I'm open to argument. Livitup (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The issue is that Arabaci does not meet any of the criteria of WP:PERP - the reporting of his sentencing in regional newspapers was routine coverage which does not substantiate notability, per the policy WP:NOTNEWS. Claritas § 19:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I PRODed this several weeks ago. My rationale was "Poorly sourced (references are only in German); doubtful notability (no article on German Knowledge (XXG)); BLP and libel concerns. Article creator has since been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing." This still looks like a worthless piece of trouble-making from a banned editor with a history of apparently racist editing and article creation. RolandR (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete There's rather a lot of use of 'reputedly' in the article - and I too am concerned about possible BLP issues and the sourcing. There is this "In 2004 the Turkish gang leader Necati Arabaci was sentenced to 9 years in prison for pimping, human trafficking, assault, extortion, weapons violations and racketeering. His gang of bouncers controlled the night clubs in Cologne's entertainment district, the Ring, where they befriended girls in order to exploit them as prostitutes. After Arabaci's arrest, informants overhead threats against the responsible prosecutor who received police protection and fled the country in 2007 when Arabci was deported to Turkey." on Prostitution in Germany (Miscellaneous events 2002–2006) - do we need this article? Peridon (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to note, the fact that a source is not in English, does not make it any less of a reliable source. Whatever happens, I implore the closing admin to look at the first AfD for this article and pay particular attention to the Wikipedians who translated the source articles and made comments on their reliability. Just because you can't read it, doesn't make it untrue (or unreliable). EN Knowledge (XXG) should still maintain a world-view.--Livitup (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That is true. But, as I noted in the earlier AfD, "as a non-German speaker, I have no way of knowing if they actually confirm the assertions made in the article. Per Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability#Non-English_sources, 'When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors'; in the absence of such a verifiable reference, I am reluctant to accept the assessment of the editor who added these, and has since been indefinitely blocked for 'disruptive editing'." If the sources cited confirm the allegations, then they should be translated so that non-German speakers can assess rthis. If they fail to confirm the allegations, these should be removed. RolandR (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
In response, I point you to the translations provided by Cyfal at the end of the discussion for the first AfD. No, they aren't full source translations, but he/she translated enough to confirm that the source articles are accurately represented in the WP article, and that the sources themselves are reliable sources (not any more 'regional newspapers' than the Boston Herald or Minneapolis Star-Tribune are). The other question is wether he meets the notability of WP:PERP. I think that the first criteria of PERP is a little misleading... Was Al Capone notable for anything other than committing crimes? --Livitup (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
In the last AfD (see this), I've tried to translate the relevant parts of the sources, and also tried to gave the non-German-speaking contributors to the AfD a feeling what kind of newspapers the sources are. Note, that in this discussion, I voted for deletion. However some months later I tend somewhat more to my inclusionist nature, so for the 2nd nomination, I don't vote at all... --Cyfal (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Why ? Last discussion closed as no consensus. Claritas § 08:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand the argument that coverage is "essentially routine". The person has been the subject of nontrivial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources.  --Lambiam 16:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The coverage is not necessarily non-trivial because it appears a) in regional, not national papers, and b) simply reports on his sentencing and crimes committed. See the requirements of WP:PERP and the examples given. Claritas § 10:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Nonnotable, obscure website. The article, a mix of promotional material and defense of its own existence, contains a claim that an Alexa ranking (1,108,907 as of almost five years ago) establishes notability; whatever the merits of Alexa rankings, it now ranks Pghbridges at 2,172,754. For that matter, the Alexa/Google inward link claims, as well as the commentary after each external link, as well as the entire section on USENET mentions (?!?!?!?) all doth protest too much. The relevance of the links and notability of the website should be pretty inherent, and since this is not the case, notability isn't there.

