Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 22

< 21 October	23 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 speedy delete. causa sui (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mellanox Technologies

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

Article originally deleted under A7, then restored by the deleting admin after this discussion Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A_public_company_listed_on_NASDAQ_is_speedily_deleted_from_Wikipedia.3F. Still a non-notable company though. Yoenit (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable company. Just having a NASDAQ ticker symbol does not constitute notability, although it will give you an artificially-high level of googlehits (which do not constitute substantial coverage). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say this surprises me. I assumed being a publicly traded company constituted being notable? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, may fall under speedy G11 as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unambiguous advertising and vacuous gibberish: a supplier of end-to-end InfiniBand and Ethernet connectivity solutions and services for servers and storage. Mellanox products focus on data center performance and deliver bandwidth, scalability, power conservation and cost-effectiveness while converging multiple legacy network technologies into one future-proof architecture. I need to future-proof my house. Maybe aluminum siding will help. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being listed on a sotck exchange does not confer notability. Even if this company were to be notable, the article does not assert it and sources do not meet WP:ORG. As it stands, the article is little more than an advert. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the link above. Again, I am amazed that publicly traded companies are not automatically considered notable at Wikipedia according to Wikipedia:ORG#Publicly_traded_corporations. I would have thought that Wikipidia would be the first place a would-be-investor would look to before buying a company stock. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per criteria G11 and G12 (content is copied from the press release used as a reference, [1]). VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean G11 as in speedy deletion: Wikipedia:CSD_G11#G11? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for speedy deletion as unambiguous copyright violation. No matter how future-proof you are, we can't accept verbatim copies of press releases as articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been looking around to see who wrote this article in the first place and found out it is a new Wikipedian User_talk:Mkrichards. I was very disheartened to see the way wikipedia welcomed this new potential contributor. The person welcoming spent no more than a second before notifying him/her that their very first article was nominated for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The welcome and the CSD notification are placed simultaneously with the deletion process.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that those who do not write articles which are nominated for speedy deletion do not get a welcome message? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Practically everyone gets a welcome message from someone after they have made a few significant edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2011 (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. If the author wishes to have the page userified so that they can retrieve their data for posting elsewhere, give me a ping on my talkpage. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. 213 Squadron Australian Air Force Cadets

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

Spam/vanity article, possibly by a paid or COI editor, about a microscopic and non-notable unit of Australia's Air Force. Fails all tests of notability; seems to be more of a bulletin board for bragging rights than anything else. Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The writer of this article literally "boasts" in the first sentence about this non-notable military training unit, displaying a conflict of interest and a lack of understanding of the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The literally boasting has been removed and more relevant history has been added, there have been more reliable sources references and this unit exists and has a growing history. Also not sure if you'd agree that the boasting is removed, but as linked in the referencing the Unit is known for it's acceptance rates into the Defence Force that's what the article referenced is about. Darcy.cartwright (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need reliable, independent sources. Both of the sources used in the article are publications of the Australian Air Force Cadets, are not independent, and are therefore useless for establishing notability on Wikipedia. Editor Darcy.cartwright is a new editor and a single purpose account working only on this article and to oppose its deletion. CFSGT D'Arcy Cartwright is mentioned in the article. You are welcome to edit here, Darcy.cartwright, but your writing must be about topics that are notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So would referencing another source make it notable? I have others, I just thought referencing the actual source would have been more reliable than a third party. I have references from CadetNet also however, I'm not sure on how to prove the accuracy of the unit's history if it's only been written by someone from the organisation? Also are we allowed to reference Facebook? Darcy.cartwright (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please read the relevant pages such as Notability, General notability guideline, Reliable sources, Notability (organizations and companies) and Conflict of interest. Third party, independent sources are what we look for. If something hasn't been written about by someone reliable from outside the organization, then it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Facebook, amateur blogs and social media, self-published or user submitted sources are not permitted to be used to show notability on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A small unit of a larger program that does not seem to meet WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Have found multiple RSL and newspaper articles now, will they suffice? Darcy.cartwright (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless you can point those out. As far as I can see none are reliable and independent -- military newsletters, a boosterish parliamentary speech, etc. EEng (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but cadet units are simply not generally notable. Even regular military units below battalion size are rarely notable (this unit is barely of company size) and even battalions have been deleted in the past. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject simply isn't notable under the WP:GNG as it lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources. I say this without wishing to be discouraging as I can see that someone has clearly gone to a lot of trouble with this page, and it is a fairly neat and attractive article, however it simply isn't within our scope. Perhaps the author might find somewhere else on the internet for this? Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point which is rarely seen in AfD discussions. EEng (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is Wikipedia and not an argument I can bother myself with. Darcy.cartwright (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OrangeMike, who is, in fact, not a douche. CityO fSilver 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC
Delete previous precedent it that individual cadet organisations are just not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)'[reply]
Comment. 68 likes of the group page on facebook, also has a few outside links of main organisation showing on google, however none are really focused on the group. Ray-Rays 20:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - individual cadet units have been deemed not notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as said above, small cadet units don't constitute a full article. Bodman456 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Whiteacre

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

Non-notable producer, writer, filmmaker, distributor, etc. Compiled mostly of original research. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. All references except for the AVN op-ed barely mention whiteacre and it's about his documentary not him. If article is deleted, should then redirect to The Young Lions (film). Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Refs are full of blogs, youtube, imdb. Nothing significant or reliable. Not notable. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 16:32, 28 October 2011 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mind of a Leader

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

In one of this article's much longer, adspeak-ridden and consequently speedy-deleted previous incarnations, the author claimed that this product is similar to FISH! philosophy or The Secret. However, unlike those offerings, this one doesn't seem to have garnered sufficient independent notice to be considered notable. —SMALL JIM 22:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete no book hits, no news hits, and excluding the phrase "is an international cutting-edge leadership project" makes most hits go away except those on Amazon, promotional websites, and in foreign languages. The lack of any references is reason enough to presume this is just more self-promotion. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an international workplace management system and personal training tool. You can apparently learn the management secrets of Larry Flynt. No thanks. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:48, 23 October 2011 (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 per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional English pronunciation of Latin

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

Seems to be a mostly original research educational essay. Technical and hard to understand and not sure how encyclopedic it is. Seems more like a thesis for a course in Latin. Ridernyc (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason for the article was the continuous edit wars we used to have over the "proper" pronunciation of latinate words and names in English. With an article like this, we can at least refer to it for the traditional (Shakespearean) pronunciation, as it notes that there are various other pronunciations used. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one find it very helpful as English pronunciation of Latin is hard to figure for someone from the continent who was educated in a country that has clear vowels. It could probably do with more refs but deleting it is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I suspect it may be under-refd because it's not a topic that will feature widely in publication ... Akerbeltz (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this useful and scholarly article, although more inline cites would be beneficial. If there a few elements of original research, this one is a good case for ignoring the rules. —SMALL JIM 23:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it could do with some work to make it more accessible and some more inline citations, but apart from that it's a good and valuable article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure I see the problem. Sure, the article is technical and somewhat hard to understand, but that is mainly due to the fact that the subject matter is complicated. Stone–Čech compactification is also technical and probably hard to understand for most people, but that is not an argument for deletion; after all, this encyclopedia is not a volume in the For Dummies series. And as to this being original research: it is a careful compilation of the material from the referenced resources, as any encyclopedic article ought to be. --Lambiam 00:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—if the nominator could maybe point to some actual policies that suggest that this should be deleted, i will respond with some actual policies that suggest to me that it should not be.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep a useful tool for scholarly pourposes(as mentioned above), well written and organized. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would help if the article had inline citations, but there's nothing about it that says "essay" any more than our articles on the phonology of any other language. (I would also be interested in a longer prose section on how the change came about, but that has no bearing on the deletion nomination.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful and encyclopedic article. Dream Focus 11:12, 23 October 2011 (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. Neutrality^talk 22:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iggy Wigum

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

pluma Ø 21:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support-It looks like the author was making a page, then decided it was not notable, and tried to delete it by blanking it. pluma Ø 22:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7. Eeekster (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2011 (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. Sandstein 08:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully qualified name

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

Nonnotable topic. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is widely used. I've added just one of the many available refs for its use in Perl – I'm sure the other uses can be ref'ed just as easily. A full definition is too complex for Wiktionary, which was the other alternative I considered. —SMALL JIM 23:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete There is no real content to this article, Wiktionary would be much more accepting of this than wikipedia. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah did a very good job on the clean up and expansion of the of the article and has added sufficient references to verify its content, I still feel this would go better on Wikitonary, but maybe it works here to. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

funny, i've been thinking all day about switching to delete because of the discussion below. but thanks for the compliment!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. WP:SYNT assembly of various computer-related issues where "fully qualified" appears. A source discussing "Fully qualified name" as a subject, and which gives at least some of these as examples has yet to be presented. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second, necessary, part of WP:SYNTH is "...that advances a position". I don't think that any position is being advanced here - unless it's that the topic is notable :) —SMALL JIM 17:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Nobody presented a source that this is a remarkable topic. Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga is the fully qualified name of Mobutu. Should that go into the article as well? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And someone should delete Fully qualified as well, which is worse than this. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the current article is crap, no that is not a good reason to send it to AfD (WP:BEFORE). —Ruud 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just tidied up the article and added a number of refs to show its notability. —SMALL JIM 09:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new definition you added [2] on hierarchical structures does cover most of the examples on a WP:COMMONSENSE level. I think the article is salvageable now, but still needs considerable clean-up. The old definition should probably be deleted. Some of the examples also appear to be incorrect generalizations, e.g. confusing the concepts from ontology with a particular ontology language from a certain paper. Uʔ (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the article. Perhaps it needs an {{expert}} tag. —SMALL JIM 08:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—i cleaned up a little more, added some more sources, the term is notable per gng. agree about the ontology example; i took it out because the only sentence the source would have supported doesn't belong in the article.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately you added a book about Tcl/Tk to as source of a general reference superseding that of a computing dictionary. Probably not a good move. I also don't see where they give that definition on the page cited (fails WP:V). It illustrates the difficulties in writing this article properly. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - sigh, yes, of course you're right. although the Tcl/Tk source seems to me to be talking about what a fully qualified name is in general, rather than just in Tcl/Tk. i didn't mean the source to support the definition, but just merely the fact that fully qualified names don't rely on context, which is why i took the "absolute" out. i am actually beginning to wonder if it's possible to write this article without a great deal of synth.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression is that the namespaces used in programming languages are simply a special case of hierarchical structures, and not the other way around as the article implies now. But I can't find a cite for that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - i think that that's true, which is why i changed the wikilink for hierarchical structure to point at inheritance, which is the closest thing i could find that would make the context clear. i'm truly at a loss regarding what to do with this article at this point.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2011 (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. Sandstein 08:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows and Linux

