Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 17

< 16 October	18 October >

Guide to deletion

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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cooperatives

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

Adds no information to Category:Cooperatives by country except for additions which are WP:Original research, lack WP:Notability and breach policy on WP:External links. Fayenatic (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories are inferior to lists in several respects and so do not supersede them - see WP:CLS. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am generally a defender of lists, but in what way is this one superior to the corresponding category? - Fayenatic (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In its full form something like this would be vast. I would encourage some sort of inclusion criteria and the division of this list into a number of national lists. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing wrong with this list that a little rescue and clean-up will take care of. Strengthening the lead and inclusion criteria to limit list entries to notable (with WP articles) cooperatives and the removal of all entries that are merely links to websites or not sourced will bring this into line with WP:SAL very nicely.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Mike Cline (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, criterion #4. Were this list ever completed (assuming it is completable), it would be gargantuan and unmaintainable. The list is 100% redundant with Category:Cooperatives by country, therefore no new information is introduced in this article, and it doesn't make Wikipedia easier to navigate. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 17:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SW – Do you concur that changes underway for this list have negated the WP:NOTDIR argument? Plus do you acknowledge that there is strong consensus Here that WP:CLN allows list/category duplication and as such, the redundancy of a list/category is not a valid reason for deletion?--Mike Cline (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very reasonable, it includes not all cooperatives in the world, but only those notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. It is therefore not indiscriminate, but as discriminating as anything else in Wikipedia. The word and criterion "notable" is assumed--there's been a decision not to include the word in the title (personally, I'm not sure it was the right decision, for it would avoid arguments over articles like this, but it is our practice.) . Lists and categories are not redundant--they each have their advantages. This one, for example, includes the city & the nature of the co-op, which the category can not. The EL's, of course, are what provide the sources--one cannot argue simultaneously that it is OR and has links for WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is the inclusion criterion. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, we can have categories, and lists too. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a damn good essay. Shame we can't keep it :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Transformation of Sexuality within Science Fiction

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

This is an essay, an exercise in original research, and not a very good one at that. Two sources are cited, but lack of references is not the main problem: this is a synthesis of published and unpublished material. Most of it cannot be sourced, 'cause it is the opinion of the editor who wrote it. It has been tagged for several months, but no cleanup or improvement has been made. A merge-to Sex and sexuality in speculative fiction suggestion was made back in May, but no consensus was ever reached on the matter. Anything verifiable can be merged, but this article should be deleted. - RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant violation of WP:NOR by a WP:SPA … too bad there's not a WP:CSD category for this kind of trash. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{01:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Essay/Original research. Shsilver (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Sex and sexuality in speculative fiction. It is not totally original research, as I have been to Con panels on this topic, yet it sounds suspiciously familiar. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay/or. Almost nothing is cited, so it's not worth merging the two items which are. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Front for the Liberation of the Golan

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

No indication of importance, no sources except outdated news, no real evidence of the organization existence. ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere are references from RS, but have they done anything notable? --Shuki (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find any sign of activity or any other specific information (leadership, financing, members, published documents, etc.) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need imput from an Arabic speaker, after all, this is an Arab group. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cited sources establish notability. Whether the organization exists anymore is irrelevant. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has 3 sources. That should be sufficient for notability. Being short does not mean it should be deleted. Linda Olive (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation is not notable per WP:ORG. Being simply mentioned in news is not enough:

Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization

In our case, all the available information is based on a single, four years-old statement by anonymous Syrian official that provided only the following information: "the new Syrian resistance group is calling itself the Front for the Liberation of the Golan, and is already in the process of being formed". --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reasonably good evidence for both existence and significance. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to User:Nino Gonzales/Ethnic groups in the Philippines/Pictures. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups in the Philippines/Pictures

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

This is meta-style content that should be integrated somewhere into Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines, not the main namespace. I suggest deletion without a redirect and am notifying that WikiProject. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This isn't an article, it's project discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, this has not generated the type of discussion that I hope it would receive, so I say move to project namespace. I'm still thinking of a suitable title for the page. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear ready for the mainspace. Incubate perhaps?--Pink Bull 00:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's nothing to incubate. It's a discussion about what pictures can and could be added to Phillipines related articles. -- Whpq (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. Then I amend my suggestion, and support userfying the page.. --Pink Bull 01:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Makes the most sense. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 21:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Cernigla

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

Notable only for his death. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Newsworthy, not encyclopedic, tragic as his death was. I guess this is an extension of WP:BLP1E - it's his TV appearance followed by later suicide that attracts the press, but nothing for wikipedia's attention. Bigger digger (talk)
Delete - Totally fails WP:GNG … referencing a death notice from a blog rather than a real news source says it all. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{01:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Yes, he is reletively unknown, but is notable enough for entry. And no offense, but when did IP addresses get a say in page deletions? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:56 19 Ocotober 2010 (UTC)
- FYI: The IP's user page indicates that he/she has been around for over 4 years and 6 months, and your contribution history shows that you've been around slightly over a month. Location (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his death is a news story, and aside from that, there's little else beyond having his restaurant on Kitchen Nightmares. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norita

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

A defunct company that had only one product. No evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A defunct company that had only one product under its own name that's at all well known. This product is the Norita 66, which you can read about here, and which was notable for (i) being an eye-level medium-format SLR (not unprecedented, but rare), and (ii) having a lens that not only was unusually fast in its time for a medium-format camera but was still described as fast a couple of decades later. I've also seen the Norita 66 described as having been influential on Asahi's design of the Pentax 6×7, but don't have a source for this immediately to hand. I'm not brimming with enthusiasm either for voting to keep this article or to create one on the Norita 66 as I think Camerapedia does this kind of thing better than Wikipedia does. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as usual at AFD, is the lack of reliable sources. I'm not seeing any on the Camerapedia page either. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I read above that it was a matter of notability -- although of course "notability" can have a very strange meaning in Wikipedia talk pages. ¶ As the Rittreck 6×6, the camera is written up on p.299 of 戦後日本カメラ発展史 (1971) and on p.141 of The Japanese Historical Camera (2004). As both the Rittreck and the Norita, it's written up on p.125 of The History of the Japanese Camera (1991). And those are just books that happen to be visible on my bookshelves -- or [cough] on the floor. ¶ I've temporarily mislaid my copy of ズノーカメラ誕生：戦後国産カメラ10物語 (1999), which I am reliably informed (because I wrote that) devotes an entire chapter to the Norita 66; if the chapter is like most others in that book, the author (who has researched long and hard) will also provide details on the company. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC) .... PS I've found Hagiya's book and have done some rewriting. But I'll pause now. (I haven't yet decided whether this merits an article in WP.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure...I agree that, if kept, this might make more sense titled Norita 66. Regarding the reliable sources, if the books mentioned above are indeed accurate, I think that should count as potentially reliable sources. Additionally, this could potentially be merged with the Graflex entry (provided there was an addition to that entry about the Norita 66 being marketed as the Graflex Norita in the U.S.) --Artlovesyou (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Norita 66 per above. Vodello (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Second relist rationale: another week to see if foreign language sources can be added.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lowey

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

Non-notable biography I'm afraid. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and has no coverage to allow notability per WP:GNG. The previous AfD in 2006 kept the article as he was part of a group that won a Pharmaceutical Care Award in 2002, but the only hits for that on wp are his article and the previous AfD, so that award is insufficient for notability. Bigger digger (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claim to fame is the award, but that award does not appear itself to be notable enough to help the subject to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Location (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree – this seems to be some sort of trade award that the article takes some WP:COATRACK liberty to explain at length. No other notability. Article is WP:SPA-created, is an orphan, and is mostly promotional in tone – all of which are further indicators of lack of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. If for no other reason than it is completely unsourced and if it had been eligible under the new BLPPROD it would have gone by now. The previous AfD defaulted to keep for lack of consensus, but this time round the issue of sources is critical. Look hard enough and there are a couple of research papers to be found, and he may have got his PhD by now, nothing of which makes him notable.--Kudpung (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This paper would indicate he has indeed got his DPharm now, and he has co-authered a book. But that isn't really enough to qualify him as a notable academic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 21:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitzo Hekotormos

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

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

Delete There is absolutely no evidence of the existence of this writer or his work in any reliable source as far as I can find, and both these articles have been tagged for speedy deletion as hoaxes. I think they very probably are hoaxes, but whether they are or not, they are certainly not notable. Apart from the complete lack of any reliable sources at all, even the unreliable sources that exist do not suggest notability. For example, http://foolsinebriation.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/quietude-and-diffidence-kitzo-hekotormos/ says "Kitzo Hekotormos is an unknown author". I think speedy deletion under CSD A7 is not out of the question, but it seems sufficiently borderline that I prefer to allow discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jarkeld (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be made up by 4-chan's /lit/. Jarkeld (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Considering 4chan involvement, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Recommend salting only if it's recreated again. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness West Virginia

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

non-notable organization, written like an advert Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN organization that fails WP:ORG for lack of WP:RS coverage. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{01:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 21:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call zone

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN obsolete product, fails WP:GNG for lack or WP:RS. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{01:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete No sources, no notability, no article. Simple as that. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogical Ecology