For that matter, the votes in the previous deletion discussion appear, to me at least, to have been improperly counted. Şłџğģő 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per A9 - I wasn't aware that her article was deleted - good thing I do maintenance work through those AFDs tonight JForget 01:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Me libere (edit | talk | 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 references, fails WP:GNG. Superchrome (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A merge discussion may be held on the article's talk page if so desired. —fetch·comms 02:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Nigerian traditional rulers (edit | talk | 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 list fails WP:STAND, WP:NLIST & WP:GNG - all entries in the list (with 1 exception) do not have articles - notability of the entries is not established - just because a name appears in a "List of Rulers" does not automatically imply that that person is notable - there are 4 sources referenced to two persons on that list, but these are rather weak to establish notability, as WP:GNG recommends "significant coverage". Amsaim (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made a start at putting List of Nigerian traditional states into table format and copying content from this one to that, so this article could be turned into a redirect without loss of information. The table needs much improvement - I think there is a fair amount of material scattered around that it could link to. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, if I understand this rightly, these individuals pass WP:POLITICIAN by dint of their office. If I understand rightly, these individuals are "politicians who have held international, national or sub-national office"; surely a monarch within a larger country holds sub-national office. If we grant my point, there's no real difference between this list and List of current United States governors, because both are lists of sub-national head executives. Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
They are not really politicians with power in the same sense as a Nigerian state governor. More like European aristocrats, still holding the title and perhaps still wealthy but with no real power. Of course, the individuals may well be notable because people are interested in them. See maybe John Seymour, 19th Duke of Somerset for an equivalent in Europe. The problem with the list is that it could wind up huge and very hard to organize, sort of like "List of all European aristocrats from earliest days to the present" or "List of all current US politicians". Aymatth2 (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
See Nigerian traditional rulers, which gives a sense of their roles. Akwa Ibom State with a population of about 5 million, has 116 traditional rulers. Extrapolating to the full 36 states with 150 million people would give about 4,000 entries assuming the list is limited to current officeholders, maybe 50,000 if past rulers are included. The number seems reasonable since each community has its traditional ruler, and the extrapolation gives about one traditional ruler per 40,000 people. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I am not convinced that this article should not be deleted. It is more important to have more articles on the notable traditional rulers and these articles can give details of the current holder of the title and of notable previous holders. Details of the various traditional States also needs to be better covered in WP. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - This Afd has nothing to do with systematic bias as some have suggested, but it has everything to do with "Write the Article First". Should Knowledge (XXG) have a list of Nigerian traditional rulers? Certainly it should. However, that list, like any other list, must adhere to Knowledge (XXG)'s Policies & Guidelines. If the entries in the list do not have articles, then each entry should have reliable verifiable sources to establish notability. Amsaim (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
That is an excellent point. Clean-up to remove unsourced redlinks would go a long way to remove the concern that this will turn into a huge unmanageable list. But there will still be redundancy with the sortable List of Nigerian traditional states, so I still prefer a redirect to that list, which in turn will point to articles holding lists for each state. Agree that it is not a systemic bias question, but it is a question of useful and maintainable list structure. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notability of the members is established per WP:POLITICIAN (the Traditional leadership is a political structure parallel to, and coexisting with, government in many African countries), red links are allowed if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future (from WP:STAND), and WP:V should be no problem seeing that they are all alive. As such, we have a list that is largely unreferenced but this should not be sufficient reason to delete. Although maybe no proper AfD argument, this list is also useful because it points out which rulers have no article yet. --Pgallert (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Nigerian traditional rulers are not politicians, they have no political power in Nigeria. They are not included within the current Nigerian Constitution of 1999. They are not elected and they do not hold any political office. Thus WP:POLITICIAN does not apply to them. The full and correct WP:STAND guideline that you are referring to stipulates that red links in stand-alone lists must be verifiable ("red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."). The keyword here is verifiability. Red linked entries without any verifiability thusly do not belong in stand-alone lists. Amsaim (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As Amsaim says, the "traditional ruler" positions are purely honorary. Their number is expanding fast, presumably to meet demand. Nigerian society is very corrupt and the immensely wealthy elite place high value on status symbols. But this is separate from the question of whether the list itself should be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Answer both: I doubt these entries are not verifiable. They are just currently not referenced, that's something else. As for notability, to be fair, Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people) does not really cater for these types of leaders, and the POLITICIAN subsection is just the closest match. Generally, traditional leaders are not just honorary. They allocate communal land to individuals, they settle civil court cases, approve marriages, interpret religious questions, and so forth. Rather like a government. Of course not every level should be covered in Knowledge (XXG); any village headman is a traditional leader, like a rather unimportant government employee. But a leader of, say, the Yoruba people represents 30 million individuals and thousands of sqkm of land—that person should surely be notable. The comparison to John Seymour, 19th Duke of Somerset is not so bad, just that these leaders still have the sort of power dukes had centuries ago. They must bow to certain higher authorities but do have considerable power over their tribe. BTW, if succession is not straight-forward, traditional leaders are elected, cp.e.g. Adedotun Aremu Gbadebo III. --Pgallert (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
During this debate I have been starting articles for traditional states and rulers - including Egba Alake and Adedotun Aremu Gbadebo III - and plan to continue. There are two very distinct groups: rulers of traditional states (maybe 100) and "traditional rulers" (more like 3,000 and rising). Both are purely ceremonial positions with no legal authority, but the first group seems more interesting than the second. I took the liberty of adjusting the lead to this article to say the list "does not include prior rulers or newly created titles." Prior rulers will anyway be listed in articles such as Borno Emirate, and newly created positions are just expensive status symbols. (Let's forget about "village headmen" - this is not in any way a primitive society.)