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

The topics covered in the article appear to be an original synthesis with no basis in reliable sources WP:OR WP:SYNTH. Since the topics covered are determined by OR the article will always be a battleground to decide what is included. The critieria for the topic is OR so the article is inherently unencyclopedic. The topic covered is also ill-defined, it appears to treat Microsoft Windows and Linux as if a single version exists of each; multiple versions of Microsoft Windows exist and thousands of distributions of Linux exist. The comparisons that do exist compare specific Linux distributions to specific Microsoft Windows distributions. It would appear to me then that any articles on comparisons should then compare specific Linux distributions to other specific Microsoft Windows distributions. I have not seen any sources that show a comparison of Microsoft Windows and Linux with all generality so that the article meets WP:N. Bear in mind: this article is not a comparison of operating systems, it is a comparison of the Linux and Microsoft Windows operating system families. As it stands the article content is very susceptible as fast paced development means that the article will be continually out of date and requiring rechecks on all technical content within months of it being posted; the release cycle of Ubuntu for example is 6 months. In summary; Notability for a comparison of the Operating system families has not been shown. The topics chosen are a synthesis. The topic is ill defined. The article is inherently susceptible to becoming out of date. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have to refrain from casting a vote for now; I only want to comment that I'd rather see the article split apart and merged with the corresponding articles instead of all the content deleted. --DanielPharos (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Can any of this material be merged into comparison of operating systems? Neutrality^talk 22:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an extreemly legnthy article with 229 sources, I feel it sould be given a chance, a rewrite by an expert on the subject would be a nessesity, but there is a lot of material to work with, alot of it can be eliminated but much of it can be salvaged. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been given plenty of chances and time, see the previous two nominations where similar comments were made. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 229 sources establish the notability of Windows and Linux respectively, not this article's subject. - Sudo Ghost 21:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How many of the sources actually compare Windows and Linux? - Sudo Ghost 07:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of the sources do. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I switched my opinion and have deleted my arguments and with them IRWolfie's rebuttals. I archived this discussion on the talk page, if IRWolfie should want to reiterate it). Reason for switching to delete: It is apparent that this page will continue to be misused for petty rants and WP:UNDUE attempts at spreading fear, uncertainty and doubts. I still consider the topic worthy of notice but keeping it clean is unrealistic. Useerup (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is notable, but the article is WP:OR in spades, and uses hardly any sources that make such a comparison themselves. If someone finds this page useful as basis for a remotely policy compliant article, they should ask the closing admin to userfy the material to themselves or to a suitable WikiProject. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE IT PLEASE! The user Useerup has too much time at his/her disposal to search high and low for delibarately biased facts which claim Windows is better than Linux at everything. Every time I add an edit which proves something, there is a dispute because the truth hurts and then the Windows fanboys like Useerup (and others) will do *anything* to remove the edit. I find it rather pathetic. The page is full of biased facts and the real truth will only come about after users' try Linux - Ubuntu in my opinion - and be able to just switch on the computer without the constant slowdowns and viruses which Windows users' have to constantly endure. I get the feeling the article is attracting people who have connections with Microsoft. Looks like I will have to play Useerup at his/her own games and keep up the war until breaking point! TurboForce (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article appears to be a WP:SYNTH and WP:OR nightmare, and when you strip away all of this, what little is left is suitable for Comparison of operating systems, but doesn't warrant enough for a separate article. The comparison of Windows and Linux has been discussed by media, yes. However, this makes the subject notable within the context of a relevant article, not a synthesized mishmash of different viewpoints comparing a recent reference on one side with a years old reference on the other. - Sudo Ghost 21:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - such an article is undue weight to the dispute itself.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userify for decommissioning - After reading the discussion up here, I've decided to vote for deletion, and moving it to my user page, so I can take it apart and merge the good parts into the corresponding articles. Why? Well, without any good external sources on which to hang up the structure of this article, there's always be claims of synthesis. Also, since the article pitches one OS against the other, it'll always attract fanboys that aren't knowledgable about the other OS, and they'll add bad claims, or outright biased material. And of course, it attract users thinking this is some kind of war.
Even though there might be room for an article about this on Wikipedia (I think the subject is notable), I don't think we've found a good way to have it here. Thus, my vote. --DanielPharos (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If parts of the article end up merged into other articles, what seems to be the case, then we can only replace this article with a redirect. We can't delete the article because of the Wikipedia's copyright policies and licensing. Apart from this, I agree with the idea to delete/redirect the article, as most of the content has been determined by who has most time to push his OR. 1exec1 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and burn with fire - Comparison articles have no place on Wikipedia.WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTCATALOG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for various reasons:
- If we just stick to the sources, we can hardly present the issue in a neutral view since windows has much more coverage, and most sources can't really be treated as neutral nor they do deep analysis of the issues.
- If we go beyond the sources, that falls under "original research" and is not allowed/recommended
- Comparisons are (by definition) biased because they compare features the reviewer/analyst consider important and that varies by person. (Example: Some people would not care at all about issues like source code or licensing, while for others this will be the most important issue. Or price: rich people, or "pirates" will not care, but people like CEOs of companies will certainly care)
- It is very hard to compare "Windows and Linux". Even if we take "linux" in this context as "most linux distributions", it would be extremely hard to compare such different distros merged together as a "group" ("Linux family") to the MS Windows family. --SF007 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2011 (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. The "keep" opinion do not address our inclusion requirements (WP:N), which do not take into account whether software is available in certain distributions. Sandstein 08:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xrdp

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

Non-notable open source software. Googling finds lots of wikis and software catalogs that mention it but only one solid review that I can see, and it's pretty long on how-to and short on critical evaluation. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm a computer engineer and found this article useful and feel deleting the article removes value from wikipedia.

RDP is an important technology in MS Windows and this XRDP is a technology to enable the use of RDP on unix.

Simply knowing that name and what it is helps a lot to find more documentation within the appropriate linux repositories. There is a homepage for this project here. http://www.xrdp.org/

Its not really a "software", like ms word, its more an implementation of a protocol. While I wouldn't expect wikipedia to have a lot of information about it, a stub page would be useful to some people looking for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.136.129 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right - but we have to have a source independent of the subject to justify keeping the article. The alternative would be having articles about everything anyone has ever posted online - you've seen the internet, you know why this wouldn't work. So, any ideas where we could find sources? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of sourcing. I'm happy to switch over to keep if we can source this, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a package available in the standard ubuntu and centos repositories. Considering it is in the first two large top linux distributions that I checked, I can't understand how it can be labeled as "non-notable". ssd (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ultraexact. Sources are woefully lacking. If this was a notable piece of software, reliable sources would be talking about it. —SW— ^chat 16:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My primary desktop is Windows 7 so I find using xrdp to be an excellent way to be able to have only one Remote Desktop - Microsoft's remote desktop client. That is, I do not need to have a separate client for Windows and *nix servers and desktops. User Stuartyeates justification for deletion seems to be the lack of critical review but to me this is not a sufficient justification to remove information about the project from Wikipedia. Rather it should be motivation to solicit such reviews. Stuartyeates also also asserts xrdp is "non-notable" project which seems to me to be an entirely subjective opinion and, again, not a basis on which an article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bseddon (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 October 2011 (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. Consensus is that this is a notable medical operation. The "delete" opinions are discounted for ban evasion and for stating the opposite of WP:NOTCENSORED. This does not prevent any stubbing or rewriting as deemed editorially appropriate. Sandstein 08:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meatotomy

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

Non-notable topic, unreferenced for 7 years, probably just something someone made up one day so they could include pictures of their penis Tryphaena (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC) indefinitely blocked user - sockpuppet of Echigo mole / A.K.Nole[reply]

Speedy keep. Extremely bad faith and disruptive nomination by a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is the technical name for a surgical operation.[3] [4] It is related to the condition of meatal stenosis. More sourcing should be added, but the article is fine and accurate. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The images provided are groteque, this is a strange and creepy sexual fetish, This has not a single reliable source failing WP:GNG, has no notability and does not belong on this website. If for some reason this article is kept the pictures need to be removed. What if a child found that with the random article button it could be traumatizing to them, I could understand if this was a medically nessisary surgery that we would host it on our website, but it is not. Either way pictures like this should not be on here, I find it horrible we ever allowed such filth on our website, I would like to see a WP:SALT. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These remarks seem remarkably ill-informed, as this is an operation to treat a medical urological condition. Twenty seconds searching on google books will reveal that. Three reliable sources have been added. The article is about a medical operation which is used for treating medical conditions such as urethral stricture and meatal stenosis, which links to this article and which is mentioned in the lede. The external medical web site in the article already described the operation explicitly and it is a trivial matter to find references to "meatotomy" in medical textbooks. I have added the two WP:RS mentioned above to the article as well as another on-line reference for its use in meatal stenosis. The bad faith nomination was by a long term disruptive editor on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meatal stenosis or stubbify and rewrite. While the article iteself requires massive amounts of sourcing (and thus should be redirected or stubified until this happens) the topic itself appears to be notable (even with a very quick google books & scholar search)[5][6]. Thus it does not fail WP:GNG and I would remind User:Phoenix B 1of3 of two things a) notability assesses topics on their inherent notability not just the sources used in articles; and b) that while I find the images disgusting myself wikipedia is not censored. Neither of these two issues are in any way reasons to delete or apply WP:SALT--Cailil ^talk 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, because of the thousands of reliable sources found by clicking on the links to Google Books and Google Scholar spoon-fed in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2011 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Ed Confidential

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

Insufficiently referenced with unclear notability. Cleanliness (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Tryphaena (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that expand on your WP:JNN? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough series with 4 season under its belt if you review the gnews and gbook hits. Solution is to start referencing the show not delete it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is not an appropriate topic, I fully agree with the above statment, Insufficiently referenced with unclear notability. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Phoenix B 1of3: "This is not an appropriate topic"? Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. "Insufficiently referenced with unclear notability"? Please read WP:NRVE, WP:ATD and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yup, the article needs work, but improvement is an addressable issue that does not require deletion in its lack As pointed out, sources are available and topic notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation within the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not as censorship but due to notability. The only links I can see seem to be TV listings websites. Can't see that it's actually worth fixing this problem on those grounds. Cloudbound (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A long-running series on a national TV network[7], and one of the hallmark shows of the "Skinemax" programming slate[8][9], this show passes WP:TVSERIES.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable, a national TV network, four seasons, six compilations, gnews hits, gbooks hits. Insufficiently referenced? Yes, for sure, like The Redd Foxx Show, The Name of the Game, Call to Glory, Life With Lucy, Today's F.B.I., Street Hawk, Crazy Like a Fox and a large bunch of tv-series-articles, at least 50% of total.--Cavarrone (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Throat This

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

Orphaned and tagged for no sources since 2009. Not notable. Cleanliness (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no reason to believe this series is notable. Tryphaena (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a substitute for any other website that dedicates to pornography. No casual person knows this movie or its cast. Why does this article exist in the first place? Its subject does not meet the WP:N guidelines, no news coverages, and no reliable sources found in Google. I think: the results may be the same with other search engines. --Gh87 (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete First off its disgusting, but Lack of sources is a better argument, entirely fails WP:GNG, not a single source. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fails WP:GNG. There's nothing here that suggests it's more notable than any of the other porn series out there. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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. Davewild (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dropout crisis