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

Non-notable philosophical concept Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are given as facebook and a blog. Hardly the repository for an academic dissertation on a notable philosophical concept! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Dialogical Ecology is today the subject of a Concentration Major in the Graduate Program in the Humanities at Prescott College and it also included as part of the Syllabus for courses in Introduction to Religion at Iona College. It is the subject of the Doctoral Dissertation at Columbia University's "The Spatial Culture of the Hasidic Community". There is also a lively discussion of Dialogical Ecology across internet sites and on Facebook. There have been a number of academic conferences and workshops organized through the Martin Buber Institute For Dialogical Ecology. The book "Buber-Zen and the Principles of Dialogical Ecology" will be out in 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseawave (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That which is "notable" is not necessarily a criteria for the valuation of philosophical concepts. D.E. is a recognized concept and many "notables" are members of the MBIDE board of scholars. The other sources for the valuation of this philosophy have already been mentioned in the previous comments, especially being the subject of a Ph.D. dissertation at Columbia University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseawave (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have a Wikipedia article a topic must be notable and all notable philosophical concepts are described in academic literature. I am not saying it will not be notable in the future but if that becomes the case Wikipedia can then have an article on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The article is essentially promotion, created by a single purpose account which edits only on "Dialogical Ecology" and Martin Buber. The arguments advanced by the article's author do not constitute grounds for thinking there is notability. We are told there is "a lively discussion of Dialogical Ecology across internet sites and on Facebook" (not reliable sources); "There have been a number of academic conferences and workshops organized through the Martin Buber Institute For Dialogical Ecology" (not independent sources); "That which is 'notable' is not necessarily a criteria for the valuation of philosophical concepts" (that is debatable, but in any case irrelevant, because we are not concerned with "valuation of philosophical concepts", but only with evaluation of a Wikipedia article) and so on. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"notability...that is debatable, but in any case irrelevant". it may be irrelevant in terms of your personal interests or philosophical biases, but the fact that notability is not a valuative measure is not a "debatable" issue. Philosophy 101 students learns the extent to which some "not notable" ideas have over time become "notable" by the arbiters of such things. There are a large number of people interested in this subject and an entry on wikipedia may facilitate their further research. it is a philosophy focused on a number of issues, as explained in the article, that relate to the philosophy of martin buber, zen buddhism and quakerism. that is hardly a single issue, but even if it was, some important issues are "single issue" entries as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseawave (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is nothing to do with my "personal interests or philosophical biases", it is to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria." JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia documents things that are notable after the fact. It is not about bias or personal interest of editors - it is about WP guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, then it seems to be a matter of "popularity". The subject matter is very notable with a significant segment of "philosophy of religion" scholars. Given the extent to which students and researchers avail themselves of Wikipedia, it is important, in my view, to provide them with an accessible entry via this medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseawave (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess notability can often, but not always, be interpreted as popularity. Since the Dialogical Ecology is not in any peer reviewed literature it is not suitable for Wikipedia. If there was some stuff written about it then it possibly be incorporated into an existing WP article. If is a notable topic of its own right then it would deserve its own article. Since this is not the case in both these instances it is up for deletion. Academics and student using WP for research is quite a separate matter. Firstly no self-respecting student or academic uses WP for research. WP relies on the research of academics not the other way around. Student and academics use other sources of info for doing research. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The article right now is terrible, but I see 1 GNews hit (though it looks trivial), and 2 GBooks citations for this term. That may be enough to establish notability, but still seems on the weak side to me. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GNews hit that Jclemens mentions is a moderately long page which mentions Hune Margulies, and says that he is a director of the Martin Buber Institute for Dialogical Ecology. That is the only mention of "Dialogical Ecology", so it is certainly not significant coverage. The two hits from GBooks are single mentions in fairly substantial books. In addition, one of the books in question says "Such insights point to a kind of 'dialogical ecology' ", and it is not clear to me whether this is a generic use of the term, rather than a reference to Margulies's "Dialogical Ecology" as described in the article. In fact the Christian setting in the book seems to bear no relationship to the Zen Buddhist context of Margulies's "Dialogical Ecology" making it unlikely that the two are the same. However, even if they are the same, we still do not have anything that could by any remote stretch be regarded as substantial coverage in independent sources. (While on the subject of the lack of independent sources, I see that the sources given in the article are Facebook, blogspot, and a book written by Margulies, the inventor of "Dialogical Ecology".) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Up and coming" concept that is as yet mindbogglingly obscure except in the mind of this single-purpose account. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is indeed a complex concept. in part its a reflection of the the philosophies on which it is based. zen, theravada buddhism (buddhadasa bikkhu), some strand of christianity such as quakerism, the judaic religious socialism of martin buber buber and the christian religious socialism of paul tillich. the confluence of these strands of religious philosophy comes together under the concept of dialogical ecology. and this is the way that is being taught in the colleges that have included DE into their curriculums. perhaps the article could be written better, i am, after all, a great "believer" in editorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseawave (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete classic example of OR. no sources that it has been generally mentioned--or even noticed. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article has been speed-deleted (CSD A10). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a Seo friendly page

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

Speedy delete -- Wikipedia is not a howto guide -- already have an article on this at Search engine optimization Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 21:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Arnao

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

non-notable film worker Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability. Oore (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah. Umm, not seeing that notability. Also, sources are... off. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Marasmusine (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creeper (Minecraft)

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

Contested PROD. Character from video game with no independent notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable video game enemy. Reach Out to the Truth 18:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 18:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recommend speedy. No assertion of notability. -- Swerdnaneb 20:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE. You guys are pretty behind the times if you think Minecraft is a non-notable video game. It'll only gain in popularity as time goes on. 70.77.45.29 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've misinterpreted the nominator's rationale. Minecraft is notable. A Creeper is not notable independently of Minecraft. Marasmusine (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow. No sources, no notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Snow Delete - no independent notability from Minecraft. If necessary it can receive a mention in the article, but it has no notability in and of itself. --Teancum (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Skull

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

EP with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - either to They Might Be Giants or They Might Be Giants discography. Not notable for a standalone article but a plausible search term and redirects are allowed for in the guidelines for albums and songs. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although some are inaccessible online, there are these: Trouser Press guide to 90's rock excerpt: Back to Skull furthers the process, making it official with Doherty and two bassists (the departing Graham Maby and the incoming Tony Maimone). The organic reorganization grants the Giants unprecedented freedom and breadth. "Snail Shell," a preview of John Henry, flows like few tracks in the repertoire, although it sounds more like a dry run than a real song. Still, the lack of inspired songs — plus a joyless disco/lounge remake of "(She Was a) Hotel Detective" — makes this a sorry showing. Current biography yearbook, Volume 60 excerpt: and Back to Skull (1994) being the two most notable from that period — and touring on a semi-regular basis. ... versions of "Don't Let's Start" and several original tracks left off either They Might Be Giants or Lincoln. The great indie discography excerpt: BACK TO SKULL EP - Snail shell / She was a hotel detective (1994 version I /Mrs. Train /Snail dust. Spin alternative record guide. Discogs: Full information on credits, notes, tracks. A MOVIE ABOUT THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS - Are - Are You suprised ? Brief Mention. The Tech (MIT newspaper) pg. 7: Brief Mention.

For me, that's decent enough for an EP. - Theornamentalist (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For a band as notable as this one, I'm inclined to give a little leeway over an EP like this for purposes of organizing the content about the artist. BTW, what is up with these guys? The kids music seems to be paying all their bills now.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 21:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ireland

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

Warrants speedy deletion as blatant advertising, necessitating fundamental rewrite to bring to Wikipedia standards. Article is essentially fan site and has no references. Subject is so obscure that dates of birth and death are not available. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article, as written, is pure advertising. There might be potential for a valid re-write. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. I do agree with the issues seen on the article itself. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 17:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice toward recreation. Gigs (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 21:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Bhalla

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

Not notable, uncited article. Bramble claw x 14:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article for a non notable lawyer.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books are the only possible claim of notability in the article, and since we don't know anything about them, they don't make the claim... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. Not every professor is notable; there is no assertion of significance or importance about this assistant professor. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bryant

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

Person fails WP:PROF, even Institute he went to is a red link. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vendo (activity)

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

Non-notable at best, suspected hoax. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In this article, the term Vendo is used as a verb. However, in reality, "Vendo" is the brand name of a vending machine. It would be highly inappropriate to have an article of this nature, with the possibility that the company could legally challenge the use of the trademarked name. There is a complete lack of references presented to establish notability or support validity of the article or claims made therein. Accordingly, I recommend deleting. Cindamuse (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, most likely a hoax. Lifetime faker (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 02:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, this is a term thought up by a few bored/drunk foreigners in Japan, but is more likely an outright hoax. --DAJF (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Talk about "things you and your friends came up with in school one day"... Apparently, even teachers aren't immune. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senate of Berlin

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

Content fork of Berlin WuhWuzDat 13:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Berlin since there is not enough information to write an article, although the institution is clearly notable. Keep Information has been added, but still: I don't think there should be a listing of office holders since WP is not a directory. Borock (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's a content fork, but what's wrong with that? The fact that the article is short isn't a reason to delete it but a reason to expand it. --Carabinieri (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there could be an article on the Senate of Berlin. Right now it consists of three short sentences, each giving one fact, and a list of current office holders. If you take off the list the article could just fold into an article on the city itself. On the other hand if someone wants to add information on the history and influence of the Senate of Berlin then an article on it would be fine. Borock (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's a stub. But that's no reason to delete.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote (not a vote) to "keep." However an artice that gives only 3 facts should be merged into the parent article, which already gives at least one of those facts. Borock (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a Government of the city and state of Berlin article. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inherently notable as the administrative body of a city with a uniquely interesting recent history from an administrative point of view, and also mentioned all over the place. The creator did not do a search on en.wikipedia itself and make links to the article; I got 1,423 hits, which I have made a small start in linking. There are also lots and lots of Google hits, especially factoring in the alternate translation Berlin Senate (for which I have created a redirect) and the German Senat, used in some English-language books. I added a history section to the article and some references. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is a Senate in Berlin for Germany, Bundesrat of Germany, which could be confused with the Sentate for Berlin itself. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise it was thought of as a senate, have added a hatnote, thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic, and a growing article. All good. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriately notable for a large and famous city like this, though for smaller ones this sort of information should be merged. Easily expandable--see the deWP article. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus The division between "delete" and "keep" opinions was evenly split following the substantial edits made by Colonel Warden and others. Nearly everyone, including those who had commented before the edits, acknowledged the addition of sourcing and content, with some changing their opinions and others maintaining them. There still remains a difference of opinion as to whether the topic of "tiger vs. lion" is independently notable. Mandsford 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger vs lion