Obviously there are notable traditional rulers, and perhaps most current rulers of traditional states are notable in their own right: people tend to be interested in aristocrats and their activities are reported in the papers. My concern is that the list in this article is simply a random subset in random sequence of entries from the sortable List of Nigerian traditional states. I see no reason to maintain two lists. This one should redirect to List of Nigerian traditional states. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I see a third or more of these traditional leaders have separate web pages. The wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. But this is a focussed list, not an indiscriminate collection. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The sequence seems a bit random. I can't figure it out. Any problem sequencing the list by state? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Completing nomination by Tommacao, who has given the following rationale : "self promotion, not notable in Hong Kong, created by skytao herself, extensive links to her own websites/projects." Claritas § 09:42, 31 August 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, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The page has language links in German, French, Gaelic, Bahasa, Turkish, and Chinese - in every single case there is no article at each of those wikipedia sites. I also learned that "pole dancer" doesn't exist as a wikipedia category (yet). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Un-referenced BLP, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO was contested prod - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 02:46, 31 August 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, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkeetna Air Taxi (edit | talk | 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 it's founder was notable as an aviation pioneer in Alaska, notability is not inherited. The only source identified is a NY Times article from 1971 that seems to be about the pilot, not the airline. One of hundreds of air taxis in interior Alaska. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 August 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, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It's about a local outfit that has been there for over 50 years. Looks like there is enough news about the place to ref, and it's the kind of place people would want to be able to find on WP–the encyclopedia for the 21st century–not just monkeys and mountains, as in previous centuries. Though, I suppose this is about airplanes and mountains... It would make me proud to be an editor if we kept this one. -Paulmnguyen (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The issue is: are the mentions in the examples "trivial coverage" or not? No consensus on this was reached. I am closing this with no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Doesn't appear to have any notability besides having helped start a minor, fringe right-wing film festival in L.A. that is now inactive, and a single appearance on Ebert & Roeper as a guest reviewer. Laval (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - per MelanieN, reliable sources have been found for notability. Derild4921☼ 00:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - The NYTimes link is classic trivial link. The Weekly Standard link is....... weak. The LA Times one is actually on point, but even there it's not about her, although I acknowledge that invites the trivial coverage analysis. But it's not enough to search for the name and then point out a few places it was used. The first 2 uses are pretty meager, and even the last isn't on point. I don't think it's enough on point, and I don't think the analysis on the above is particularly compelling either. Shadowjams (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike_deSeve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Clearly a coat rack article. From the links to this page it seems obvious that Mike deSeve is a pseudonym of Mike Judge, yet the article treats deSeve as a real and distinct person, only to ignore the said person to discuss the March of One Thousand Coffins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkeast (talk • contribs) 2010/08/14 11:44:50

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Negiel Bigpond (edit | talk | 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 evangelist, no reliable sources, no real claims of notability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Same as with MelanieN, no major coverage. Derild4921☼ 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep shows notability per Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria; As they are RS, I'm willing to accept local newspapers for this purpose in the absence of some special situation which requires an exception to the notability guideline for BLP reasons -- for instance, we should not bring local coverage of embarrassing events, minor violations of laws, etc, to an international audience. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability isn't "got mentioned a few times in the local newspaper," or, God knows, every longtime resident of a small town with a newspaper would qualify. Notability is substantial coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. We have casual mentions of his presence in 2 in local news sources, and 2 human interest feature articles in a local paper, and one article behind a paywall where his role I cannot discern. That is the sum total of our coverage. I cannot regard this level of coverage as sufficiently substantial for notability. Ray 04:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Friend, Nebraska. —fetch·comms 02:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Not notable only claim to any form of significance is it was once known for having the smallest police station in the world.