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

Article is original research/neologism ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR festival. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and probably copyvio. —SW— ^prattle 16:39, 28 October 2011 (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. This deletion discussion has seen editors arguing strongly from both sides. Those supporting deletion, or redirecting to the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito article, which existed for the first 2 days of this AFD, argue that she remains a person known only for one event and that this article is a content fork. This is rebutted by those who support keeping the article, with the strongest arguments being that she is now a very high profile person (thus not the "low-profile individual" that WP:BLP1E describes) due to the large amount of enduring coverage about her. The redirection of the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito article to Murder of Meredith Kercher during this AFD slightly weakens the arguments of those calling for redirection, as the only article this could now be redirected to would be Murder of Meredith Kercher. As Courcelles said in closing the previous deletion review, is it "proper to redirect a person's name to a crime they were found not guilty of in a court of law. Under BLP principles, it does not sit well in my mind". However even if the Trials article still existed I would still find a consensus here for keeping this article. Even discounting some of the weaker arguments for keeping, there is a strong consensus here that Amanda Knox is a high profile individual, who is no longer someone known for just one event, and that therefore wikipedia should have an article on her. Davewild (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Knox

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

Deletion Review

Fork from Murder of Meredith Kercher nothing in this article which is not covered in the murder article. Per WP:BLP1E this article should not really exist. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Although WP:BLP1E permits an article about a person who receives persistent coverage ("may be appropriate"), it does not require it. Here, the article's content can easily be folded into the murder article, to the extent it's not already there.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The murder article is already very long and becoming uncomfortable to read - it is entirely reasonable to separate out sub-topics into their own articles. It is undeniable that Knox is notable in her own right (her unusual behaviour leading to her doubtful conviction has seen to that), so while she is plainly associated with the murder article, she now receives media coverage of her own (plenty of it, reliable sources). Folding yet more content into the murder article would make that article even longer and more rambling - the point of a Wiki is to allow sub-topics to branch naturally. The "fork" is indicated quite correctly as "main" in the murder article. Let it stay there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every source which mentions her is actually about the murder, she has no notability outside of it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per User:Chiswick Chap. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very high profile participant in a very high profile event. The article should be more of a biography of the subject, and when it is that would be inappropriate for the parent article. Just because the article is not yet finished is no reason to delete it. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E says: " If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". Knox could not possible described as a person who is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Nor is she notable only in the context of a single event, I can think of four: the murder, the trial, the re-trial and her return to north America. Yes, these are related, but they are clearly separate events. They are covered as separate events in the sources. There is no way BLP1E applies here, in my opinion. Knox is very clearly notable. Sparthorse (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, her notability is not purely about the murder. The series of actions and events in which she was involved after the murder made her news, big news, in her own right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep: no question of notability of topic (the topic is the murder, the accusation, the time spent in jail and the acquittance - a remarkable series of life events that have received tonnes of news coverage). The murder, trial and retrial is not a single event.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only notable as a BLP1E person charged with a murder - already well covered here at en wikipedia - content has been in some cases cut and copied over from the MoMK article, revealing the duplicity. I am also open to the previously suggested, keep as a stub and fully protect to avoid the redirect to a murder she is not guilty of. Notable topic - yes, the murder. - @Maunus, I fell into that trap in previous discussion - your claims are rebutted just by looking at the article right now Amanda Knox - its all content from elsewhere and its all about the murder and trial of the murder. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article doesn't impinge on the issue of the notability of the topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't establish notability, either. Sounds like most people who want to keep the article want to do so on the basis of some speculation as to material that isn't in the article but could be in the article if only they could find it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No notability is established by the books an articles that treat the person and life Amanda Knox as their topic and not the court case. We have an entire category of people whose first claim to fame was being acquitted of murder charges, but who went on to generate public interest enough to establish notability for them as subjects of articles. Being acquitted of a high profile murder is an event in itself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knox hasn't gone on to generate more notability or public interest. The real murderer was convicted, and there's no lingering Lizzie Borden or O. J. Simpson spectre about this subject. The existence of a category she'd fit into doesn't show her notability apart from the trial. Everything here about her is connected to the murder, so this subject should be covered there. JFHJr (㊟) 00:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, she certainly has generated significant notability and public interest after the murder. Taking a few examples from this month: article in the Daily Telegraph, article in The Daily Mail, article in the Daily Telegraph, article in THe Christian Post, article in the Montreal Gazette, article in The Washington Post. There are thousands more of these from reliable sources across the globe. These stories relate not to the murder, but to the retrial, Knox's return to the US and her future beyond that. She clearly has notability beyond the murder. Sparthorse (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's celebrity, not notability. Rothorpe (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." These are reliable sources with significant coverage that is independent of the subject. She may be a celebrity, but these sources clearly meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, which is the one that matters for the purpose of this discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

celebrity (synonyms): fame - renown - reputation - repute - notability - glory. -- samj _in ^out 10:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dekeep? It all depends on whether the Murder article is getting too crowded, I think. She is not notable other than for being accused of it. Rothorpe (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (failing that, Delete). Since her name is a very plausible search term, outright deletion probably wouldn't be justified. At the moment, however, this article does nothing to distinguish Knox's individual notability from the general notability of Kercher's murder (what I find especially telling is that although the article is very short, Kercher's surname appears no less than six times - as of the time of writing - in what little main article text there actually is). Is there anything here that couldn't just be added to the recently-created "Trials" article? Super Mario Man 21:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, much of the information in the Knox article shouldn't be in a trials artice (life in prison, life after prison, image in media, early life, etc). Second, the Knox article should grow, and the the growth will naturally be in areas outside of the trials. Third, the trials article seems no longer to exist.LedRush (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amanda Knox is only notable as a BLP1E person charged with a murder (covered already in the MoMK article). She was in the news due to a strong public relations campaign. After her release, the campaign has ceased, and so have the number of news articles about her. Tinpisa (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or else Delete, per Mario, and in this case WP:SALT. The trials are the only notable thing about this subject. Even her notability based on the calunnia trial is predicated entirely on the notability of the murder. As Bbb23 rightly points out, there's nothing in BLP1E that commands a stand-alone article. Everything noteworthy about this subject can be (and is likely already) adequately covered within two existing articles on Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and Murder of Meredith Kercher. JFHJr (㊟) 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito or delete per SuperMarioMan. Since the last ~~AfD debate~~ deletion review, the article is trying to become a content fork and most of those !voting as keep haven't been doing anything to help keep it cleaned up. Knox socks just have a new target and the discussions have become spread out across multiple pages. She is not notable outside of the Murder & trials which we have have articles for.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, much of the information in the Knox article shouldn't be in a trials artice (life in prison, life after prison, image in media, early life, etc). Second, the Knox article should grow, and the the growth will naturally be in areas outside of the trials. Third, the trials article seems no longer to exist. (and rightfully so).LedRush (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seriously? This article was only undeleted a few days ago. She most definitely meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia and the article should remain. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not exactly a "few days ago" but apparently on a WP:DRV of the 2010 consensus to delete. Still, the result of the DRV should be here (I was unaware of it). Here it is: [10]. I have no idea what the protocol is as to what is permissible after a DRV.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on whether or not you consider 11 days "a few days". Only giving a newly recreated article 11 days to develop and mature after being undeleted seems far too short to me. A few months at least should be given before bringing this article back up for deletion. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BLP1E does not apply in cases that span many years the person is a not a low profile individual. She's as high profile as it gets, and while people may not like the subject matter, the thousands of RSs per year, over a period of years is what should determine this. The murder is actually the only 1E part of the story. Merge that into this article if you must. The media coverage after the murder is what it's all about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would one write into her article that doesn't tie back to the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito or the Murder of Meredith Kercher? It really is just one ball of wax.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Merging the murder article into this one? I'm interested to know how that would work. Nothing about Knox's life prior to 2007 is notable. Everything that relates to her - from trial and conviction to appeal and acquittal - seems to be more or less inextricable from Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The existence of both this BLP and the trials article serves little or no purpose other than to duplicate masses of article content and fragment talk page discussion. There is no compelling rationale that I can see for retaining both of these spin-out articles - my view is that it should be one or the other. Super Mario Man 03:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, much of the information in the Knox article shouldn't be in a trials artice (life in prison, life after prison, image in media, early life, etc). Second, the Knox article should grow, and the the growth will naturally be in areas outside of the trials. Third, the trials article seems no longer to exist. Finally, the trials article must be kept with the murder one as you cannot understand one without the other. The Knox article, on the other hand, should contain information only on Knox, and should contain the trials that only involve her. That allows the other article to be more focused on topic and makes both articles better.LedRush (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed that the "Trials..." article has recently been redirected ("re-redirected", given that Trial of Knox and Sollecito existed as an article once). However, I'd argue that information about imprisonment wouldn't be out of place in a "Trials" article, because it all relates to the same judicial processes. Two articles titled "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito", as a concept, seems to me to be just as a good method of controlling article length. Furthermore, a "Trials" article that discusses both Knox and Sollecito would have the potential to be more comprehensive. Super Mario Man 18:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No part of WP:GNG is violated, the person has made the headlines of newspapers and media networks world wide, endless internet articles can be found on this person, even a movie has been made if this person. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep An admin just decided that the article should be allowed a few days ago. BLP1E is not applicable as it takes a ridiculous twist of logic to think that this four experience is now only one event, and regardless Knox is not a low profile individual. Things that should be in this article that would not be in a trials article include her life while in jail (you have have noticed the several hundred articles on this, or the book devoted only to this) and her life after release (include her very public press conference in Seattle).LedRush (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see as per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion this discussion does not qualify for speedy keep. Off2riorob (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The DRV doesn't decide if the article should be deleted or kept, only whether or not the previous AFD applies. The previous afd was 18 months ago and enough time/information has occurred since then that the 18 month old AFD was no longer valid. Thus, that ruling has little to no bearing here.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV did conclude that BLP1E was inapplicable to this case. That seems pretty darn relevant to me.LedRush (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The controversial trial, appeal and evidence represent significant, high-profile events in themselves. Kercher's parents made a valid and relevant point when they complained that the story had become about Amanda Knox's guilt or innocence rather than about their daughter's murder - unfortunate for them, but definitely relevant here. If anything, the Knox interrogation/trial should be moved to this page: as it stands, the "Murder of..." page is long, unwieldy and largely about Amanda Knox rather than the incident it is titled for. Jas88 (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- note - this is this accounts first edit for a year. Off2riorob (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:Please_don't_bite_the_newcomers Dougbremner (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per WP:BLP1E, which includes as a necessary condition for deletion: "and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual..." Amanda Knox (the subject of how many books now?) is not a low-profile individual and it is preposterous to suggest otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It doesn't matter how high profile the individual is, or how high profile the event is, if they are only notable for a single event (which the murder/trial/appeal etc. effectively is) then BLP1E applies. Without wanting to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, I'd suggest that editors look at, for example, Myra Hindley, possibly the most famous British murderess in history. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know a ton about Myra, but I don't believe she was involved in a murder that wasn't noteworthy, then attracted four years of media basically because of her looks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you seriously suggesting that "her looks" is the reason why Amanda Knox is notable? pablo 11:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E says otherwise -- it refers explicitly to the notion that one must be a "low-profile individual" in order to delete on grounds of "one event". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - BLP1E is a guideline and doesn't use categorical words like "must". What it says is, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Similarly, when it addresses whether an article on a person is permissible, it says, "may be appropriate".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is precisely that wording that makes it inappropriate to hold that per BLP1E it "doesn't matter how high profile the individual is" as Black Kite wrote. Okay, fine, it's a guideline -- but the guideline counsels the opposite of what Black Kite wrote. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - My reading of Black Kite's comment is that Knox was high-profile during the event but isn't likely to remain high profile later, which is what the guideline addresses.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, that would be WP:CRYSTAL, but actually a separate point would be that Knox actually wasn't particularly high profile except for bursts of WP:NOT#NEWS at the original arrests and verdicts. The main point is that I'm basically unconvinced as to what we're adding to the encyclopedia by having the bio and the other articles - seems redundant. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, the guideline invites us to ignore WP:CRYSTAL, with the "likely to remain" language creating a morass of editorial speculation that is rampant in this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject definitely meets criteria for notability. It is illogical to think we won't be hearing from her in the future after the trial is ended. Compare with the legions of individuals who are WP:BLP we have never heard of. Come on, folks, move on. Dougbremner (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More editorial speculation as to Knox's future and more irrelevant references to other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, looking just at this one case, Knox is clearly notable (and the huge discussion here shows everybody feels they know about her; perhaps some wish she wasn't notable, but perhaps that's the point). And whatever her unknown future, she is today known for not one but a series of notable events.Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seeing as Bbb23 is waging a campaign to keep as much information as possible out of the Knox article, his arguments here that there isn't enough information in the article seem disingenuous at best.LedRush (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - LOL. Your edits to the article are awful. And I'm not alone in that view (indeed, you're the only person arguing for inclusion of the material). We won't even get into the fact that your assertions are BLP violations. Just because the article is being discussed here doesn't mean the article's integrity goes by the wayside.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets criterias for notability that are established by the wikipedia community. Also we will definitly hear more from this person in media over time. I cant see any sufficient reason to delete this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some people who are accused of high-profile crimes get their own article, and some don't. I don't think there's any rhyme or reason to it, other than there being editors who want to do the work. As for the Trials article I created it in part as a placeholder for a lot of content that otherwise might have been deleted from MoMK. Once the latter article is more stable we can revisit this issue. Brmull (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito or otherwise delete Trial article and redirect it to Amanda Knox. It is crazy that was is effectively the same information is being spread over three articles. Personally, I think if you take a step back, breathe and look at this with some objectivity a lot of her notability is a result of a PR campaign and tabloid press - if it weren't for the PR campaign she wouldn't be notable: see Raffaele Sollecito, Patrick Lumumba and Rudy Guede - all accused of the same crime and lacking the same media attention / wiki articles. A lot of her notability is residual from this campaign and I think it remains to be seen whether she will actually remain in the public light or this case will fade like many wrongful convictions. (Connolly15 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, which is the only event she is notable for, just as Meredith Kercher is a redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher. First Light (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; trials of article has a better scope for this material. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's not the case. The trials article is best kept merged with the murder article (it is impossible to tell one story without the other) but the Knox article can provide much information about a notable subject that cannot be contained in either a trials article or the murder one (for example, the widely reported aspects of her life in prison; her post prison press conference; the current media attention around her every move; the trials that involve only Knox and not Sollecito; the films, documentaries and books which revolve around Knox, and not Sollecitor or the murder). Having the Knox article should allow for more focused and better articles about the murder and trials. However, the murder article and the trials article will continue to be content forks that make understanding the whole event harder than it otherwise would be.LedRush (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; all of the media relating to Knox is set in the context of the trials & IMO is best dealt with there. The biography article is just an invitation to invade her privacy over insignificant matters and is just a redundant content fork. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention that the media attention is in the context of the trials is demonstrably false, as proven multiple times on this page. Also, the trials article has now been redirected to MoMK (and rightfully so, in my opinion).LedRush (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; not a single article has been presented with no relationship or reliance on the trial/murder events. Absolutely everything from her time in prison to hounding her after her release is related to the trial in the most direct sense (i.e. that it would not even exist without the trial/murder). What I am asking for is an entirely independent article which is not related to or inspired by the trial events; to make up examples, perhaps a publisher paper, or a news article from before the murder, or some other event she has been involved in. Something where the drive to write the material is not related to her being wrongly convicted in Italy. This has not been presented. Her only notability exists in relation to her being tried for murder. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to keep moving the goal posts. While your question is an interesting one, it has no bearing on this discussion. Everyone here admits that but for her connection to the murder, she would not have become famous. But now she unquestionably is, just as she is unquestionably notable. The news reports on many things outside of the murder, including her press conferences, her life and treatment in jail, her connection to an Italian band (for which she wrote the screenplay to their music video), her connection to an Italian lawmaker, etc, etc.). It is true that she would not have had the opportunity to meet the band or the lawmaker (who wrote a book on her not about the murder) had she not been in jail, but I don't see that nexus as being even remotely the standard that WP uses with regards to BLP1E.LedRush (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, to be fair my goal posts are consistent; to find things unrelated to the murder/trials to establish some form of notability and substantial content worth creating a biographical article for. But now she unquestionably is, just as she is unquestionably notable; I staunchly question it, as do others. Her notability is tied inherently to the trial.