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

steaming pile of Original Research, Essay WuhWuzDat 13:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: ~~WP:OR, subjective opinion, personal essay~~. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My Delete opinion only applies to the version as it was tagged - if Colonel Warden can make us a better version (see below), I will probably change my mind. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep now that Colonel Warden has created a much better and wholly new version of article, properly referenced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden's version of the article suffers badly from WP:SYNTH issues. See Redfarmer's comments below. SnottyWong ^babble 14:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think it should be deleted - it should be improved further. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with delete reason, also WP:NOTWEBHOST. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. This one raised my eyebrows a tad bit. Honestly, my mama can take a tiger any day of the week. Word. Cindamuse (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete OR. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Redfarmer (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: After reading Colonel Warden's new version, I maintain my WP:VOTE to delete based on the fact that the article is a synthesis of sources. Half of it is sourced from an article on tiger morphology. The sentence asserting its importance is sourced from a single work by the philosopher José Ortega y Gasset. If there is an appropriate article on animal fights or on the animals themselves that would benefit, I wouldn't oppose a merge. The fact that the editor spent so much time to take an obvious personal essay (it was even written in the first person) and turn it into a synthesis is baffling to me and seems counterproductive. If we really need an article comparing the two species, might I suggest a comprehensive article detailing strengths of other animals, lest Wikipedia become littered with articles such as "Lion vs. Bear", "Kangaroo vs. Wallaby", and the ever popular "Superman vs. Batman". Redfarmer (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one writes without sources, one is accused of OR and personal essay. If one copies a single source, one is accused of copyright violation or plagiarism. If one writes from multiple sources, one is accused of synthesis. What's baffling is how one supposed to write an article at all, in the face of such determined obstruction. I look for more information to understand your position but find that, rather than creating articles, you seem to prefer to delete them. Anyway, I have added another citation to backup the José Ortega y Gasset one. Many of these sources state that the lion vs tiger topic is a notable one and so I could have a great long string of citations but that would be inelegant. Two should be ample. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't dignify your remarks with a response, but, if you want to demonstrate you are acting in WP:AFG here, you should seriously consider retracting the mud-slinging above (a.k.a. taking several events from three years ago out of context) and stop with the fighting below. I've read your rationale for saving it. I don't agree. Redfarmer (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost as if this is a game for Colonel Warden. If he can save the article from being deleted, he wins the game. The more unlikely it is that the article would have been kept (i.e. the worse the article was), the more points he gets. He is apparently going for the all-time high score on this one. This is Colonel's M.O., not just an isolated incident. SnottyWong ^converse 23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think ~~you~~ we all should leave out the personal comments and stick to commenting on the article itself. If ~~you have~~ anyone has an issue with another editor, an AfD discussion is not the place for it - there are other venues for that kind of thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! Redfarmer (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but Keep The topic itself is notable, and seems to generate some interest. I... hope that the author continues to contribute to WP and matures as a writer. p.s. He is correct in his assessment of this issue. Tigers push out lions in India where both are found. See:Asiatic Lion Borock (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Do Siberian tigers have internet access? Salih (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No bears? Oh, my!!! Unwikified original essay. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost sounds like an episode of Deadliest Warriors... Article is complete WP:OR and looks like a really big snowball! - Pmedema (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... This is the first snowball I've seen thrown back into the freezer! Unfortunately, after reading all the below arguments and looking at the new article and it's references, I still feel that the article is not notable. - Pmedema (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, essay. Quite interesting to read. I agree that I would put my money on the tiger. But given the necessary gender diversity, instead of fighting they could have fun starting little Ligers or Tiglons. The scary thing about this article is that it could generate a spew of articles such as Monkeys vs otters, or Python vs octopus, much like all the "bilateral relations" articles. Edison (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bilateral relations articles are quite relevant because animals are commonly used to symbolise countries and so we have numerous works with titles like The lion and the tiger: the rise and fall of the British Raj and Bengal Tiger and British Lion. No-one is going to be deleting the corresponding relation article, India – United Kingdom relations, because that topic has great notability. These matters turn upon the notability of the topic which is evidenced by the level of sourcing. In this case, we have abundant sourcing too. Would you not agree that a relations article with this level of sources, as listed below, would always be kept? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus? pablo 09:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Versus the Volcano? SnottyWong ^confabulate 14:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi Meets Godzilla? Edison (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis versus Carl Perkins! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLFVprIjtpw&feature=related--Shirt58 (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When one searches for sources, rather than simply expressing a personal opinion, one immediately finds that there are multiple books with this title and topic such as Lion vs Tiger and Lion vs tiger. The topic is also covered in other sources such as Animal life and lore and Lion and tiger. This topic clearly has great notability and so should be kept for improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an article of this title could be written, but this certainly isn't it - this is pure personal opinion/OR. But if someone were to rewrite it from scratch as a proper article, that might be cool -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this space. But the existing text seems quite reasonable. When it says things like the tiger being a solitary hunter while the lion hunts in a pride, do you dispute the accuracy of these statements? What is supposed to be original here? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about OR is that the article should not read is if it is trying to resolve the question itself (ie the "here to prove who would win in this fight" aim is the wrong approach for an encyclopedia), but should echo what reliable sources have said about it. So I don't think there would be any problem stating simple factual things regarding solitary hunting, prides, etc, but I think it would be wrong to draw any unreferenced conclusions from them - the only conclusions that should really be allowed are conclusions made in reliable sources. Anyway, best of luck - I look forward to seeing a new version :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have also convinced me Colonel. I changed my vote to Keep, even though it's not really a vote. Borock (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This entire approach is unencyclopedic. How about the battle of the breakfast foods: orange juice v. grapefruit juice? Or let's write an original essay on muscle cars, Ford v. Chevy... Maybe we could speculate about who would win a fight between pitbull v. rottweiler. Heck, let's not stop there, let's get into something we can all appreciate, like cake v. ice cream. Wow, there are a million possibilities and that is exactly the point. The article tiger vs. lion is, plain and simple, an unencyclopedic treatment of a trivial, whimsical subject. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, there's more: ninja v. Navy SEAL, bobcat v. badger, milk v. chocolate milk, licorice v. red rope candy, sleeper sofa v. futon, football v. baseball, black and white film v. colorized film, LCD TV v. plasma TV, apartment v. condo, Maui v. Kauai, offset printing v. lithography, traditional vacuum cleaner v. bagless vacuum cleaner, paint thinner v. acetone, hardback v. paperback... Carrite (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are arguments to avoid: straw men and circular argument. Also, for some existing examples of versus articles, please see Nature versus nurture, Real versus nominal value, Pirates versus ninjas, Greed versus grievance, Alien versus Predator &c. The test is not whether you like a topic or not as this is not a popularity contest or vote. The test is whether the topic will stand up or not - do we have the sources to make something of it. In this case, we do. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superman vs Mighty Mouse? Edison (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious OR issues. The subject is clearly unencyclopedic. The straw man argument is actually more convincing than Warden's argument. The fact that articles like these get tagged for rescue is what gives ARS a bad name. SnottyWong ^speak 18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion which is obvious OR, being unsupported by a shred of evidence or policy. When one actually checks the facts, it is the work of moments to find multiple encyclopedia which discuss the topic such as The New and complete American encyclopedia or The British encyclopedia. The topic is therefore encyclopedic. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Every statement in this article is unsourced. Statements like: "One of the most asked questions, im here to prove who would win in this fight" clearly have an unencyclopedic tone, and are by definition original research until they are sourced. The rest of the article is similar. I highly doubt that this is "one of the most asked questions". The sources you list do discuss the topic of lions, and the topic of tigers (even on the same page!) but the references to lions and tigers actually fighting are only trivial mentions. For instance, in the British Encyclopedia link you sent, the only reference is this sentence: "Conflicts, are reported by travellers, not unfrequently to occur between the lion and the tiger, carried on with all that intrepidity and perseverance, with all that energy and fierceness, which might naturally be expected, and ending sometimes only in the complete destruction mutilation of both." At the risk of being accused of using the straw man argument again, I'm afraid that if we allow articles like this to remain then we are inviting the creation of articles on every combination of life form pairs that have ever been documented to fight. If you need a policy to reference, WP:NOTDIR comes to mind. The idea that you are arguing to keep this garbage article is appalling. I'm now convinced that you will vote to keep anything. SnottyWong ^talk 23:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't vote; I produce evidence and improve such articles as directed by our editing policy. I have done a little work on the article now, adding some sourcing which indicates that this match-up was made in Roman times. The curator of the Bronx Zoo is cited as saying that the tiger was the betting favourite then. By such work, we put flesh on the bones of this early draft and so the encyclopedia is built. Idle critics who do nothing to assist such work are not needed and attempts to delete such work-in-progress which are made without any evidence or policy support are disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per original nominator and Snottwong's arguments alike. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear that others have discussed this topic before (Who would win a fight of lion vs. tiger?), including entire books (Yes, kids' books but written with serious intent.) So it's not us on WP who are setting it up, which would be OR. I also wouldn't have any problem with Mustang vs. Camaro or even Mustang vs. Zero since these are also notable match-ups which have been discussed in the literature. -Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ah, the old "quien es mas macho" article. Even if this were given a slightly less ridiculous name (say "Comparison of lions and tigers") this is not a topic of academic study. Of course, Lions are. And so are Tigers. And there common characteristics and differences driven by their different environments and evolutionary histories, have been remarked on. So take heart! There are articles about all this and more. On their family and their genus where some comparitive consideration (well sourced, preferably from the voluminous academic literature) might be judiciously placed. And while the binary thinkers among us may get their noodle into a knot wondering who would "win" a fight, I'm here to reassure them. They're both already winners: The product of a marvelous selective process that made them wonderfully adapted to their environments, and dramatically different style of life. A tiger trying to live on a lions terms in open savannah would also lose (and would probably be killed by the pride for trying). And a lion making a go of it in the Taiga would likewise come up short. Bravo to whoever placed the "rescue" tag. Just when one thought the ARS was beyond parody...Bali ultimate (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More unsupported OR. You claim that this is not a topic of academic study but produce no evidence. Yet again, when one actually looks, one finds the comparative strength of the two big cats discussed in the journal Nature — The Strength of the Lion and the Tiger. As this is one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals, your claim is refuted. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The letter from an 1875 issue of Nature is amusing, but it falls considerably short of being a credible indication of academic merit. A letter to the editor from 135 years ago? No peer-reviewed articles? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not require academic sources for our topics. It is our explicit policy that Wikipedia is not an academic work. It is a general encyclopedia which is intended to be read by anyone and everyone. In establishing notability, we just require independent, reliable sources and this has been done. If you think that there is a requirement to do more, please produce a policy to support your personal opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Examination of these sources raises some concern as to their reliability. A statement about the popularity of a comparison is referenced with a translation of a Spanish book from 1942. There are two historically interesting newspaper articles that deal with the subject, but are each more than 50 years old. The only recent work that deals with the subject has only a trivial, one sentence mention. Confirmation bias at work? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, what we seem to have here is recentism. Do you seriously suppose that the nature of lions and tigers has changed significantly in the last century and that people did not have some reasonable understanding of them? One might argue that understanding is more limited nowadays as these species are nearly extinct and so there are fewer specimens to be studied. In any case, I am not aware of any time limit for our sources. Wikipedia was seeded with the 1911 Britannica, for example, and its centenary is next year. The great advantage of sources of this age is that they are free of copyright and so the full text is more readily available. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't appear to understand is the fact that scientific understanding of lions and tigers -- their natural history, their genetics, their relationship with their environment and other species, the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation (and on and on it goes) is all dramatically improved over 135 years ago. If "one" argued that scientific "understanding is more limited nowadays" than one would be a fool. Same goes for almost anything on science from 1911 -- almost all of it has been improved/corrected/clarified. The great disadvantage of old, free sources is that they're often frequently wrong but are all to often used by wikipedia editors because they're available online and "free" with little regard to evaluating their accuracy.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you produce some more recent sources then we shall be happy to consider them. The source I like best so far is this which compares tiger and lion morphology in good detail. The publication date for this is 2010 and so the selective criticism we see here is just game playing rather than a serious assessment of the sources provided. Taken together, the numerous sources well demonstrate the notability of the topic. Refining our coverage for best accuracy is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's in fact an excellent source on tigers (though sadly, would need to be gotten out of a library since only every 3rd page is free; relying on that as is could lead to major trouble and misunderstanding), and if one is interested in some statistics on the comparative average cranial volumes and other morphological comparisons across the panthera genus (which includes lions) it is of some more general interest. But it is not remotely about "Tiger vs lion." The correct place for comparative info about panthera is the Panthera article. Ok, last word from me to the biologically illiterate.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source states, inter alia, that "there is much popular debate as to whether tigers are bigger than lions". It then goes on to discuss the comparison in detail. This is very much our topic and your failure to recognise this seems to be a failure of ordinary literacy, let alone biology. As you are having such difficulty with this text, I have added some more sources to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- A 135 year old one paragraph letter to an editor making assertions about biomechanics presented as modern-day "fact" in an article? Laughable.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have reason to believe that the information is mistaken? In any case the letter refers us to a book and the letter is in Nature which is as good as it comes. Is there a more recent study? Hobit (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, all estimates of relative strength of animals from 135 years ago are wrong, deprecated, etc... At any rate, discussion of these questions of natural science should be held at the genus level, Panthera, possibly at the family level, Felidae, and to a limited extent at the articles on Tigers and Lions. And it's a one paragraph letter to an editor for chrissake, that does nothing other than seek to correct what he took as a misinterpretation of his research in another article.