Have also nominated a number of other law enforcement in Nebraska by same creator - see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Fairbury Police Department (Nebraska). Codf1977 (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bumpr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Planet Recordz (edit | talk | 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 record label. Does not even have its own website - it redirects to youtube. Not much on google outside of myspace, facebook, youtube. No independent sources. noq (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD A9 JForget 01:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't Stop Me (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only references are the apparant artist's website and YouTube, doesn't mean that this is a legit song, could be an unsigned artist. Two other articles related to this have been tagged as BLP PROD (Johanna Carreño, the artist) and Afd (Me libere, another song by this "artist"). Fails WP:GNG. Superchrome (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD A9 JForget 01:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

No references, fails WP:GNG. Another one for the family of Johanna Carreño related articles that I have sent to Afd today. Superchrome (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. This is a textbook A9. Will userify on request. Courcelles 09:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hacia algun Lugar (edit | talk | 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 reference is YouTube. Seems to be the 4th article in the Johanna Carreño family nominated today. Superchrome (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0  17:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Does not appear to meet notability guideline. All sources are simply proving that the said person exists (several sources are press releases), but not any sort of notability beyond that of the organization he worked for or with. JonRidinger (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eastmain. I hold articles on subjects working in fields where the object is not to attract attention to a different standard than articles on subjects working in fields where publicity is part of the objective. Unflashy figures in business, finance, or academia often have lasting historical significance disproportionate to the amount of news coverage they attract. So long as there's enough to verify that they're major players, we should document them. Ray 04:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Yes, but I'm not seeing how this person is a "major" player through the sources nor how any of his contributions have had any notable effects on his field. This significance has to be documented elsewhere before we can document it here. Did he save a major company from bankruptcy or turn an institution around financially or play a role in some kind of reform? --JonRidinger (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Good sources, well categorized. Would like to see some better sources for 1-5, but for now those are good. Good article, would like to see if bumped up with more info, but WP:ARS could probably take care of that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: (Commenting at the request of Jon Ridinger) His notability is not obvious in the article. He held some jobs that got him some attention, but the article does not describe anything noteworthy he did. For all we know he was mediocre at all of them, and just showed up at work every day. --Beirne (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep (Full disclosure: I was asked to look at this by JonRidinger). Don Wilson is the subject of an eight page interview published on CBS Moneywatch's web page that ends with his resume, as well as two other news articles on him (one of which I could not read). Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people) says in part A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It does not say they had to do the job well, though I would argue the positions he has held in the banks he was in speak for his being at least somewhat competent at what he did. Ruhrfisch ><>° 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment: He doesn't have to be competent at his job. Noteworthy incompetence will also work. Just saying that he is a guy who held a few jobs does not add much to Knowledge (XXG). It should say what he achieved on the jobs, or if he failed famously explain that. Otherwise the article is little more than who's who entry. If the article is fixed up I can switch to a Keep. --Beirne (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Also, being interviewed as an expert in his job makes him little different from many college professors and other experts, most of whom wouldn't be considered for a Knowledge (XXG) article. --Beirne (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete (Commenting at the request of JonRidinger) All I have been able to find is articles based off of press releases that say: "XYZ has been hired by megacorp", "XYZ leaves megacorp", "XYZ joins board of organization". Besides that there's one interview which is an extension of "XYZ joins megacorp". He did nothing notable and his current positions have nothing special about them. For this reason I feel the article fails WP:ANYBIO (1,2), WP:CREATIVE (1,2), and is best categorized under WP:1E. §hep 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment None of the positions this person has held are even that significant (no CEO or corporate president). I could see if he were at Chase when the financial meltdown happened and was interviewed frequently or wrote extensively in financial journals or even played a role in some major financial event. Unfortunately, in my search for notable events or contributions I have also found what Stepshep has found; mostly press releases and bios that simply tell us so-and-so is going/coming to a new company and this is his resume of things he has been involved in; notable because of the corporation, not the person (the titles usually don't even mention the name of the person, just the company). Simply being accomplished, experienced, well-rounded, and involved in community aspects does not equal notable. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Being a member of the Council of Foreign Relations is a pretty exclusive club (about 4300). I don't know whether all members are notable, but that makes me more inclined toward saving this article PortlandPenny71 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment that's a good point. I didn't look at all the directors and former members listed at the Council on Foreign Relations article, but those I did seemed to be notable beyond the council versus notable because of the council. It doesn't seem as though membership in the council is a means of notability; rather, it's more a case of many notable people have been part of the council. It appears Mr. Wilson III was there as part of his work with JP Morgan Chase as Chase is listed as a corporate member and the source lists him as being a member during his time there (2004; he retired from Chase in 2006). So unless there has been consensus that being on the Council of Foreign Relations automatically equals notability (like exists for certain politicians or even all high schools), then that fact by itself is simply more resume information rather than a claim of notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment Being a member doesn't equal notable. There's a lot of members of the CFR (just the Ws), you'll see that Council on Foreign Relations#Notable current council members is a much smaller list. §hep 22:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Current version is substantially similar to the previous (deleted) version. Subject has not become more notable since last deletion. Username suggests that it is autobiographical. Graymornings(talk) 20:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lou Haneles (edit | talk | 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 just don't see this guy meeting WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE, all the sources that were mentioned was passing mention paragraphs, not comprensive coverage, can't find nothing more on google, last nomination was of bad faith, Delete Secret 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete This is a tough one. I have seen sufficient sources on other sites, but they have not been added to the article. I still have to say, the article could have a chance at meeting the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Wow. Two nominations in the same month. Significant coverage on the many different aspects of his professional career. There is no deadline on the article being improved. The subject meets general notability guidelines, as it did four weeks ago. Vodello (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Managing a baseball team back in the 1940s (where's theres hundreds of minor league teams) isn't a claim to notability, I did a google news search, there is some coverage back when he was a college baseball player (all of them local sources as he played college in New York) but that isn't a claim to notability nither, the Sporting News sources everything on baseball so coverage is expected of him and every other minor leaguer that played from 1887-circa 1960 when they trimmed the baseball coverage and started focusing on other sports. One of the articles about him, the next article that follows is about the illness of the wife of an minor league player, is that notable? No. There isn't no extended significant coverage other than the source Rlendog provided, everything else is passing mentions. I did my research before nominating this article to AFD. We need to be clearer in WP:N about local, and bias (like the Sporting News which sourced everything about baseball even if the player gets into a car accident) references being used. Secret 04:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Finding a semi-profesional league that doesn't meet WP:N isn't a claim to notability, the second one could be a claim to notability though. Secret 04:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am leery of keeping articles on baseball players who never played above AA without more evidence of notability. But he did more than play. And there are 4 Sporting News sources (which I do not have access to) given in the article, which seems to provide a start to notability. And if Brian Halvorsen is correct about seeing sufficient sources on other sites, the correct decision would seem to be keep, even if those sources have not been included in the article yet. I also found at least one piece of significant coverage of him online . Rlendog (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Paperofrecord.com sign up and research the topic, it's a great source for Major League players before 1960 but also bad because it mentions every little thing about baseball that isn't news worthy (death of minor league player, article on the people on the concessions stands, illnesses of spouce, overload of minor league information), so coverage there from that time period I don't consider as significant. Secret 04:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Whose opinion should carry more weight as to what is newsworthy: You, or the professional media outlet that was highly successful printing and selling those kinds of stories for more than a hundred years? -Hit bull, win steak 23:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article now adequately sourced, and nominator has retracted nomination. Favonian (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Postinternationalism (edit | talk | 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 coined term. Will remain a stub forever. Nolelover 21:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, add that stuff to the article. :) Right now, the article isn't worth it. RIght now, the article is one sentence; a quote by the guy, explaining what his coined word means! I claim to know absolutely nothing about the term (no, I haven't read any of those books), but it seems like WP:NEO. BTW, is that a "keep"? Nolelover 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Give it time for somebody to add meat to the article. There are enough book and article hits at Google to suggest the concept has become mainstream, but you'd never know it from the article. Let's give it a week's relisting - and if nobody has seen fit to fix the article by the end of another week, let's delete it as a neologism. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per which shows significant coverage in reliable sources. The present form of the article is irrelevant -- for non-BLP issues, AFD is not intended to present the community with the ultimatum "fix it in a week, or the article dies!" Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable neologism in the form of a dictionary definition. At least it's attributed to the guy who made it up. Carrite (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete NN neologism. The term has probably been independently coined lots of times, without gaining any real currency. Ray 05:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep For the avoidance of doubt my vote (although this isn't a vote is it) is to keep given the multiple uses of the term in online and offline reference. WP:NEO states "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term". Given the existance of books about this term it would seem to me to meet the criteria. I would expand but I'm busy in real life.  Francium12  17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It appears to meet the criteria even if current article is weak.--Utinomen (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • AfD Withdrawn - The article and its references have been significantly added to by User:Francium12. Someone else can re-nominate it, but I can no longer support its deletion. Nolelover 15:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0  17:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

He's a .238 career hitter in the minor leagues and as a reliever he has a 4.81 ERA in 71 games. In short, he is not particularly notable - yet. One thing he has going for him is he appeared on the Marlins 40-man roster if I recall, however even that does not make a player inherently notable. Alex (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Article was tagged for being the creation of a banned user, but was ineligible for such. May not meet the notability guideline for biographies and looks like a stub. Nilocla 22:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

↑