including her press conferences; related directly to her trial & release
her life and treatment in jail; potentially interesting, more worthwhile in an event article with context & directly related to that event
her connection to an Italian band (for which she wrote the screenplay to their music video); one line. Not enough to establish independent notability, and really just a footnote to the media orgy.
her connection to an Italian lawmaker; same again, though their relationship is more directly related to the trial/murder/imprisonment event

So I disagree - all of this is content related to the trial (albeit colour around the edges of the core material) and is better dealt with there. There is nothing unrelated to the trial event about this woman that we can record. I strongly disagree that "the trial" purely means "times when she was in court" - that is not sensible or logical for our readers. If she continues to maintain notability; for example using the notoriety to continue a career in some form etc. then I am with you. Till then, no dice. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've changed the goal posts at least a couple times on this page alone. You've claimed that she "hardly made the press" other than at the start and end of the trial, though that is demonstrably false. You've claimed that the news reports on her have died down to "barely anything", though that is demonstrably false. Now you are making a claim regarding independent notability which seems to define "one event" in a way which defies all logic and reason. Our readers expect an article on Knox. Not having one is a disservice to them and a misreading of WP policy.LedRush (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep BLP1E reads, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Amanda Knox is not a low profile person. A low profile person is not somebody whose name is well known, who has had several movies made with her name in the title, nor a person who has had numerous books written about with their name in the title. Is she primarily known for the murder/trial/acquittal? Yes. But there is no way that we can say that she is "low profile" when it is the lead story years after the event and so highly utilized.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And seeing as she gives press conferences and releases information from her letters/memoirs to much media attention, the whole idea of her being low profile is absurd.LedRush (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since mid October, coverage has trailed off to barely anything. That's pretty telling so soon after acquittal. Compare that to, say, Strauss-Kahn whose arrest/release was some time ago now, and still getting reported on. Hard to say for sure but this is likely it for the moment - at least till the prosecution appeals. Apart from the media around the time of the start/end of trials she has hardly made the press. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6,620 articles in the last week about Knox hardly seems to support your assertion. [11]. By comparison, Strauss-Kahn has 6,920. [12] Seems pretty comparable to me.LedRush (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; S-K ended two months ago (almost to the day). Less than a month after her release Knox has the same coverage. Most of which is the sort of mundane follow up crud that the media does. So... --Errant ^(chat!) 17:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Knox is not the former head of the IMF or leading member of a major political party, I don't see how the similar results don't completely gut your argument.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage except for around the trial and her release? What are you talking about? Try typing in Amanda Knox a month and a year since the trial and today and see how many millions of hits you get. How many of those hits are notable sources? How many of them are "trivial coverage" as compared to about Amanda Knox? Just because she wasn't front page news for the past 2 years does not mean that she wasn't covered in depth by Major media outlets... had numerous books written with her name in the title... or movies/documentaries produced. The notion that there has been no meaningful coverage outside of conviction/release is demonstratably false to the point of being absurd.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this is happenning. The entry has barely been started. How many people with 35 million hits on Google do not have a Wikipedia entry? Of course the article should stay. There is much detail about the shocking behaviour of the Perugia police and prosecutor that should be in this article though it would be too much detail for the main trial piece. There needs to be more about media coverage and the way the case was fought over by obstructionist Wikipedia editors who were convinced of guilt and used Wikipedia as a platform to persecute her and Raffaele. NigelPScott (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find me a source with no relation to her trial & imprisonment and I will support you :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, find a source that shows that "the case was fought over by obstructionist Wikipedia editors who were convinced of guilt and used Wikipedia as a platform to persecute her and Raffaele." pablo 11:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is indisputably notable; indeed her name is the one most associated with the crime she was acquitted of. There will likely be interviews, a memoir, and even possibly a(nother) feature film with her name in the title in the future. (The likelihood of all this is already being reported on in the media.)Komponisto (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After all that, Wikipedia having just one article should be a relief. Rothorpe (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per Bbb23 and also since the notability argument fails. A BLP person can be notable for something they have done in their life - but surely not for something they have not done. In the complete absence of notability for something she has done, a right to privacy to her non notability for anything she has done should prevail here, otherwise WP simply becomes an organ for speculation and what ifs.isfutile:P (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable for her role in the crime, the media attention surrounding it, and her responses and reactions to it. It's not like we just heard of her when she got acquitted.LedRush (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

isFutile P, the easiest way to answer your question is to consult the notability guideline which says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject." Notability is judged by the extent and quality of the independent coverage. Since there are thousands of published, secondary sources on Knox, she is notable. No other factor is relevant to answering your question. Sparthorse (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "but surely not for something they have not done" may be your opinion, but it's not supported by policy. -- samj _in ^out 10:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I said this during the recent DRV and I'll say it again: Once the media started focusing on Knox's personal life outside of her role in the Kercher case, she outgrew WP:BLP1E. At this point, her personal objections (if any) would carry little weight (Would we delete the articles of world leaders and/or celebrities upon their requests?). The article has developed steadily over the past several weeks, and I see great potential for more development; the timing of this nomination is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. TML (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Speedy Keep: It beggars belief that we're having this conversation *again*. I kicked off the DRV as an uninvolved editor after being surprised that there was nowhere to find information about the woman herself that wasn't intertwined with the MoMK story. Throughout I provided counterarguments and referenced various articles in reliable sources that dealt with Amanda, in detail, with passing or no reference to MoMK. If she were actively trying to maintain a low profile then I might find that relevant, but that's a stretch and in any case she's had a *lot* of attention whether she likes it or not; notability is not temporary and all. -- samj _in ^out 09:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since returning to the US she certainly seems to have actively been trying to maintain a low profile. Apart from the paparazzi trailing her there has been no media interaction to my knowledge since just after her return. I must have missed the sources unrelated to the murder/trial in the DRV, apologies, care to give a quick summary again? --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, holding press conferences, releasing letters/memoirs which contain accusations of sexual harassment, and having your family conduct dozens of interviews on your behalf is actually the opposite of a low profile. So much so that it's in the definition of what takes you out of low profile.LedRush (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted WP:CRYSTAL, but I think we'll see some kind of interview/book/movie/etc. deal(s) being done before long, and if we gave the article enough time to settle (a week or two is arguably not long enough) then we'd have this extra data point. In any case, here's some additional references, whether she likes the attention or not: Amanda Knox: A Tale of Two Lookalike Boyfriends (International Business Times), Amanda Knox Slips Out of Seclusion for Brief Shopping Trip (abc news), Amanda Knox: The untold story (CBS News), Amanda Knox Home: The Latest News On How She Is Settling In (Huffington Post), AMANDA KNOX MOLESTED BY HIGH-RANKING OFFICIAL (AGI News - Italy), Reports: Amanda Knox sexually harassed in Italian prison (KOMO News). -- samj _in ^out 10:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:S FWIW those articles range from tabloid speculative trash inspired by her notoriety in relation to the trials, material directly related to the trials (even if they make no mention of Kercher) and simple follow up in the week or so after her return home. All of which is related to her trial & imprisonment. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(also, if that is the quality of material that is being proposed to add to her article, then I even more strongly re-iterate my support for removal. What a lot of BLP invading tabloid nonsense! Anyone trying to add much of that should be banned from going anywhere near BLP articles) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see the old 'keep AfDing until the result is delete' strategy is alive & well. --Gwern (contribs) 17:46 25 October 2011 (GMT)