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll assume you have some background in the area to be able to make that assessment, I don't see why we'd expect things to be different. I think the fact that the one paragraph is A) on-line and B) concise and directly addresses the issue says something. The fact that Nature took the time to publish such a letter says something too, though perhaps I hold that journal in too high of regard. Finally I _think_ he refers to his book, not an article. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made since monimation. Topic shown as notable, and coverage is suitable for this encyclopedic article on the subject. The project is well served by this article remaining and being further improved over time and through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been greatly improved, plenty of references and historical accounts. And since Google search shows 1,430,000 results, it must be something people talk about quite often. Dream Focus 04:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vastly improved since my delete vote was cast. My main concern is with the opening statement, "The comparative merits of the tiger versus the lion is a popular topic amongst hunters and naturalists." The citations used to back this up are from 1899 and 1942 (albeit in a 2007 translation) and don't reflect current opinion. Naturalists, stopped making such comparisons around the time they stopped wearing Pith helmets. If the statement can be reworded (should be simple) in a way that reflects this, perhaps mentioning that it continues to inspire the popular imagination, I'd be more than happy to change my vote to keep. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The beautiful thing about wikipedia is anyone can edit. Please change the article the way you see fit to make it keepable. :) Okip 12:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made those changes yesterday, so weak keep. Still not convinced it's encyclopedic. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Closing administrator please note, the complete transformation of this article.[1] I think there was a little lack of seeing the true WP:POTENTIAL of this article, which is common in deletion discussions. "Delete, merge, or keep articles on topics based on their potential notability and verification, not just how they look now." Sources are reliable and notable. To quote the New York Times, "...a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow...notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come." Thanks. Okip 12:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's The New York Review of Books, not the New York Times... Fram (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there have still been many delete !votes after this "complete transformation" of the article, indicating that the subject itself is problematic, not just the current state of the article. SnottyWong ^confess 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, might be sourced, but this is unencyclopedic "Superman vs. Batman" stuff. Hairhorn (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even though I personally feel delete is in order, I wouldn't oppose this discussion being closed as "no consensus" given the confusing labyrinth this discussion seems to have fallen in. It's hard anymore to judge who was for delete/keep before or after Colonel Warden's new version. No consensus would allow anyone who still feels it should be deleted to open a new discussion and start from scratch. It seems a more sane proposal at this point. Redfarmer (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic "ARS takeover" scenario, and another reason why the {{rescue}} template should be taken to TfD. We start out with an article that unquestionably should be deleted (note there were 11 delete !votes in a row before the first keep !vote). Then a user comes along and desperately tries to add sources and completely rewrite the article so that it is barely passable (and, in my opinion, has failed to do so), and then tags the article for rescue. Then, along come at least 3 ARS members to pile on the keep !votes (namely, MichealQSchmidt, Dream Focus, and Okip). Here's my question: how is this helpful? Why must we battle about such articles? What is so terrible about deleting an article which is 100% original research and would require a complete rewrite? Just because an article gets deleted today doesn't mean it can't be recreated at a later date by someone who is not going to fill it with OR. Attempting to quickly rewrite a terrible article from scratch during an AfD always results in the long, drawn out, drama-ridden AfD discussions like this one, and it is disruptive because everyone is !voting on different versions of the article. Not even one word of the original article has been preserved at this point. If your goal was to create a good "Tiger vs lion" article (as opposed to "winning" an AfD against the "unreasonable vicious hordes of deletionists"), wouldn't it be better for everyone if you allowed the unsatisfactory version of the article to be deleted, and then start the article from scratch on your own time rather than trying to jam something together in less than 7 days? I just don't understand this mentality. SnottyWong ^squeal 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with !voting to delete an article based on its current content, and then changing one's mind if someone comes along and rewrites it. And there's nothing wrong with rewriting it during the AfD - there's no need to delete the original and then start again. Also, I really don't think that personalizing things and targeting criticism at individuals is helping your case - this is about the article itself, not about who has commented and what projects they might be part of - and I'm sure I don't need to point out WP:AGF, as I feel sure you must be aware of it. So come on, please, just state your opinion about the article itself, not about other people, and leave others to state theirs too - and then leave the closing admin to judge the consensus without trying to canvass him/her -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So who's trying to win a game now? Why do people resent the fact that others are prepared to work harder than they are to improve articles? If you don't understand the mentality of people who work to improve the encyclopedia, rather than treat it as a battlefield where they have to win arguments, then I would suggest that Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, I resent the fact that other people are improving the encyclopedia (that was sarcasm, if you didn't pick up on it). If people are unable to read my comments and respond to them without callowly twisting my words and drawing conclusions that just aren't there, then I think I need to withdraw from this discussion. SnottyWong ^verbalize 17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to SnottyWong). The policies WP:IMPERFECT and WP:BEFORE clearly indicate that we should develop poor drafts rather than deleting them. One reason for this is that deletion is a redundant step if we expect to be keeping the article, even as a stub. Another reason is that it gives less offence to the original author who is often forgotten in this. We should acknowledge his contribution in starting the topic, however imperfectly, and spare him the annoyance of deletion templates which tend to have an uncivil effect contrary to WP:BITE. See his talk page where the incivility continues even now. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snotty(ec): Rewriting an article shouldn't be viewed as a "hijacking". It happens all the time without drama. Just hours ago I re-wrote Eataly and the nominator withdrew the AfD nomination based on the rewrite. Sometimes horrible articles are created on notable subjects. Don't fall into a battle mindset just because "deletionists" and "inclusionists" will inevitably lock heads on a small percentage of AfDs where the intractable question is whether the coverage is "significant" enough to show notability and the sourcing is reasonably debatable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARS takeover? Kindly stop your constant attacks against the ARS and certain members such as myself. Someone tried to speedy delete this, and then sent it to AFD the same day it was created, even when it was being worked on. If it had been left it alone, it might've continued to be improved on its own. Most articles don't look that great their first day out. You give them a chance to grow. Once they are out there, others will find them and contribute to them. That's how it works. People are just in too big of a rush to try to delete things which aren't harming anyone, and thus no reason to be so determined to kill them their first day here. Dream Focus 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Snottywong, I would encourage a different view. If an article is so badly in need of deletion such that someone comes along and completely rewrites it during the AfD, what's wrong with that? It's essentially a validation of your original criticisms. The only real difference is that if someone comes along and re-creates the article and improves it after deletion, we risk random editors tagging it for G4. I have no problems at all with saying "the article was worthless before, but has been completely revamped". Really, that's the entire idea of the ARS: finding articles that suck and are AfD'ed on topics that are notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment. I was skeptical that this was such a topic, but the RS'es Colonel Warden uncovered convinced me. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The attempt to improve the article's content cannot mitigate against the fact that the topic is inherently unencyclopedic. Relevant information can be included in other articles. There is no substantive categorical basis for this topic. Eusebeus (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem that "substantive categorical basis" has a basis in policy. My impression that that what you and others are getting at is that you don't like comparative articles. But there are at least two categorical articles which this topic overlaps with. One is big cat, for which we have a mediocre article, and the other is king of the beasts, which currently redirects to lion. This latter is where I propose to work next since finding a source which states that, in China, the tiger is considered king of the beasts. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep already Sources are there that establish notability of topic. The article is in good shape and well referenced. Forget about the past or personal feelings about other editors. The article is the thing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability of the topic has been clearly demonstrated. I note that a couple of editors have referred to WP:SYNTH above, but without indicating what novel conclusion is being drawn here that is not in the sources. Basing an article on multiple sources is best practice, not original research by synthesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the topic is stupid, agree that the as-nominated status of the article was laughable, and wish that Colonel Warden's efforts had been better invested into an article with more encyclopedic importance. Yet I can't disagree with a Nature citation, even if it is old, and even if it is simply a letter to the editor. If notability is not temporary, then old citations that prove a topic was at one time perceived as much more important than it is today are just fine, although the article should be worded to reflect that appropriately. By all means, let the cleanup continue... Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the background to the Nature citation. The author was Samuel Houghton who proved to be an interesting chap. He spent 10 years studying animals and wrote a large work, Principles of Animal Mechanics, which is what he is referring to in Nature. He put his knowledge to good use by formulating exact equations for hanging people in a more humane manner - something of a deletionist too, you might say. :) He was a professor and Fellow of the Royal Society so the quality of his scholarship was well recognised in his day. One of our goals is to write about topics with a historical perspective and so it seems good to refer to such work to give a feel for the development of knowledge and understanding in this area. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the original article should be deleted, and I question whether the article creator made the article just to screw with us. The article has been completely rewritten and has little resemblance to the original. I actually knew that the tiger vs. lion thing was a pop culture matter of some prominence in the distant past, but until Colonel started finding sources, I had no idea a worthwhile article could be constructed. At this point I think it can. (I would like to note for the benefit of Snottywong that I did not find this discussion because it was nominated for rescue, I found it on my own.)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if we're talking about how we found this, I saw it mentioned on Snottywong's talk page... Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the original research claims given above. The attempts to scrounge up disparate sources to fix this leaky ship as this AfD has gone on seems to be a bit problematic as well. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked above, what novel conclusion is being drawn here that doesn't come from the sources? If there is none, then WP:SYNTH does not apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N quite nicely. Is it a reasonable topic for an article? Maybe. Certainly not one I'd have picked. But it seems a number of RSes have discussed the exact topic over time... (I also found this page via SW's talk page). Hobit (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, different species of animals fighting each other seem to be a topic of general conversation (as per the sources provided), but doesn't seem that notable on the face of it. Bit of synth surely to try and pull an article out of all that, unless we're going to follow up with Lion vs Bear, Orca vs Great White... WikiuserNI (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of many scholarly and popular books, as found by Lt. Col. Warden. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its mentioned in some books, in a trivial manner for the most part. There's a kids book on the subject, if that's what you mean. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my personal Relations between Helmut Kohl and Kurt Tucholsky standard. You can make up a little pseudo-article out of most pairings of notable subjects, but the overwhelming majority of such pairings should not have an article. It's not hard to create a superficial appearance of legitimacy of such a topic, but that doesn't make the combination useful or notable. In the light of the earlier debates for which I created this standard, I find this source particularly disconcerting. Are we going to see Elephant vs. Rhinoceros, Fish vs. turtle, Dairy cow vs. fruit bat, Rottweiler vs. chimpanzee, etc.? I hope not. Hans Adler 10:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you seem to be saying is that we should ignore the evidence of sources and base Wikipedia upon the opinion of editors such as yourself. What is your authority for this position? Given that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, how do you propose we weigh such opinions - by voting? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that we need to apply common sense, as usual. The notability rules have been designed to decide whether something that a priori looks like something that might appear in an encyclopedia is in fact notable enough. They have not been designed with a priori implausible topics such as the phrase "decent enough" (37,400 Google Books hits) or "Tiger vs. lion" in mind. Hans Adler 11:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopaedia, by definition, encompasses the full circle of knowledge. I expect to find material of this sort in an encyclopaedia and have cited a couple of examples above. If you have some narrower view of our scope, then you are welcome to it, but I'm not seeing the basis on which you expect your view to trump mine. The open nature of Wikipedia indicates that our coverage should be a union of our views, not an intersection. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You are confusing encyclopedias with libraries. Hans Adler 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics [Wikipedia] can cover, or the total amount of content". Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it OK to spam the encyclopedia with irrelevant trivia. This topic deserves a sentence or two in a small number of related articles where it makes sense, but even a redirect is too much. This only makes it harder for our readers to find legitimate content. Hans Adler 06:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the topic is objectively more trivial and irrelevant than an article of your creation such as The boy Jones, say. Without some objective distinction and evidence to support it, your opinion seems to be only a matter of taste. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The boy Jones" was the 19th century version of Michael Fagan: Very widely reported in the newspapers, repeatedly, over many years. This includes an in-depth piece of several pages written by Charles Dickens in 1888, half a century after the incident happened, as well as caricatures in Punch. A children's book was written about him, and a mainstream film deals with him. It's reasonable to have a separate article about the historical person when we already have an article about the film, which of course misrepresents the facts for effect, as all films do. Now if the newspapers in the 1840s had given significant amount of space to the question who would win in the fight between a lion and a tiger, if Dickens had seriously considered the question, and if there were a serious children's book and a documentary about the question, or maybe a dilly dramatisation in film – then this article would become a no-brainer for keep. But that's not the case, and there is in fact nothing much that would raise the topic from out of the swamp of unsuitable topics that are simply not worthy of attention. There is some indication here that the general topic of "X vs. Y" is a relatively common trope in children's literature and perhaps other literature as well. That would be a good core for an article. But I simply don't understand why some people, instead of writing one reasonable article about a reasonably broad topic, must split it into a myriad of absurdly specific parallel subtopics that don't give any insight and cannot be properly maintained. Hans Adler 10:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You perhaps do not appreciate the extent to which this tiger vs lion matter has been covered. We have staged events, books, paintings, films, TV, newspapers, websites &c. For example, see this which contains hundreds of cuttings about the topic spanning millenia. So far as encyclopaedic coverage is concerned, I have identified 3 encyclopaedia which have covered the tiger vs lion topic while I've only found one which talks of the boy Jones. There is not a significant objective difference. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage found on the topic is trivial. There's currently no non-trivial info in the article that can't already be found in the individual tiger and lion articles. Epbr123 (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Comparison between lion and tiger. The comparisons between these two animals are quite notable, and such a title better hits on the point. Sebwite (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It already uses quite a few reliable sources. More could be added since it was a significant 18th and 19th century artistic trope. Art section added. A literary trope too [2]. Novickas (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been vastly improved since AFD began. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or move and rescope to "lion-tiger contest", although the winner and backup vote is more likely no consensus. Discussion:

Declined to comment earlier in the AFD; did not read the earlier article; read the side drama and skimmed the current AFD and article. The fact is that Judaism and bus stops was a much better article than this is now and it still got deleted by mass consensus. With all due respect to colonels, WP:AND is still the controlling policy, q.v.

The question as to the current misbegotten name is whether the topic "lion-tiger comparisons and contrasts" is notable. The answer is that the sources just don't consider this an independent topic. I am disappointed that both encyclopedia links do not lead to comparison articles as one might (or might not) infer from advertising, but to long articles on Felis that have only passing comparison references; and it looks like the Linneans moved Panthera leo and P. tigris out of that group long ago.

The idea that this "vs." is somehow "classic" may be more sustainable if the topic were narrowed to lion-tiger contest, which actually has a bit of hope of being a notable topic: thus move and scale down would work if that were agreed to be the topic (this would allow an organization into actual and virtual contests, physical comparison, and "in popular culture", which would cover most of the current article, while king of the beasts (currently pointing here) and King of the Beasts (currently pointing to lion) would not fit the new title and should be a separate sourced stub). The fact is that the misideaed title confuses the scope, and IF editors agree on the scope the deletion discussion can be settled better. Merge to a new short section of Panthera would also be fine, whether it's a merge of the whole article, or just of the "king" text and redirects.

