Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 10

< 9 October	11 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 merge to List of characters in the Firefly universe#Jayne Cobb. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne's Hat

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

No indication that this is notable. No RS references as a fan phenomenon. Very few hits in Google News, none of them impressive. Seems to be a coatrack for advertising fansites. The hat being sold might be worth a very brief mention in another article but not an article of its own. Memorabilia from TV and movies is often quite valuable but very rarely notable in its own right. It should also be noted that the character that wears the hat does not even have a separate article of his own. DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in the Firefly universe#Jayne Cobb. Not enough here for notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom's reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: nn. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect rather than Keep, to the Jayne Cobb section of the character list. Various links:

http://www.unshelved.com/archive.aspx?strip=20070820 http://fannishinquisition.com/the-jayne-hat-firefly-prop-for-auction/282 http://www. s q u i d o o /.com/jayneshat http://www.craftster.org/forum/index.php?topic=19076.20 htom (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - totally unremarkable on its own. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually a worthwhile topic for an article, except that it hasn't been noticed by the mainstream media yet. Maybe could be merged to article on the show's fans, if that exists. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in the Firefly universe#Jayne Cobb: it can't yet stand on its own. Alexius08 (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Even the character doesn't have his own article. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps

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

This article is a random list of articles. There are many thousands of fixed-wing aircraft that do not have flaps and even a complete list of them would serve no purpose as this categorization is without meaning. It would be similar to creating a List of aircraft with wings or List of aircraft painted red, in other words it is an inherently non-encyclopedic list. - Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Per nominators rationale, noting that the article is effectively an orphan and unreferenced. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. Per Wikipedia:There is no deadline and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, it maybe orphaned but redirects are still sent there. --Dave1185 (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- NOTE: It wasn't nominated for AfD because it is incomplete, but because it is an inherently non-encyclopedic list. Please don't remove the AfD template from the article again, As Per WP:AFD you are free to improve the article over the next seven days, but the matter of whether the article is retained or deleted is determined by consensus here on this page. - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. - BilCat (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently unencyclopedic topic. ^Bongo_matic 00:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have made a couple of contributions to the article in an attempt to make it more accurate. However, it is not the sort of list I expect to find in an encyclopedia. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a good list at present, but it would easily possible to add some basic identifying information that would help browsing, and I have done just that. The references for each point could be triviall added from the articles on the underlying aircraft. Orphan is extremely easy to correct--just make a link from each aircraft article. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people at AIR, who are likely to have the most expertise on this matter, don't believe the list is useful. I have some personal knowledge of the topic and don't find it encyclopedic. There are lots of unencylopedic lists that can have notable members and not be orphans—for example United States politicians with having s as the third letter of their family name. In other words, notable members and references to a list do not make a list encyclopedic. ^Bongo_matic 05:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, our real world expertise is not relevant. Other projects, like Google's knol and the citizendium, allow contributors who consider themselves real world experts to insert material that relies on their personal opinions. We don't. You claimed "There are many thousands of fixed-wing aircraft that do not have flaps..." Why shouldn't we regard this as a lapse from no original research? Inserting material that relies on our personal opinions is a lapse from WP:NPOV. And so, it seems to me, is removing material that relies solely on our personal opinion. Please understand that this is what it appears you are doing -- trying to get an article deleted because it differs from your personal, unsubstantiated opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep- Agree that it isn't a good list, but it is a notable topic. I'll see what I can do to improve it to a resounding keep. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is less information on the topic than I thought... changing to weak keep. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per nominator rational. --McSly (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Nominator claims: "There are many thousands of fixed-wing aircraft that do not have flaps". Are there? This disturbs me. We don't allow contributors to insert material based on WP:ILIKEIT. And we don't let contributors excise material based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Our nominator may be some kind of aeronautical engineer. That would be irrelevant. Unlike, say, the Citizendium, or Google's Knol, contributors here who are real world experts aren't allowed to insert material based on their real-world professional opinions. They have to cite WP:RS, just like the rest of us. So, returning to nominator's claim: "There are many thousands of fixed-wing aircraft that do not have flaps..." perhaps our nominator could substantiate this claim? No offense, but without substantion for this claim it looks alarming like editorializing to me. Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I see that all three comments on the talk page are all from a few hours ago. I can't help wondering why our nominator didn't raise their concerns on the talk page. This really seems like an editorial concern first, not grounds for deletion. If the assertion above: "There are many thousands of fixed-wing aircraft that do not have flaps..." is incorrect, it would save the time of all of us who participating in this discussion, if our nominator attempted to sort out their concern on the talk page first. I think those working on this article deserved an opportunity to address this criticism on the talk page, not in an {{afd}}. Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was discussed at WT:AIR#Useful list?, which is a legitimate place to duiscuss options. The consensus there was that it should be deleted, hence we are now at the AFD. Also, note that this list was created in May 2007, which is plenty of time for the articel to have been greatly expanded, but it was orphaned most of that time. Most of the editing on the article, other than the article's creation, has been done since the discussion was opened at WTAIR, and much of the since then has been done by proponents of the article. While I am certainly not a fan of knee-jerk AfDs, I think 28 months is quite enough time . - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geo Swan: thanks for your comments to the AfD, but as per WP:NRVE you will note that neither the AfD nominator, nor anyone else, is required to cite sources to show that the article, or in this case, the list, is non-notable. Instead it is up to the article creator and article editors to cite sources show that this is a notable list. The article does not provide any indication that this is a notable or even a useful list. Because fixed wing aircraft without flaps are so common (and in fact may be close a majority of the category) no published expert has said that "a list of fixed wing aircraft without flaps would be a short and useful list". In fact going through my own aviation library I can find no work that makes any pronouncement on the subject at all, I contend because it is a trivial subject. Going though Janes I can see that a complete version of this list would be very long, perhaps ten thousand types, and range from the Wright Flyer to the Avro Vulcan. There are thousands of types built before 1920 without flaps, most ultralights designs have no flaps, almost all biplanes have no flaps and the vast majority of light aircraft built before 1950 had no flaps. I content that if you could complete the list it would still serve no purpose and would be similar to a List of aircraft that do not have V-tails or List of aircraft that do not have four engines - an enormous list that would not be useful to any reader. I am still waiting for someone to explain how this list could be of use to a reader.- Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would be better to categorize airplanes by what they do have in common, not something they lack. Would you have an article on "boats without rudders"? or "animals without tails"? I don't see what makes this different. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the discussion pointed to on [wt:air] is mainly between the two proposers for deletion at the top of this debate. In common with comments above, I don't see that it has been demonstrated that flapless airplanes are so common a list would not make sense. The article in question claims they are rare and no one has seen fit to dispute this by changing the article. Nor has anyone explained why not having flaps is a trivial technical issue: I thought flaps were considered essential on aeroplanes so the article struck me as interesting as an annexe to whatever article discusses the technical points in detail. Ought to be cross linked, of course. Sandpiper (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot find any evidence from reliable sources that these criteria are used to group or classify aircraft, doing so for a Wikipedia article in my opinion constitutes original thought. A Google search of "fixed-wing aircraft without flaps" gets no non-Wikipedia related hits ([1]), even given that there are many other possible ways to express the meaning of the phrase, it is indicative of the lack of coverage. Guest9999 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The original title of the article was "List of airplanes without flaps". You might try that, along with the alternate "aeroplanes". - BilCat (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Sole Soul (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Keep: I actually think this list could be encyclopedic. I'm not convinced there's too many aircraft without flaps to list, but if there is, then this list can be made more general with links to more specific lists. It's not the greatest list topic in the world, but I don't see anything wrong with it. If there is a better list topic to cover this subject, then we can call for another AfD. --Triadian (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (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 Deeper Than Rap. (non-admin closure) GlassCobra 16:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich off Cocaine