Actually, this is this articles first AFD... the previous article WAS deleted via AFD and a DRV basically concluded that the old AFD was outdated and would have to go through the process again.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTFDRV: "Consensus here is that Knox is not a low-profile individual." Q.E.D. -- samj _in ^out 23:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is by this point of notable interest outside the trial. --Lobo512 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 50 references listed, she is notable.Vincelord (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Knox has been the topic of a film and a number of books. There is indisputably significant, ongoing coverage. BLP1E clearly does not apply here as she is not, and is unlikely to remain "a low-profile individual". Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. She is the type of person who will get coverage down the road, in the "Where is she now" type motif.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Knox is most definitely notable in her own right, as evidenced by her popularity in the media, her free-spirited and often wildly eccentric behavior (especially in the days following the murder and in her dealings with Italian authorities), her "confusedly-"made murder confession, and not to mention the fact that she was falsely accused and convicted of murder. If she had been convicted of and
subsequently exonerated for that same crime here in the States, she would certainly be a public figure of notoriety and entitled to her own Wiki entry. Regarding the veracity of the details of the crime and Amanda's treatment while in custody, it is widely accepted that the events have been portrayed accurately based on a conglomeration of similar accounts. Reliable sources include authors, such as Candace Dempsey, who have painstakingly investigated every facet of this case, as well as journalists, friends of the parties involved who witnessed the events first-hand, and even state officials. It's fine that the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article briefly touches on Knox, but Amanda certainly deserves her own entry. ::::::Silver Harshy (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Knox is most certainly notable in her own right. The news stories about her are only peripherally related to the murder; to the extent that they are related to events, they are related to her false conviction and exoneration, not to the murder. People who are famous for being falsely convicted aren't generally thought of in the context of their wrongly alleged victims.

To be honest, while I'm not proposing deleting the article, it's the murder of Kercher that is questionably notable. If it hadn't been for the controversy surrounding Knox, it would have been just another forgotten murder. Of the events, it was the trial that was notable, not the murder.

Warren Dew (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has two books published about her personal opinions and attitudes. Two books would be pretty impressive for a senator. Passeggiando con Amanda has been translated, and I believe (though haven't confirmed) "Take me with you" has as well. That of course excludes another dozen books about the trial, a made for a TV movie, the fact that she is a character in a upcoming major feature film and something like 22k articles when this issue came up a few weeks ago. And of course since then there have continued to be new tabloid materials. She is so clearly over the notability guidelines, there shouldn't even be a discussion. CD-Host (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guidance is: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" (emphasis mine). By this criteria, the persistence of coverage makes a bio of Knox suitable for inclusion. Further, I agree with Warren Dew: Knox is more notable than the "Murder of Meredith Kretcher" (i.e. there is a higher probability that the average person will of Amanda Knox than there is that they'll know of Meredith Kretcher. SocratesJedi | Talk 04:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is as notable as many who have pages - even those who are notable only for a singular event. I agree with Warren Dew to cut and paste a comment here.....: Knox is more notable than the "Murder of Meredith Kretcher" (i.e. there is a higher probability that the average person will of Amanda Knox than there is that they'll know of Meredith Kretcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.220.246 (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:SNOW?~~ -- samj _in ^out 17:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest that invoking WP:SNOW would be a bad idea. This is a substantive debate and whatever the outcome, it would be more acceptable and likely clearer if the AfD is allowed to run and a clear ruling by an uninvolved admin is made to close it on policy grounds. Sparthorse (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, SNOW is not a real option here. About a third of the people who have chimed in have done so to delete or redirect this article. While 2/3rds want to keep it and barring some significant change it should be kept, there are enough people who don't want it kept to let this thing run the process.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair call. -- samj _in ^out 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, anyone who wants this article deleted must have some kind of agenda. A line from the article sums up her notability nicely: "In June 2009, due to all her televised court hearings, an Italian television poll listed Amanda Knox as a bigger personality than Carla Bruni." Carla Bruni is really hot and famous, so anyone more famous than her should clearly not have her article deleted. 24.5.68.9 (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources affirming notability have been laboriously provided by numerous editors and include published books, television broadcasts, magazine and news articles. In addition, the acquitted (apologies if I'm not getting the Italian legal nuances right) Amanda Knox continues to generate media interest in the U.S., U.K., and in Italy. This is the very definition of "notable." Further, as Warren Dew points out, the murder that she was accused of, and which ironically has its highly contested but well-established WP article, would have vanished from public discussion long ago were it not for the strange accusations against Knox, in particular. It does not seem coincidental that a Google search for "Amanda Knox" invariably leads the inquirer to the WP "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article, whereas a search for "Raffaele Sollecito" does not. It's as if the motivation for deleting this article is to ensure that Ms. Knox does not have an identity separate from the "Murder," which gives the appearance of back-door victimization of the subject. October 2011 (UTC)Christaltips (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps time to close this AfD. Obvious consensus for keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No -- let the time run out properly, so that there isn't an excuse to contest it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted and a redirect of the name Amanda Knox set to the main murder trial article. What qualifies her to notability is the case of Meredith's murder. There is nothing about her claim to notability that is not covered in the murder article. The media intrest she has generated has continued to be about her being linked to the murder by the police. Similar article is that on Vincent Tabak available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Tabak which is re-directed to the Murder article available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates . The focus should be on the victims. We are humans for God's sake. Let's show some respect. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8turn (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knox is also a victim, having her name sent to a murder she didn't commit is also disrespectful. Issymo (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Balloonman that the lady's fame is notable enough for an article but when I look at the article itself I can't help but think that it fails my conception of an encyclopedia. Most of the sexual harassment material and the release section, for example, don't have a place on wikipedia. I'll just register my discomfort and move on without expressing a preference either way. --regentspark (comment) 17:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable. Her name and the injustice done to her are both very notable. Issymo (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yet again, we have fanatic deletionists obsessed with blotting out any Amanda Knox page. It's absurd and creepy that this continues. Keep the article and ban the deletionists who keep raising this same issue. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is notable and has been notable for some time now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Guilty or innocent (and it seems clear now she surely is innocent) Knox is the fulcrum of this entire episode. It is not so much that she is known because of the murder of Kercher; but rather the murder of Kercher is known because someone like Knox was claimed to have been involved with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lane99 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 October 2011 (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 Decompression (diving). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deco on the fly

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

Inherently non-notable topic. No sources offered since its inception five years ago with 'noref' tag for over two years. I can find no sources to give any credence to its notability. It is not mentioned in Doing it Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving, the manual for GUE, although it is claimed as taught by them. RexxS (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Decompression (diving). Not notable enough for its own article. As far as I can tell, the meaning is essentially "doing other stuff while doing a decompression stop" as opposed to "doing nothing while doing a decompression stop". —SW— ^prattle 18:06, 28 October 2011 (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 1000 (number)#1250–1499. v/r - T P 22:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1300 (number)

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

Pointless; there are criteria for this sort of entry and this one fails on all counts. Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; pointless article. Naveenswiki (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1000 (number)#1250–1499, where 1300 is mentioned. --Lambiam 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Lambian. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - now meets WP:NUMBER benchmark (just). Gandalf61 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some stuff that is specific to this number. It is still a 'stub', but similar number stubs are allowed to exist. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the property that the number can be written as $Σ i < 5 i 5$ is interesting, it still falls short of the criterion for the notability of specific individual numbers. --Lambiam 12:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, Lambiam, I wasn't aware of that guideline (edit: apparently I missed Hairhorn's link above...). It doesn't seem to really clarify the minimum requirements with regard to specific numbers, though. Personally, I would say that the article needs one more interesting fact. But it was just created. Surely such an additional fact exists, and someone, perhaps you, will add it to the page. Greenodd (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, most numbers are not notable. (Otherwise, it would just signify we haven't set the bar high enough yet.) So there is no reason to assume that 1300 must "surely" meet the notability requirement of enjoying at least three interesting properties. See WP:1729 for a quantitative approach to determining "interestingness". --Lambiam 17:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete. Absolutely no content of any value at all. As for the notion of redirecting to another article where this number is mentioned, that would make sense if the other article gave significant information about this number, but it doesn't. As for the argument that this argument should be kept because other articles no better exist, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is ridiculous that we have such pointless and trivial articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you are linking to an essay. Interesting, but not guidance. I find that comparing the article to a similar one, like 999 (number), gives an indication of what the larger community (as opposed to this small and random gathering) thinks. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just added a third fact, which I think suffices to establish notability. Greenodd (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added three more facts and wikified the page. Greenodd (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. The non-mathematical facts all look like WP:TRIVIA to me, and of the mathematical facts the only one that's actually of any significance is the sum of fifth powers one — it would be absurd to say "1300 is notable because it's an even number", and it's almost as absurd to say that it's notable for being composite, abundant, or Harshad, as in all three cases there are very many smaller numbers with the same properties. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per the above. Clearly as valid search term. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Switching to Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...OK, it's thin. Almost paper-thin. But there's now enough there to justify Keeping the article. Good work, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More facts added. As I see it, the article now satisfies all three criteria for notability of specific individual numbers. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NUMBER, if only just, per Greenodd. -- 202.124.73.202 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TRIVIA. Is anyone seriously claiming in-depth coverage of the topic?? Dingo1729 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to finish Wikipedia today. What is claimed is notability. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect a perfectly valid thing that someone would search, but we don't need an article for every number. HurricaneFan 25 15:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added 4 additional facts.[13] Greenodd (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The deepest canyon in Europe, the Tara River Canyon in Montenegro, is 1300 meters deep." Seriously? This is just trivia. Hairhorn (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some reason Greenodd seems determined to keep this article at all costs, and has added strings of pointless trivia to the article, apparently on the principal that loads of trivia constitutes notability. For example, we have "In Australia, a 1300 number is a telephone number that applies local rates". Presumably one could find equally significant information from somewhere in the world about practically any number below about a million or so. In an apparent attempt to make it seem that the number has significant mathematical properties, rather than just real world trivia, we have "1300_! is a factorial number (last zero dropped) with decimal value 1x4! 3x3! = 42" which is an almost unbelievably forced attempt to find something to say about the number. It simply tells us that in an obscure notational system (which very few mathematicians have heard of, let alone anyone else) the sequence of figures "13000" (not even 1300) represents the number 42. So what? In the same obscure number system "20110" represents the number 51, "43010" represents the number 115, and so on. The fact that "13000" represents 42 is not remotely significant, unless there is some special reason that I have missed. Even if the article were about the number 13000, that would be a totally pointless fact, and it is made even more irrelevant by the need to use "13000" rather than "1300" because "1300" doesn't exist in that numbering system: that is an indication of how desperate Greenodd is to find things to say about the number to try to make it look notable. Frankly, if the best that can be achieved by someone who has put such a huge amount of effort into trying to show notability is such pointless irrelevance as that, together with trivia like the Australian telephone number thing, then that persuades me even more strongly than before that the number is not notable: if it were then Greenodd would have found genuinely significant facts about it, and would not have to resort to such pointless trivia. I could go through all the other trivial statements made in the article too, but those two examples illustrate the basic point. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, mr. Administrator. You and your friend mr. Bob Re-born, while never doing anything constructive yourselves, have managed to chase off a well-meaning fellow user with your bullying and thrashing. I came here to help out, not to wage war. You have made that impossible.