Exceptions to WP:AND are rare and simply do not extend to Alien vs. Batman, Andrew vs. Katrina articles (at risk of offense, Judaism and violence should – probably – be moved to violence in Judaism). In fact, one might argue this concept is also implicit in the general ban on controversy or criticism sections, for the exact same reasons! The title "tiger vs lion" leads to concepts of which animal is inherently better (as seen in 19th-c. fiction), not to concepts of which has statistically won more contests, and thus is a POV magnet; POV-magnet titles should be redirected or scrubbed. Comparisons are generally OR, but physical contests are an easily grokked topic and can keep most content with a reorg. If the scope is limited to "lion-tiger contest" (with "tiger-lion contest" as a redirect of course), that may cut through the issue. JJB 22:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I would still invite contributors to consider whether any one of the 200 or so articles in Category:Software comparisons is more notable than this topic to the general audience, rather than to the geeky Wikipedia editor demographic. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Historical depictions of Panthera. The newly rewritten article doesn't have much to do with the older one, and "Tiger vs Lion" is admittedly a silly name.--hkr Laozi speak 23:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I wouldn't oppose a merge to Panthera as JJB suggested.--hkr Laozi speak 23:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete. An article like that would be justified if "tiger versus lion" would be a notable, somewhat established theme in culture, that can be found in various publication. But a somewhat arbitrary scenario considered by a popular science show or a very few individual and not particularly distinguished authors does not establish a notable cultural theme or term. --Kmhkmh (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the very simple basis that there are sufficient specific sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hans' "non-notable pairings of notable subjects" point very concisely and precisely identifies which comparisons are and which are not acceptable. It is also the reason why this article should be kept: it does not pass through the above sieve; the sources verify that this is a notable pairing.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Fitzsimons

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

Does not seem to be notable. It sounds like he has performed as a background performer for notable artists, but nothing he has done seems to be notable on its own. either way (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established through significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Cindamuse (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 16:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Grimaldi

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

Delete. Does not meet notability established through WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG criteria. Has not received nominations or awards for appearances on film. Has not made unique contributions to the genre. Has not appeared in mainstream. Cindamuse (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't really notable enough, fails the notability criteria for pornstars. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Usually these lame non-notable porn bios have a gratuitous graphic stolen from somewhere. Bonus points for this one for its extremely entertaining idiom: He began his career in the entertainment world in a night club of his hometown , where he performed in the lap dance for four years, although by day, continuing to work as a bartender. She will become rapidly part of the sexy bar, then passed to Misex where she was convinced to work in hard film. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Edited: Carrite (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steamhammer (Transformers)

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

VERY minor Transformers character who's never done anything. Cannot conceivably pass WP:Notability. NotARealWord (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google reveals no evidence of notability. Delete per nom. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor character in a fictional TV series. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 08:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This character never appeared in a fictional TV series as far as I can tell. Nor has he appeared in any actual TV series. NotARealWord (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very, very minor character. Not enough material for a merge, and a redirect seems pointless.--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very minor characters with no independent sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Get on with it. - Areaseven (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a snowball, Sadads (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is beyond snowball, it's a kerosene cat. --Khajidha (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage on CNN or CBS news networks. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windburn (Transformers)

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

VERY minor Transformers character who's never done anything. Cannot conceivably pass WP:Notability. NotARealWord (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All manner and fashion of Google hunting turns up zilch for this Transformers character. Zero evidence of notability. Agree with nom. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No major coverage on CNN, MSNBC, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no coverage in notable independent sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Get on with it. - Areaseven (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty sure this will be a WP:Snowball close, Sadads (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- extremely minor and trivial character. Reyk _YO! 00:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Montgomery Public Schools. Mandsford 16:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brewbaker Middle School

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

The article appears to fail the WP:ORG guidelines. The guidance of WP:NHS would apply only to high schools, not junior or middle schools. (Note, the current external link does not appear to be for Brewbaker). Raising for discussion as PROD removed by creator. Fæ (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montgomery Public Schools.--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to school district at Montgomery Public Schools. Middle schools do not enjoy de facto notability, and are only considered notable if they have done something extraordinary that has received significant coverage by recognised national media, or if they have been a milestone ion in the history of education. According to the references supplied, and further searches, Brewbaker Middle School does not meet these criteria.--Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looked for any news or information on the school and found nothing to support inclusion at this time. Does not meet notability criteria presented in WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Cindamuse (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per usual for non-notable schools under the secondary level. Carrite (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands 'Sutton Lines' bus corridor

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

Another bus route article that offers nothing as to how WP:GNG is met. Nothing in the way of references are provided and none appear to available on searching. Nuttah (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the routes in notable separately, and the group of routes covered here (which is synthesis anyway, as no other source talks about them as a group) doesn't seem to be either. A better prospect might be Buses in Sutton Coldfield, which appears to have more going for it. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a rather more substantive article than many on bus routes. It is not in fact "buses in Sutton Coldfield" but buses from Birmingham to Sutton Coldfield. I suspect that the inclusdion of the borough of Sutton Coldfield within the city of Birmingham in 1974 is still a slightly sensative issue, but Birmingham to Sutton Coldfield bus corridor might be a better title. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it would be, if there were any sources to show that it's a notable topic. In the absence of anything reliable, we have to delete as unverifiable if nothing else. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep 'This bus corridor is notable. The 110 was one of the routes that sparked a fare war between AM PM Travel and Arriva Midlands, the service being originaly operated by Midland Red North/Arriva Midlands North prior to AM PM Travel joining it. The service was invested in in 2008/2009 with Volvo B9TL/Wright Eclipse Geminis. The NXWM "sutton Lines" services (902-915) were introduced in 2002 along with brand new Volvo B7TL/Alexander ALX400s. In 2010, NXWM cut the 104/A/5 and replaced them with evening/Sunday services on the Aston Expressway services 902-915. User:Dudleybus User talk:Dudleybus 18:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep combination articles like this on bus routes are the way to handle them. If they can be verified, it can be assumed that all public transport routes are sufficiently notable for at least inclusion into such a group article. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Up in Grenoside

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

A memoir and local history book. It lacks secondary sources to build an article on. maclean (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Published by a very obscure publishing company. No independent sources to verify the subject's notability, thus not satisfying WP:NBOOK.--Hongkongresident (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NBOOKs Sadads (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable book without coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (criterion 2.2). (non-admin closure) Stickee (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western Azerbaijan

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

The article does not have any credible sources, it is basically an azeri fairy tale which doesnt have any evidence to back up Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article is notable, with plenty of sources. Nomination rationale indicates a political bias against the subject.--Hongkongresident (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an SPA. Only edits are to Armenia-related articles, so this nomination is clearly flawed and in bad faith. Agree on speedy keep under criterion 2.2. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy-deleted (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) and salted JamesBWatson (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakur (musician)

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

Article sources don't point to anything mentioning the article subject. Apparently article has been deleted in the past. Nothing about the article demonstrates that the subject meets notability guidelines | Uncle Milty | talk | 06:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has been created at least three times, deleted through AfD at least three times, salted, and recreated under several different names. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakir green (3rd nomination). The two references provided do not mention the subject and the external link mentions the subject in passing. G4 CSD was removed a couple of times. Subject simply lacks notability at this time, regardless of which name is used to create an article. Cindamuse (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is poorly referenced. Needs published third-party sources for me to support. Minima c (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete for the billionth time - If you purchase a XXL magazine and read you will see everything that's written on wikipedia is mentioned in article on Shakur Green in XXL Mag. It's been deleted few times and as I did see an few other people published another article on Shakur Green a few times which were removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DidiDoSomethingWrong (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC) (NOTE:{{User is blocked}})[reply]

Speedy deletion you will see everything that's written on wikipedia is mentioned in article on Shakur Green in XXL Mag Copyvio, and recreated many times. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 07:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and WP:Salt. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative Delete and Salt - FOURTH TIME this article has appeared, using three slightly different names. Hmmm, that's a coincidence. Unless this is salted we will probably be having AfD debates on articles entitled S. Green (musician), Shakurrrrr Grrreeeen, Shakure Greene, and Shakur Fucking Green within the next six months. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. –MuZemike 16:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faerie Solitaire

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

Computer based Solitaire game published by Subsoap. Coverage for this is pretty much nil on a basic Google search. Variation on solitaire that doesn't seem to have gained much traction insofar as notability is concerned. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fixed it I think... - Pmedema (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviewon Gamezebo, review from Meryl Evans, review on Jay is Games, piece on indiegames.com (Gamasutra). There's plenty of sourcing. Someone another 21:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The reviews at Gamezebo and Jay is Games and others mentioned above are, IMO, enough to establish clear notability - and it is helped along by the win at RealArcade's Great Game Awards, which are a big deal in the casual games industry. -Addionne (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment - I'll concede to this. Shall we snow close this? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll try to get some of these cites into the article at some point. Someone another 06:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zuraidah Ibrahim

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

Non notable BLP XinJeisan (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable journalist, lack of Google hits containing WP:RS excluding SPH business information and article she has had written. Terence (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Straits Times. Judging from what I can glean from various G-hits, she has been around for awhile. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find out anything about her other than she is married to another writer for the same paper, Cherian George. Location (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treworgey tree fayre

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

Not notable event- could not find sources to determine notability, fails WP:EVENT. Slon02 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the event hasn't ben held since 1989 the internet content concerning this article is obviously sparse. There are, however notable sources referring to this event.^[1] --Fletch 2002 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources besides that? --Slon02 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no information on Treworgey Tree Fayre on the following site but it is notable enough to have been included on a ratings system with it's own dedicated page.^[2] --Fletch 2002 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This festival is also relevant to the band Hawkwind and I will see that it is referenced in on their Wikipedia page. Their set was filmed at the festival and is readily available on DVD^[3] --Fletch 2002 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Festival already referenced on the Hawkwind Page here --Fletch 2002 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like a NN festival held once 21 years ago. We do not categorise performers by performance, and I do not think we only exceptionally have articles on individual concerts. However, that is what this article seeks to be. I might have suggested merging a summary to a nearby place (which?), but I doubt it is even worth that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 02:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:MUSIC. Edison (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to TRON project. we have to decide somehow. Merge seems a reasonable option DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MicroScript programming language

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

No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of programming languages. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources or information found on Google search. A programming language used by a small number of people, hence not notable enough per [WP:N]]. TYelliot (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering that this is part of the TRON project, it is possible that it is of some significance in the context of TRON. Therefore it may be desirable to merge this somewhere. I would suggest where, except that I know very little about TRON. I think someone with more extensive knowldege of the topic should comment on the appropriate course of action. Rilak (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this debate, as well as several others I have begun on marginal or non-notable computer science topics, is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing, so whatever experts we may have around should be aware of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have any faith into the competentcy of WikiProject Computing since all they ever seem do is slap own tags on articles and mark fundamental topics in computer architecture as being of low importance. And this is when they have an active editor or two. Rilak (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 02:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TRON Project. Not finding anything in the article or elsewhere that shows notability, although IANAP. TRON Project itself is a short article and has plenty of space for this material as a separate section, and people reading the TRON Project article might want this information. Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marysia Kay