Now I will move to a competing project and continue my work there, leaving these Wikipedia articles in their current sorry state. Greenodd (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2011 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niloufar M.Aliha

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google searches yielded virtually no coverage. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable according to Wikipedia:BIO --Cox wasan (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was not transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. —SW— ^babble 17:15, 28 October 2011 (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 The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. LadyofShalott 06:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Badran Roy Badran

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

BLP violation with multiple unadressable issues. My WP:BEFORE shows this individual as not having sourcable notability and thus failing both WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. With respects, he's barely verifiable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search indicates no sources which would go to notability. Also, Celine Abiad, which was written by the same editor, has precisely the same problems, and should be deleted as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP as a copyright violation of this. In addition, if Michael Q. Schmidt has concluded that he's not notable, then he's definitely not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Relevant discussion with the editor who created this article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator and per the linked discussion, I am not adverse to this be userfied... just so long as the author understands WP:COI and our requirement for WP:V and WP:RS, and imporantly that this is not stored unimproved in his userspace indefinitely. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just for the record, I agree with MQS's conditions regarding userfication, with the additional caveat that any copyright violation in the article be removed or cleared up via OTRS before userfication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2011 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Cat (1927 song)

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

No indications of notability. Fails WP:SONG. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have made some additions to the article. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)--Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:NSONG we would have an article on a song only if it charted, and otherwise would redirect if it appeared on a notable album. However, there were no charts in 1927 and there were no albums in 1927. We need to rely on logic and common sense. The song is discussed in reliable sources, some added by Andreas Philopater, and is a notable part of the early history of commercially recorded popular music. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's tricky here because as it stands, the article doesn't meet NSONGS as written, primarialy because the criteria doesn't take into account songs that pre-date charts, so we rely on the general notability guideline instead, which I feel has been met given the improvements that have been made to the article. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:23, 30 October 2011 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Grove Fire

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

A fatal but minor fire in Brisbane. No evidence of lasting impact. Fails WP:EVENT and violates WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Contested prod. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no new evidence of notability since my PROD nomination. VQuakr (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor fire that caused one death. Sad but not notable and of no ongoing significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article itself starts by saying it was "a minor fire" then says absolutely nothing to counter the presumption thus raised of non-notability. EEng (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability not established. We don't even have an article for the Kingston house fire which took 11 lives. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference is a link to just a few lines of randomly typed letters, also its a blog with one post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (why can't it still be WP:NOTNEWS? So much snappier...), WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 29 October 2011 (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 Charlie McDonnell#Sons of Admirals. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Milsom

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

An article about a young youtuber and musician. The page was nominated for speedy deletion, which was contested by an unusual number of IPs/editors. I declined the CSD nomination, however, I don't think the sources currently listed in the article are sufficient to meet our notability requirements. The sources are either self-published or not independent, and I can't find any significant coverage published by reliable sources. I have copied a section from the article's talk page, as I think it could serve as a good introduction to the discussion:

Things to Add?

His work producing albums for Eddplant and Alex Day should be elaborated on, as should (I think) his role on Taking Leave...Might it be better to organize the music career section by year rather than by album? Reno42 (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs better sources published by reliable and independent media. While checking this article and the talk page, I have a strange feeling that it is edited by a group of fans connected by some social site/chat. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not far off - he's been talking about the article on his Tumblr blog, which inspired fans to edit it. Lexicografía (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I declined the speedy deletion nomination yesterday, but I'm not sure, the article as it is now has serious problems with sourcing. Yesterday I checked G-News and I think that I found something there, but now I can't find a single piece of evidence suggesting that Milsom is notable in Wikipedia terms. It's strange. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, is the blog private or open? Could you possibly send a link? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the blog; however you might have to dig a bit to find posts about this article. Lexicografía (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've got it: "A Wikipedia page for Tom". I'll wait for few days to see if someone comes with better sources. I'll nominate the page at AfD if not. We can expect hordes of fans. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am (obviously, I think) a fan of Tom's trying to salvage this page, but I have to agree, there are few if no independent sources about him and while you could probably fill a Wikipedia page with information about him he isn't quite yet 'Wiki-notable'...there is a Sun article somewhere about Sons of Admirals but it's not very exhaustive re: Tom. Reno42 (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Sons of Admirals is of course possible, however, the page itself is a redirect to Charlie_McDonnell#Sons_of_Admirals. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Charlie McDonnell#Sons of Admirals. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. —SW— ^verbalize 18:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nominator's rationale. Non-notable musician; a Google News search reveals sources that mainly seem to refer to a Sarasota Herald-Tribune journalist of the same name. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:30, 28 October 2011 (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 Government and politics of Seattle#Sister cities. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seattle sister cities

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

Already merged; redundant JB82 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where has it been merged to? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNo rational or case made, just a drive by night nomination. plus, comments make no sense and no response to question. Bevinbell 18:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Government and politics of Seattle#Sister cities (the merge target). —SW— ^gossip 18:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Government and politics of Seattle#Sister cities; {{trout}} for the nominator for being clear as mud. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Snottywong and the Bushranger. I would have recommended "keep" if not for the information they provided about the merge target. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2011 (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 to merge the content, so for now I've performed a redirect to List_of_Ravenloft_characters#Rudolph_van_Richten. The content that is to be merged can of course be done boldly from the history of the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph van Richten

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As with the Inajira AFD, I'm more than willing to create a List of Ravenloft characters to merge this to, if that sounds reasonable. There seemed to be some traction for the idea on the previous AFD, which was ignored by the closer. BOZ (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per BOZ. I agree with undeleting the other article to merge into a list article, too. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. A merged article can be notable without every single item being individually notable. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:50, 23 October 2011 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Kettlewell

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

This article about a political candidate was deleted by PROD in May, the reason given being "Unsuccessful candidate, and as such fails WP:POLITICIAN, while not demonstrating notability according to WP:GNG." The candidate himself has now requested on my talk page that we undelete "the page that was built for my campaigns in 2005 and 2009" because he is running for office again, and "it would be helpful to have this page back up." I have explained to him that that is not what Wikipedia is for, but per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it and bring it here. JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nomination says it all. Could merge into a list of Green Party of BC candidates, if such a list exists. PK T(alk) 17:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a campaign advertisement repository. —SW— ^chatter 18:15, 28 October 2011 (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 as a G12 violation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrinkle-prone skin type

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

The cautious approach: I think this is copyvio or close paraphrasing of Textbook of Aging Skin. If so, it should be eliminated... Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firm Delete. I read what I believe is the part of the book [14], but it's sort of vague. However, this is clearly copied from something because of the amount of references to footnotes and such that aren't included in the entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- I also want to note that the editor name of the person who started the article (Firstpaigeinc) is also the name of a writing, editing, and consulting firm by the same name. [First Paige Inc http://www.firstpaigeinc.com/FirstPaige/welcome.html] All of their articles revolve around the doctor mentioned on this page (Leslie Baumann), so I think that there might be a conflict of interest going on here. I have no concrete proof, but it feels like there is, especially since she lists "wikipedia entries" under her resume.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
I noted on another page by this editor (FirstpaigeInc) that someone mentioned that it was a copyvio because it was literally copied from a source [15], so I doubt that this entry is any different. I'm changing my vote to delete, if possible a speedy delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Wajih-U-Seema Irfani Chishti

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

No assertion of notability, no sources found on google books or news to indicate independent attention. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure because the names are a little different, but this page may represent previously deleted A7 content; see Syed Muhammad Wajih-U-Seema Irfani Chishti. If this is the case, it may be worth salting the article (though given the myriad possible alternative names and my inability to even determine if this is a real person, it may not prevent recreation). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough sources that show this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced biography. Non-notable. —SW— ^prattle 18:16, 28 October 2011 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw Phayar Galaxy burmese royal

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

Poorly written article about a fictional character (?). No hits on google. ♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 14:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Galaxy" may have been a typo for "Galay", the latter of which appears to be a Burmese name. But, nevertheless, this article contains an unusual number of lacunae: His Sister , . . . was exiled with the King and Queen. Her heir, . . . ? bore a son, Aw Phayar Galaxy. He lives in _______ . It's not clear to me why someone would start an article in this condition. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks to me like a bio of someone claiming to be the last descendent of Thibaw Min, the last king of Burma. The genealogy of the dynasty linked from that article doesn't always provide names of descendents born in that period, much less prove he was the last. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and it looks like someone was just guessing as to all of the information given. There is no verifiability for this article. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There might be a valid reason for an article on this person, but the present article doesn't even have the proper name, let alone any accurate information or sources. As a Guild of Copy Editors member, I say it is better to delete this article than to attempt any editing at all --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Portugal

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

Article doe not contain any referenced or verifiable information related to its topic. It is named "A list of Shopping malls" but actually contains a list of towns and cities which are asserted to contain such malls but which are often neither mentioned nor referenced. Content is entirely unmatched to its title Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, has limited value. --Jerebin (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; directory page. Neutrality^talk 17:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR. —SW— ^gab 18:22, 28 October 2011 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Authoritarian Governments