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions. Doddy Wuid (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per extensive filmography status. and overall notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a long list of film titles in the article but the notability of the vast majority is at best unclear, as is the significance or notability of her part in most of those thereof. Of the apparently notable films, notability of her part is without any indication or citation and, from what I can find, not possible to support. Doddy Wuid (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm lets wait and see what some other users say.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Ill still say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only one "keep" per customer BabbaQ, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This one is hard to assess, which isn't surprising considering it's been relisted twice. Going through the credits list, the vast majority are very minor roles. As an example, the credits list Stardust, which is technically true, but only as a "Clare Danes photo double" [3]. What is more telling, is a search for news articlesm which usually brings up something, even for minor and less well known actors, for this actress brings up nothing, save for an unrelated theater director with a similar name.--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disappointed to see this - although Marysia is a minor actress of major roles in very minor films - or vice versa - she's a notable link across a body of small budget horror films which have been successful enough to continue to be made when other genres fail to work at this level. They tend not to get news visibility but in aggregate represent a notable phenomenon, which some people (like me) follow and enjoy. (Hope I got this process right!) --CornyAgain (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneliusagain (talk • contribs) [reply]

As maybe but (no) news visibility equates to (no) significant coverage in reliable sources. Doddy Wuid (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actors are considered notable based on their work, and she's been in enough notable works to qualify. Dream Focus 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor association (particularly undocumented minor association) with something notable patently does not make one oneself notable. Doddy Wuid (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blinovitch Limitation Effect

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

This is a fictional concept that appears to have received no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Doctor Who franchise. The only source that appears to have any substance is a book written by two people who are associated with the franchise through authoring books and magazine articles that are sanctioned by the BBC. The article relies on original research and repeatedly cites "examples" of the effect based on the assumed similarity between the event in question and the articulated effect along with speculation about the supposed roles played by various entities within the franchise. A Radish for Boris (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there an appropriate analogue to Mythology of Dr. Who to merge this into? Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Whoniverse, if we are willing to lose quite a bit of information? NW (Talk) 17:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not a Dr. Who fan, so I really don't have an opinion on that. I'd say the argument against individual notability seems to have merit, but I'm not the best person to evaluate it. From other precedent on NN fictional mechanics of notable fictional franchises, though, inclusion in a larger article detailing multiple such elements seems to be preferable to deletion. The fact that might require trimming is mitigated by the fact we can Transwiki the entire thing to a specialized fiction wiki. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surprisingly, the TARDIS Wiki has less information on this topic than we do. I would suggest transwiki-ing this over to there, if the community there wants it. NW (Talk) 21:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator, User:A Radish for Boris, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Otto4711 Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the factual analogue mentioned in the article. Was/is a pretty central idea or plot device in Dr Who terminology. There are plenty of independent commentaries on Dr Who and they should have segments of text devoted to discussing this, given time travel is a central component of the show. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and transwiki to TARDIS Wiki. --Divebomb (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Bad-faith nom. Seems a fairly valid spin-out article. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was tempted to close this per WP:SK 3 but the sockmaster is not technically "banned" and I consider arguments to transwiki as "delete" !votes. This is a damn good article and it should be kept somewhere if not here. Sending it to tardis.wikia.com sounds like a plan. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why hive off legitimate material to some wiki where it will never see any improvement to sourcing ever again? It's taken almost a decade for wikipedia to get a significant number of articles in the state of looking like GA or FA, that is starting to look like a legitimate quality encyclopedia. None of the other wikis do. What exists on any of the splinter wikis is in some ways irrelevant here, and dooms it to obscurity. The overall encompassing of info on wiki and the crossfertilisation of editors is what gives WP its edge and drives its continuing improvement, so I guess this is a long way of registering why I hate the idea of transwiki. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is discussed, with significant coverage, in reliable secondary sources (the cited books by Parkin, Letts and Miles). The fact that the secondary sources are all related to Doctor Who is irrelevant; discussion of any fictional subject is most likely to be found in material focused on that subject. The key is that these sources — all non-fiction, or at least containing significant non-fiction elements — discuss the idea in a real-world context beyond its role in the plots of specific Doctor Who stories. WP:FICT lists three criteria for keeping articles with fictional subjects: real-world coverage, importance of the fictional work, and role within the fictional work. I think this meets all these criteria. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think i'm done adding references for now. As stated above, there is enough coverage from sources that discuss the effect (the Miles book being almost entirely about it) that it meets the notability standards for an article on a fictional concept. The Effect has been utilized extensively throughout the series and is one of the most important concepts, arguably, in the entire series. Silver seren^C 17:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O Minuto Mágico

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Little Google links pop up from a search. Derild 49 21 ☼ 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources were arranged and listed in Article--Sylvio Sant (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this work was published in 2009, but one of the claimed sources was published in 2001. Could you explain that anomaly? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first edition. The publisher's site demonstrates that it is a second edition. See here [4] Moreover, the work exists and is cataloged by the National Library of Brazil, the Brazilian government agency more than reliable. Just check this source here- Enter title O Minuto Mágico or registration number in Registro: 425791.--Sylvio Sant (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the rules of Wikipedia WP: GNG. Reliable "means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources published May encompass works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability - this source here [5]ensures the article. Reinforcement that the article should be kept.--Sylvio Sant (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNews has never heard of this GBooks seems to only have false hits. Edward321 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Miguel M. Abrahão and related articles be nominated as well? Like the article currently nominated, they were all written by User:Sylvio Sant, and all seem to lack verifiable, reliable sources.--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should feel free to nomminate them if you don't find them notable. Remember that it is not a lack of sources in the article that would be a problem, but the lack of sources out in the world. See WP:BEFORE, Bigger digger (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I was refering to the latter and not the former, as a simple search would indicate. The article Miguel M. Abrahão, the writer of O Minuto Mágico, suffers from the exact same problems as the nominated one, and has been created and mainly edited by the same user, so there's a suspected violation of WP:COI.--Hongkongresident (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have my doubts whether this source here is valid under the criteria of WP, but in any case, I leave it registered here [6]
Delete. The lack of translated sources forgoes verifiability at this time. If translation can be provided per WP:NONENG, it may be possible to assess with a greater understanding of the content and notability. Until then, I am unable to recommend keeping the article. Cindamuse (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with no practical knowledge of Portugese I have tried to find sources that cover the subject in detail, but with no success. I like to fight WP:Systemic bias but even the sources provided by Sylvio Sant merely prove the play's existence, not its notability. The French Wikipedia deleted the article at the end of September for the same lack of sources, with the closer wondering if this was a cross-wiki spam effort. Bigger digger (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most notable sources for the article itself is provided by the National Library of Brazil, in Encyclopedia of Brazilian literature by COUTINHO, Afrânio; SOUSA, J. Galante (found on Google Books)[7])or Encyclopedia of Latin America [8]. I believe that online newspapers are not reliable sources. They are denied every day. The sources are more confáveis those provided by books. I think it's time for the project be reviewed with respect to online sources. Please let us seek to better assess the criteria, especially when it comes to a synopsis of the play. The text can be known in one country but not another--Sylvio Sant (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide us with page numbers in those books where O Minuto Mágico is discussed? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, I liked its seriousness in dealing with this article. Congratulations for your questions before giving your vote.In this case, I chose not to cite this source in the article because I have the paper book and I noticed that the pages on Google Books can not be viewed.Would be worth mentioning in the article, these pages? If it be, in the printed edition I have, the page bears the number 612.--Sylvio Sant (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Google Books search tool, it can be confirmed that the second source does not in fact mention O Minuto Mágico. Nor does it mention anything about the author. Now, in some cases this is due to a policy by Google Books, in which some pages are exluded due to copyright concerns, but the Encyclopedia of Latin America is not one of those books. As for the first source, a Google Books search does indicate that the author of the work, Miguel M. Abrahão, is mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Brazilian literature, but not O Minuto Mágico specifically. Either way, that's only one source, one with WP:NONENG concerns as well, which is not enough to satisfy notability criteria, as it requires (as per WP:NBOOK) that an author's work must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". So far, this still looks like a delete.--Hongkongresident (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question that begs!Why does the author of the proposal for disposal did not rule anymore?--Sylvio Sant (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not required to. It's up to us Wikipedians to debate and provide sources for the stances we take, and an admin to gauge the consensus at the end and decide whether or not to delete the article. The nominator is encouraged to discuss along with the rest of us, but he doesn't have to. And who knows? He might be busy, or unavailable at this time.--Hongkongresident (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stainless (web browser)

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

Tagged for notability since June 2009. Only references are 2 x primary sources plus a tweet. Many GHits, but I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. News hits are mostly about the trim of mobile phones with browsers. As always, pleased to be shown wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did find these: Macnn, MacWorld, CIOL. --Michig (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, small number of press releases and one apparent blog post (although in a reliable source) doesn't reach the bar in my opinion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, besides the questionable nature of the so-called references, I'm convinced after further review that any reference to this subject we find, including the Wikipedia article itself and it's tags in various Wiki categories, are all the result of one or more members of the development team attempting raise the notability of this non-notable subject, rather than by any sort of natural process (like coverage due to pre-existing notability). In other words, Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. WP:NOTADVERTISING --Dpaanlka (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might become notable if they ever go beyond a beta, but isn't yet. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real Mixwell

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

Article lacks reliable sources but has lots of refs to promotional sites, and I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources. Bringing to AFD to get more eyes on this. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of fluff and puff, but in the end, notability has not been established through significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Cindamuse (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Marasmusine (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Live