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

"Authoritarian" is fairly vague and subjective. The list is completely unreferenced. I can imagine sources disagreeing with that label for many countries on this list. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was about to send this to AfD myself but was beaten to it. What I would have said, though, is that the topic is controversial, as outlined at Authoritarianism#Authoritarian states. It is currently unreferenced and, with the difficulties in finding several reliable sources that don't conflict with each other, this will be difficult to amend. We need to consider whether, in having such a contentious list, WP might be seen as endorsing a particular version. In other words, we need to consider whether WP should even have such a list. Claret Ash 13:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a matter of dating. This list is titled "Governments", but the list is actually one of countries. Of course, the Nazi government was authoritarian, but it's not in this list. (Never mind the "top 10 most corrupt nations" howler at the bottom.) So it seems unsalvageable. If someone can come up with a criteria that would satisfy WP:LIST, by all means write a list on this topic, but this attempt is just too untenable for mainspace as is. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see we have a good article/list on Democracy Index, which makes this crude attempt redundant, unless this list is actually based on some source not yet presented. There is also a List of freedom indices, which is a list of lists pointing to other articles like Freedom in the World and Polity data series (this last one w/o actual data in Wikipedia though). At the bottom it has some indices side-by-side: List of freedom indices#List by country. I don't think it possible to produce an aggregate list/index without massive WP:OR. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And as an aside, if we had a List of flawed democracies with France, Italy etc. in it, which can actually be sourced from Democracy Index, I'm sure many people would object to that presented as "Wikipedia's authoritative list". (N.b. these two countries are listed as "free" in Freedom in the World.) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Democracy Index seems a sensible way to go. The only question remains over whether the current article should be deleted prior to recreation as a redirect. Claret Ash 14:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that this article has the wrong capitalization in title, we can create a redirect from the more plausible spelling anyway: List of authoritarian governments. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Agreed. Claret Ash 02:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Redirecting to a partisan list would be just as great a violation of WP:NPOV as a separate article, as it would imply that Democracy Index is the only authorative source for a list of authoritarian governments. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undefined and inherently undefinable list criteria. Lessee, the United States of America has among the highest rates of incarceration of its population, has executed over 1250 of its citizens since 1976, tortures captives in illegal military operations in contradiction of international law, spends more money on the military than any country in the globe by an enormous margin, maintains an elaborate spy apparatus spending tens of billions of dollars annually on scores of agencies, engages in the use of informers in opposition political movements, and has a political system exclusively dominated by two immensely well funded political parties with close ties to big business. Sounds pretty authoritarian to me... Oh, wait, it's not?!?! My bad. Carrite (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you ask a libertarian, then probably most governments belong on this list. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And anarchists would go further. Claret Ash 02:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Governments are, by their intrinsic nature, authoritarian. This is therefore just a POV fork of List of sovereign states. Warden (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as intrinsically violating WP:NPOV. Redirecting to one organisation that produces a subjective list would be even worse than keeping, as it would imply that Wikipedia endorses that organisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Phil Bridger has raised a valid point. I hadn't considered that there'd be other systems of ranking. Claret Ash 00:59, 24 October 2011 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Play Entitled Sehnsucht

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

Prod denied. Film has no second party coverage and thus is not notable per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion with the editor who created this article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although verifiable as existing, this Lebanese film has no sourcability notability. I was going to suggest a redirect to ts writer/director Badran Roy Badran, but in looking, I determine that his article is itself an unsourcable BLP violation ready for AFD. In fact... in looking, I think I will nominate that one myself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done... and for me, a VERY rare event. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not fulfill notability. MQS has nominated Badran Roy Badran for deletion, but Celine Abiad should be nominated as well. All three articles were written by the same editor, who also added every mention of the film, director and producer on en.Wiki (raising possibly WP:COI problems), and all have the same lack of notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant discussion with the editor who created this article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the linked discussion, I am not adverse to this be userfied... just so long as the author understands WP:COI and our requirement for WP:V and WP:RS, and that this is not to be simply "stored" in his userspace indefinitely. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I agree with MQS's conditions regarding userfication, with the additional caveat that any copyright violation in the article be removed or cleared up via OTRS before userfication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2011 (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 for an outright deletion. Participants are encouraged to head for the article's talk page for a improvement or merge discussion. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krusty Krab

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

Only six sources. Not enough sources to prove notable. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 12:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although this is undoubtedly an important aspect of the SpongeBob SquarePants television show, all of the sources provided appear to be in-universe with no real-world commentary. See WP:INUNIVERSE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Undoubtily a key part of the cartoon, this article is well written and informative, giving a detailed and accurate description of the fictional resuraunt, I will hunt for more references. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously notable. Nominator should go read some policy and guideline pages and not waste our time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of locations in Sponge Bob Square Pants or some such. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sources is not a valid deletion criteria. Go add some instead of starting a deletion discussion. Google throws up a lot of references to this. Mo ainm~Talk 18:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge now that I trimmed the article to remove all the extreme WP:CRUFT (41 kB!!!). Stubby without established WP:NOTABILITY, so not deserving of its own article per WP:SPINOUT. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously deserves it's own article. CallawayRox (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable outside of the TV show? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a good article and is very important and informitive. It should definately not be deleted.Yellow1996 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it important? WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Only six sources. Not enough sources to prove notable." You're not doing it right. Tell us why its not notable, tell us what WP:BEFORE yields. It could be notable with no sources currently cited. Its clearly part of a notable series. Will the project be improved by deletion of one of the many articles about this horrid cartoon?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a possible expanded version of SpongeBob_SquarePants#Setting or to another article, like Jclemens has suggested. Many above have opined that the article is notable, but have not detailed how the article at present meets the general notability guideline with references that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. It has been said that these sources exist, but none have been presented and doing a decent and broad search through Google/News/Books I came up with nothing, so if they exist please present them.I would like to see some. At present, the article is written primarialy from an in-universe perspective. I'll also note that there is precedent for merging in this instance, as indeed the article on Bikini Bottom was also merged at it's AFD in 2008. I'd encourage some of the !voters here to read over Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and reconsider their opinions here. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:12, 30 October 2011 (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. Sandstein 08:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Navadvip Temple in Wrocław

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

No reliable sources to assert notability. Gaura79 (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Gaura79 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you also nominate it for AfD at pl Wikipedia? It's at pl:WP:SDU. It would be helpful to see what Polish Wikipedians will have to say on that (pl:Świątynia Nowe Nawadwip we Wrocławiu). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until sources become available. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 18:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more sources are listed by the author and the single source is reliable. Quick Google search does not give the temple that much significance, and rarely and history. Touch Of Light (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2011 (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. Sandstein 08:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Ramana Reti Temple in Mysiadło

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

No reliable sources to assert notability. Gaura79 (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Gaura79 (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable, third-party sources to assert notability. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could somebody also nominate it for AfD at pl Wikipedia? It's at pl:WP:SDU. It would be helpful to see what Polish Wikipedians will have to say on that (pl:Świątynia Nowe Ramana Reti w Mysiadle). Ping me in a day or so if nobody has done it yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until sources become available. —SW— ^spout 18:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Danger (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrage (film)

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Danger (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails notability guidelines for films: limited release with no major critical reviews. Danger (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my own WP:BEFORE showing the film is receiving significant review and comentary in the sources we expect for smaller budget independent films: Dread Central 1 Dread Central 2 MJSimpson Bloody-Disgusting JoBlo Fangoria 28dayslateranalysis MakingTheFilm et al. In respect for WP:BITE, I am concerned that this brand new article was sent to AFD while being actively edited by its author when it would have been more suitable to have simply tagged it for cleanup, expansion, and sourcing... thus allowing its author to continue his work. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation within an article. As such sources were easily found, the applicable guideline WP:Notability (films) is met. I request the nominator withdraw and allow this to be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did my due diligence, thank you, and was unable to find coverage meeting notability standards. Of the sources you list, only three are actual reviews. Routine coverage (listing trailers, press releases) does not indicate notability. Two of those are to blogs: "Pestilence" is not a nationally known reviewer or a reliable source. MJ Simpson is perhaps a nationally known person, but not as a critic. Not every indie film ever made is suitable for inclusion.Danger (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that listings can't even agree on when this film was released (2009? 2011?) is also suggestive. Danger (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. "Nationally known" is an atribute to encourage searches, not a required mandate. The dates you found were suggestive only that due diligence would have revealed to you that the film debuted at London FrightFest Film Festival on October 31, 2009,[16] had its DVD release in the UK October 2011 and is slated for US and Canada DVD release by Lionsgate in 2012. Also "pestilence" is but one of the many nom-de-plums used by reviewers at the acceptable Dread Central, just as is "Uncle Creepy". Genre expert MJ Simpson reviews ARE acceptable for genre films, and are offered at his MJ Simpson.com. Dread Central, MJ Simpson, Bloody-Disgusting, JoBlo, Fangoria, are not blogs and are accepted sites for which to find coverage or verifability for independent horror films. What IS required for mandated verifiability is reliable sources... but occasionaly overlooked is that whatever is used for WP:V does not itself "have" to be significant coverage. However, enough of those found ARE non-trivial coverage so SIGCOV is met. Another easily found is the quite respectable article at Quiet Earth [17] Wikipedia does NOT require that low-budget independent horror films "must" to be reviwed in The New York Times in order to be seen as meeting WP:NF. Cheers, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was expanding this article and kept getting deletion tag on every step before I could even complete it. Please give time to new articles of at-least 7 days to expand. ASHU^IND 18:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that it happened, and speaking for myself, believe the nominator's perceived concerns are easily addressable... and am myself quite wiling to assist. Keep in mind though, that once anything hits article space, its up for immediate and sometimes negative evaluation by others. In the future, you might consider creating articles in a userspace workspace as a draft, and then tune them to perfection before a "move" to article space. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend Schmidt's advice about creating articles in userspace in future. --Lexein (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update what was nominated while being actively edited, has merited by a little care and regular editing. So far, it has been expanded and sourced to take it from a 404 B (71 words) "readable prose size" stub, to (as of this post) a nicely sourced and encyclopedic 5678 B (926 words) "readable prose size" "C" class that serves the project and its readers. More that can be done? Yes. But all that's ever required for an article on a notable topic to flourish is time and regular editing. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update Now at 9618 characters (1599 words) "readable prose size", a 22x expansion since nomination and looking better and better.[18] Personally, I find it satisfying and productive to help an article meet its potential to serve the project and its readers. Now to think about a suitable DYK for main page... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now well sourced, and enthusiastically expanded, and tenderly copyedited. I agree with Schmidt's assessment about WP:BEFORE and the sources, above, especially Fangoria. The film's genre, and audience, determine the review pool in which it is known. In its genre, it is well known, and well represented in reviews. I disagree with any attempt to restrict film coverage to only mass market films, based on too-narrow interpretation of guideline. IMHO film blogs can be considered reliable due to accumulated author expertise, especially if the article only uses them for mundane claims. The claims made in the article are mundane, and are presented as opinion, requiring only the sourcing that is provided. Any strongly disputed sources should be taken to WP:RSN, not adjudicated here. --Lexein (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep thanks to the brilliant expansion by MQS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 24 October 2011 (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. Sandstein 08:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Men's News Daily

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

One citation (attributed to the Washington Times, though I can't see anywhere in the citation that confirms the source), one mention in a book. Alas, I think it fails WP:WEB. Also, a bit of WP:SYNTH. Aside from those two sources, I can't find any other reliable sources with which to cite the article. m.o.p 08:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly self-promotion and original research. However what good content exists could be merged to Fathers' rights movement--Cailil ^talk 15:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge to an appropriate target page. The last AfD contains some sources which may be used to improve the article but I'm not convinced coverage is substantial. Protonk (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Article is promotional and mostly original research. There is virtually no coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources offered in the previous AfD, zero are reliable (and one is simply a reprint of an article from the site itself). Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2011 (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. Both delete and keep !votes are merely assertions without any substance. v/r - T P 22:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Bikini Bottom

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

Clearly non-notable. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Yeah I agree. Clearly not notoble. Qantasplanes (Let's disscuss it!) 09:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The automatically created google news search above indicates that it is notable. "Clearly" seems to be the deletion rational. Pretty weak. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I must fully agree with User:Peregrine Fisher, if its references you want just search the web you find countless ones, heres a potential one[19].
Keep. notoble. stop with the spongebob fetish. help me write an article about Johanness De Peyster, mayor of new york city from 1698-99. seriously. your brain will unmushify from thinking about something other than cartoon.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spongebob Squarepants, as the article does not at present assert any notability through in depth coverage in reliable sources, as required by our notability guidelines. I've done a decent search through Google/News to see if anything existed but could find nothing significant. The example provided, this, is not an in-depth review by any means. It is true that the onus is on those who advocate deletion or redirection/merging to explain why it should be so, and I believe I have done that, it is equally important for those advocating keeping the article to detail why, and this is in my opinion yet to be done, so please show some in-depth reviews or coverage. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:28, 30 October 2011 (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 Robotech. Any suitable content can be boldly merged from the history of the article, but consenus here is that redirection is the best route for the time being. No prejudice against the article being un-redirected in future if notability becomes apprarent at a later date. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robotech: Love Live Alive

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

A future film with only a solitary bulletin board post given as evidence that it exists. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and bulletin board posts are not reliable sources. Proper reliable sources are required if this is to be kept. Sparthorse (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-line stub per WP:TOOSOON. While this film has "some" verifiability,[20] it does not have enough persistant and enduring coverage to merit being an exception to WP:NFF. It might at least be mentioned in the main Robotech article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Robotech - it's a valid search term, and it may become notable in the future. --Malkinann (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Robotech as Malkinaan mentions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 29 October 2011 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer HLD-X0

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if not speedy). No news coverages in the archives for Laserdisc players. Also, some editor secretly disobeyed the results of previous AfD and then reverted back to article. I can't find the page to report on this. --Gh87 (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coin of Jesus

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

This is not a notable coin. The find was indeed news, but many Byzantine coins had the image of Jesus. St Anselm (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be valuable to have an article about this type of coin, minted in Constantinople in celebration of the First Millennium of Jesus' birth and typically bearing the text ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ. An article about this specific coin doesn't make sense. --Lambiam 00:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lambian. Such coins fetch about $100 each in the collector's market. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A coin type, as Lambiam says, is generally notable. A single specimen of a type rarely. Srnec (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2011 (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. Sandstein 08:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earth (W.I.T.C.H. TV series)

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

A fiction place with no real-world significance. That is, the WITCH version has no real-world significance, of course the real Earth has real world significance D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's Earth with a bunch of their mythology. How the original editors were able to elaborate beyond that with showcruft is beyond me; this is not needed at all. Nate • (chatter) 05:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Earth in fiction, although it seems a bit more niche than the fictional versions of earth already represented there. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficenetly different to really be worth merging to Earth in fiction, and utterly fails the WP:GNG. Should be one or two paragraphs in the show's article at most. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion apart from the nominator after 2 relists. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstars‎‎

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

Contested PROD. The fictional group does not meet the general notability guideline as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information since the group does not have reception and significance in reliable secondary sources, so it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. A quick search engine test does not show anything different to presume that it deserves a stand-alone article. There are is not even significant coverage for the comic book of the same name, so there is no evidence that the comic book deserves a stand-alone article either. With a single non-independent of the subject reference, I do not think that anything from the article deserves to be kept. Jfgslo (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously this is something that would get noticed in comic book news. New Straits Times Jul 3, 1992 [21] in their Comic News section. Dallas News had an article entirely about them. [22] Have to pay to read all of it, but the start shows they were the main subject. Hard to sort through anything else because of all the paywalls, but that's enough to convince me. Dream Focus 01:04, 15 October 2011 (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, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 01:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am very much in agreance with User:Dream Focus, and convinced that the only thing this article needs is a few more citations. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having their own comic seems enough. Being a significant part of the GL universe tells us that deletion is not appropriate as there will always be some other other article into which they might be merged - Controllers, Guardians of the Galaxy, &c. Warden (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per Colonel Warden, but I note that having a major publisher give them their own title is probably sufficient grounds for presuming notability. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Should be notable, given their own comic book and being a team and so-forth, but the article desperatly needs more secondary sources and more non-plot material. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 29 October 2011 (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. v/r - T P 22:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JVC GZ-MG555

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The only references are from the manufacturer.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

entered comment on wrong discussion. careless. sorry Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, routine coverage only. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2011 (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, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, widely reviewed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It depends on what you condider "routine coverage". I can see Stuartyeates' point, but I think that the sources are quite detailed and go beyond telling us that the product exists. The machine seems to be notable in its field.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article shows promise to educate this product to readers because I am not familiar with this product. Maybe I'm not meant to discuss articles for deletion very much: in fact, I want to be educated very well. Maybe I should not use Wikipedia as substitutes for anything, such as online store or official website of the brand. To be taught by the insipid-written article like this is something that I don't want to be: an insipid-skilled writer whose articles will be nominated for deletion, even with references, notability, or external links. Originally, I goal for delete for the current state and the current amount of awareness of this product; unfortunately, I have been scolded by an administrator because he has his points on me. Why does this article exist? To teach me? To entertain me? To be nominated for deletion? I don't know why: I'm driving myself mad. Why can't I decide my vote? Why? --Gh87 (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2011 (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 Guardians of the Universe. Any appropriate content can be merged from the history. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lianna (comics)‎

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

Contested PROD. There is no evidence that the fictional character as a topic has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so she does not not meet the general notability guideline. Also, without reliable secondary sources that give reception or significance to the fictional character, any article about her can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (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, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Guardians of the Universe as she is one. Warden (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can go with a merge, but I'm still trying to figure out what would be considered acceptable sources for notability...--Marhawkman (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep per WP:HOTTIE~~Merge and redirect to Guardians of the Universe, as mentioned above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. v/r - T P 22:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tattooed Man‎

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

Contested PROD. The fictional characters as a topic do not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so they do not not meet the general notability guideline. There are no reliable secondary sources that give reception or significance to the fictional characters, so any article about them can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Of the cited sources within the article, only one provides analytic and evaluative claims, but these claims are not about the characters, they are for the comic book, which is reviewed in the provided source, with no claims for any of the fictional characters. Even so, a single source is no evidence of significant coverage. A quick search engine test does not show anything different to presume that the three characters, either alone or in group, deserve a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (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, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Character is in The Encyclopedia of Super Villians (p.357).--Crazy runner (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is quite notable, appearing in sources such as 500 Comicbook Villains, The supervillain book and The encyclopedia of super villains. Warden (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Passes WP:GNG, legnthy and delatiled enough, no guidelines violated. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor DC Comics characters. Most sources are primary, and the others fail to assert sufficient notability to satisfy me that the GNG is passed. "Lengthy and detailed" and "no guidelines violated" are not reasons to keep; appearing in 500 Comicbook Villains, The Supervillain Book and The encyclopedia of Super Villains don't make the character notable either. There's no evidence of any real-world significance to the character; this B-list villain isn't sufficnently notable to warrent anything more than a list entry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 29 October 2011 (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. without prejudice to the creation of a redirect Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Rottweilers

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

Semi-pro basketball team which does not give any evidence of notability. Also cannot find them listed on ABA's website and official website link is not working, so they maybe don't exist anymore. Mattg82 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be a near-miracle if a team in the American Basketball Association (2000–present) were to survive for five seasons anyway. In a typical ABA season, several teams either fold during the season or fail to begin play at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG with no independent coverage. Team never played. Another example of an ABA team article without coverage and without playing a game, like AfD for Atlanta Aliens earlier.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bagumba. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG Secret ^account 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Basketball Association (2000–present). - Aside from being logical, redirects are cheap, and it keeps a redlink from tempting people. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No need to delete the photo - it's been OTRS released and CC-SA3.0 licensed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Alswang

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

Non-notable BLP article. Although this person has appeared on the news offering an interview/opinion based on his professional expertise, I do not think that this makes him notable enough to meet the general notability guidelines. Other than the Fox News interview transcript, all that the other references do is prove that he exists, not that he is notable. Bob Re-born (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - The only coverage about him as opposed to quoting him is the NY Times wedding announcement. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ghits are primarily directory listings and articles where he gets the odd quote, based on his being an ex-Fed. Nowhere close to notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've cut all the puffery from the article not supported by sources. If it wasn't clear before he's not notable, it's sure clear now. EEng (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't forget to delete the photo.

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

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

The result was soft delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skepsi

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

Non-notable journal, not indexed in any selective major databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. Crusio pretty much sums it up. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:01, 22 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Billington

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

Stub article about a musician without a claim to notability. Appears to fail WP:GNG. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 08:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Not signed to any label that I can tell, and as far as I can tell, hasn't even released an album yet; just some tunes for sale on iTuens etc,., and some Youtube videos. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is always tricky to find information on non-US performers. This guy has a nice looking website but it hasn't been updated in a while. On the other hand, according to the bio on his myspace page one of his songs was included in a compilation CD that was number one in South Africa. But, as noted above, he has yet to release an album (apparently it is due out in 2012), and I see from his gig list on his webpage that he's playing shopping malls and and "Marine World". I don't know anything about the music scene in South Africa, but that doesn't sound terribly impressive to me. It will be interesting to see what happens after the album comes out, but someone can write the article then. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2011 (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 Cúcuta. The content will be available in the history if anyone can find anything to merge. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Cúcuta

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

An unneeded content fork. The main article covers the same events, so this looks redundant. Mattg82 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article Tryphaena (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article. --Jerebin (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The main article already contains everything this sub article has, so there is nothing to merge. Mattg82 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (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 by User:Gogo Dodo. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ShaGaGy

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

I seems like a test creation of a page. The sort of stuff that should be done in a sandbox. pluma Ø 00:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G2. – Richard BB 00:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The test page was speedily deleted but the author created an article about a musician in its place. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2011 (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. G10 Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Borden

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

It seems to be vandalism and is not about a notable person. A large part of the text is nonsensical. pluma Ø 00:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax/vandalism. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely fictional bio of a real living person. There really is a Randy Borden teaching at Patrick Henry High. Doesn't appear to be notable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2011 (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 Guardians of the Universe. Any content can be merged from the article history. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maltus (comics)‎

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

Contested PROD. There is no objective evidence that the fictional planet has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so there is no evidence to presume that it meets the general notability guideline. Also, with no reception and significance in reliable secondary sources, any article about the fictional planet can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information, suitable for a fansite, but not for Wikipedia. A quick search engine test shows only unreliable sources, trivial mentions and plot-descriptions at best. The content of the article is unreferenced, so there is nothing worth saving from the article. Jfgslo (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of locations of the DC Universe is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2011 (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, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Guardians of the Galaxy as it's their home planet. Warden (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Guardians of the Universe, right? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Guardians of the Universe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 29 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wink (game)

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

The only reliable source I found that includes more than a passing mention of this game was this book, but even that is not substantial enough coverage to make this topic eligible for inclusion under the GNG. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2011 (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, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being notable. Tryphaena (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of another user. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. It's clearly real, but does not meet our notability criteria. LadyofShalott 14:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ITEXISTS, but WP:ITFAILSTHEGNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 29 October 2011 (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. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason to keep this one. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kolty Chess Club

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

No reason for notability is given. The statement that this chess club is "one of the oldest active chess clubs in the US" is not backed by reliable sources. SyG (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Needs to be developed and have more references and evidence. Other Chess Clubs have their own page so this one deserves a try to be here. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2011 (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, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being notable. Tryphaena (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2011 (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.