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

A YouTube clip, a blog written by a developer, and a press release. Epic fail of notability criteria. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD completed by GiftigerWunsch [TALK] on behalf of the nominating IP, using the rationale left of the article's talk page. I am currently neutral to the debate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the theoroughly unimpressive article and sources, it does seem to be getting some mainstream attention, for example this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 03:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - reliable sources search returns plenty of hits, with 15 usable sources with significant coverage on the first two pages. A quick search could have saved the trouble of bringing this to AfD. --Teancum (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that disagreeing with the nominator's rationale is not grounds for a speedy keep: per WP:SPEEDYKEEP, it is only applicable when the nomination is purely disruptive, the nominator withdraws it, the nominator is banned, or the article is either a policy or guideline page, or linked from the main page; none of these criteria seem to apply. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomy

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

fails WP:MUSIC. could not find anything in gnews except 1 hit in this search LibStar (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established according to the criteria presented at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unsigned musician; lack of hit recordings; has not charted; has not received awards. Cindamuse (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Butte-Anaconda Historic District. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Block

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

This building certainly has a colourful and interesting history. That said, I would argue that the article about this building fails the general notability guidelines--Shirt58 (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence is presented as to why this building is notable. Malcolma (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (see below) I added evidence of notability. It is a named part of the Butte Historic District and as such is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is still nothing that shows its notability or importance.Borock (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have seen other users say that anything on the National Register of Historic Places is automatically notable, but I can't find a WP guideline that says so. Even if that is policy it might not apply here, since the Imperial Block is not a standalone listing on the National Register; it is one of the buildings that make up the Butte Historic District. So I would say this is a judgment call whether the building is notable or not, and should be based on the sources - only one of which is its inclusion in the Butte Historic District. I couldn't find any source describing what the building is used for now; that might be relevant. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Wikipedia relies on third party sources with a reputation for fact-checking to establish notability. The NRHP won't list a building just because somebody applies. There is vetting and research that goes into it before a building is registered. As such we judge a building as historically notable if the NHRP, an authority on the subject (for the USA) deems a building to be historically significant enough for a listing. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Butte-Anaconda Historic District. This Imperial Block is a component of that 'Historic District' which is listed on the US National Register of Historic Places. maclean (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Merge per Maclean. I did not realize there was a page for this historic district; I looked under Butte Historic District and couldn't find it. I think I'll create a redirect page for it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Merge to Butte-Anaconda Historic District with a redirect would be appropriate. Both articles are fairly short. This article looks unlikely to grow much (and if if does, it could then be separated out again). And Butte-Anaconda Historic District is not so long that it wouldn't hurt it to include basically all the material in this article. Herostratus (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge True, anything individually listed in the National Regsiter is accepted as notable here, and no such article has ever been deleted in the 4 years I have been here. But this does not hold for properties merely listed as being within an historic district. If so my not particularly distinctive house -- and every house --in Boerum Hill would be also, and in most of downtown Brooklyn and most other cities, and we would be at the point indiscriminate coverage. The neighborhood descriptions take care to mention every individual building, in the same detail as included in this article. Of course some of them may be notable, but there needs to be specific sources to the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy (Vertigo)

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

I found no reliable sources in Google to suggest article is notable. Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. No reliable sources, no reliable search results. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was a very prominent graphic novel among the earliest offerings in the Vertigo line of comics, and a collaboration between the well noted writer J. M. DeMatteis and the graphic artist Paul Johnson; it was a single story, not meant to engender a series, but I would rate it a very high quality story, and though not as popular or famous as other works by this writer or the illustrator, I frankly consider it some of the best work of theirs with which I am familiar, and in some ways, one of the most significant and profound stories which has been produced in the medium. ~ Kalki (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had created the page, quite surprised to find no one else had already done so — but there were mentions in the Vertigo (DC Comics) article, and on both author's pages of the work, and these I have now linked to the article. ~ Kalki (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a DeMatteis GN from a major publisher. DS (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established through significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject or author. Sources found are wholly unreliable and consist of links to eBay, bookstore advertising, and blogs. Cindamuse (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This remark seems to be misapplying certain rationales, as the author is widely recognized as one of note, and the publication had already been referenced on his page and that of the artist and publisher as notable enough to be deserving of comment. Though not as widely known as some of his other work, and not what many might consider standard comic book material, it is certainly is a work of some value and notability, and as I stated above, I consider it one of the best which he has produced, of which I am aware, and was quite surprised it had not already had an article created for it. I created the article for it here because I discovered it was lacking one, after I had decided to create a page for it at Wikiquote. ~ Kalki (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chandas (typeface)

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

not indication of notability and no references beyond a webpage advertising the font, article reads like a commercial for a hobby font. Google returned no indications of notability but placing it here as it is a font designed for non-english languages and so i thought it I might be missing some non-english references that would establish noteability Ajbpearce (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning to delete based on lack of decent sources online. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While there is no notability guideline specifically on typefaces, Chandas is a verified pre-installed font in a notable operating system, Ubuntu. Also, because the font is released under an open source license, I highly doubt that there are any commercial intentions, as the nominator is suggesting.--Hongkongresident (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable font taking Hongkongresident at face value. JJB 02:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment It does seem that this is one of the indic fonts installed by default on Ubuntu linux, but as far as I can tell the only action required for this was that one developer working for ubuntu found the font and added it to the indic fonts package. (see http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/t/ttf-indic-fonts/ttf-indic-fonts_0.5.0-0ubuntu1/changelog) While ubuntu is clearly a notable OS, I am unconvinced that the mere fact that this open source font is included with it is sufficient to establish its notability. Ajbpearce (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity (band)

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

Prod declined in May 2009 by ThaddeusB with edit summary "albums have been reviewed by multiple reliable sources - will address sourcing concerns ASAP". He never got around to it and, with his recent lack of edits, probably never will. A7 also declined due to article's age. I have been unable to find any of the sources that ThaddeusB suggests may exist even when searching with multiple keywords. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Fiddling with Google news search parameters I was unable to find anything other than the occasional reviewette of this groups albums, and even those are thin on the ground and not exactly mainstream music reporting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change this to keep. Seems to be much improved now, thanks to Yngvadottir. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the genre, they have had a lot of "press". I tweaked the English of the article and added some references and a few more external links, which maybe should be "Sources" but that seems awfully scholarly for a heavy metal band. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AWP:Energy conservation. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Overall does not meet industry notability per WP:BAND]. However, there appears to be significant coverage through reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I support keeping the article. Cindamuse (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H.A.T.E. (band)

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

Although the individuals might possibly have some notability, the band itself appears to have been a local cover band and not have obtained any record contracts or played any major concerts as front line. The sources are all from YouTube except one that is not about the band. Kudpung (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Yes, the band was a cover band, but many of the members have gone on to form very notable bands, including the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Fishbone, and The Germs, which means the article satisfies criteria 6 of WP:MUSIC: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." There are independent sources verifying that the band did exist, like this article on VH1 [9], but the band apparantely lasted very shortly.--Hongkongresident (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further reading, it appears this band was much more of a brief side project than an actual band. It's better off to redirect/merge it to Red Hot Chili Peppers.--Hongkongresident (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~(and mention in a few other places)~~ - Little side project with people who are notable elsewhere, but not of historical interest in itself. (There was a similar AfD recently about a brief side band that accomplished nothing but IS of greater historical interest. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XYZ (band).) But for this band, note that the sources given in the article are unreliable and/or don't even mention the band. ~~Its existence can be briefly mentioned at the pages for the four members, and maybe Red Hot Chili Peppers. I'll take care of that now, and then this article can be deleted.~~ --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After trying to squeeze this band's existence into the articles about the individual members, I changed my mind on the band's notability because there just aren't any reliable sources out there. It's of historical interest to fans of the associated musicians (including myself) but it just can't be verified. Delete this article altogether. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per it has no sources (because YouTube, Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook do not count as sources ever in my assessments.) Sven Manguard _Talk 04:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FRANC 2D&3D

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/FRANC 2D&3D

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

Non notable software, nothing on Google News or Books. DimaG (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no significant coverage. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I suggest that commentators search GBooks and GScholar for "FRANC2D". The search with "FRANC 2D&3D" misses everything. Many cites will be found. I will improve the article in the next day or two. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Took Howard up, found one hit on news, which was not useful at all. Therefore, not enough sources to establish notability. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by original nominator. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Duncan (baseball)

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

Not notable baseball player. Only played for one year and that was 100 years ago. Emptyviewers (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Yes, he played for one year, in the National League 1899 season. It doesn't matter that it was 100 years ago. Mandsford 23:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Mandsford 23:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE#Baseball. As Mandsford said, time has absolutely no bearing on who is notable and who isn't. According to current consensus, if they play even one game for a Major League team, they are notable. Duncan did. He is notable. Redfarmer (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Redfarmer (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of biographical-related deletion discussions. -- Redfarmer (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per above comments. Suggest that the nom, a new editor, become more familiar with the process before nominating articles for deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:ATH. Subject played in Major League Baseball, the highest level of the sport. BRMo (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notability is not temporary, not even if it's 100 years old. -Dewelar (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - A year in one of the major leagues makes for notability per se. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination Still feel it is a pointless article (who would actually look him up?) but it's obvious that I lost. Emptyviewers (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep per notability guidelines above. A very frivolous nomination, as it's fairly clear that Emptyviewers only nominated this article for deletion to harass the creator of the article (see discussion on User talk:PM800). Bds69 (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THAT IS NOT TRUE I did not nominate because of past issues with PM800. I did find it because of that, but I nominated based on the fact that nobody is going to look it up. You are not WP:AGF. I wasn't the first person to try to delete it by the way. A random IP address deleted the first one. I just feel it's stupid having an article about somebody like that, but if you look above you'll see that I GAVE UP. Emptyviewers (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.ukrockfestivals.com/treworgey-tree-fayre-1989.html

[2] ttp://www.welovefestivals.com/festivals/1989/Treworgey-Tree-Fayre

[3] ttp://www.hawkwinddirect.com/

[1]

[2]

[3]