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

This song, while from a notable musician, does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own page. Therefore there is no reason for it to exist as a separate page. Nezzadar (speak) 22:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it can't be contested as in fact being notable, because WP:NOTABLE requires sources, of which this article has zero at the time of this posting. Nezzadar (speak) 22:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this last week and it was deleted this morning. Unless somebody can prove notability see WP:NSONGS it should be deleted. This phoenix version is less than its predecessor. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, redirect to Deeper Than Rap until such time as there is worthwhile, sourced content on the single. --Stormie (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 22 g news hits UltraMagnus^speak 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant content, release date if known should have be added at album article. but... WP:NSONGS says should just become redirect, so I presume there's no need for an AfD. --Cedders^tk 18:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will be BOLD Okay, thanks, I'll redirect it. I don't see why not. Unfortunately I don't have the authority to close the AfD, so it's going to be a mighty weird redirect. Nezzadar (speak) 21:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops Okay, can't do that, it's blanking. Should I use the informal guide of WP:SNOW and do it anyways? Nezzadar (speak) 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kolibri (software)

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

Unable to find any reliable secondary sources for via Google, Books, or Scholar.

IP voiced concerns on talk page so prod was contested. Concerns were basically that the developers had worked hard on creating a stable and ready framework and that the article offered readers an alternative to some of the mainstream frameworks. Odie5533 (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am likewise unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any sign that this is notable software. --Stormie (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2009 (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. Snow close--no other result is conceivable DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to prepare for gate

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

Wikipedia is not a test prep guide. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, nothing in the article worth merging either. -SpacemanSpiff 22:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classic case of Wp:NOTHOWTO. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A how to guide. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How-to. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply not an encyclopedia article, no content worth merging into Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering. --Stormie (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or test prep guide. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:02, 11 October 2009 (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. G4 Tone 22:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new thing

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable "scene", which appears to be a coatrack for a non-notable blogging website. I42 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing nom to Speedy Delete - this has already been nominated and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Thing; so tagged. I42 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2009 (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. Tone 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Alavie

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE: amature hockey player Singularity42 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this Article should stay because I re-phrased the statement of "Canadian ice hockey player" to "amature ice hockey player"--Schennfan1 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The criteria at WP:ATHLETE unfairly exclude a lot of otherwise notable amateur and minor-league players, but I don't see a reason to consider this player as notable. The article makes two specific claims for notability apart from his work as a player: "He received an award from the Ontario Government and has been on Toronto radio stations." I can't find a reference to him on the Ontario government's web sites doing a search for Alavie site:ontario.ca or Alavie site:gov.on.ca. Being interviewed on a radio station, even more than once, is probably not enough to establish notability in this case either. He is mentioned in newspaper stories such as this one, and in databases such as the Ontario Hockey League's and HockeyDB but that's not enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE does not trump WP:GNG. Notable amateur players would pass just fine. Also, it seems the "won an award and appeared on radio" statements are intended to apply to the subject's father. Even if it did apply to the player, junior players frequently are interviewed on local radio stations throughout Canada. Not remotely close to a sign of notability. Reso lute 00:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn junior hockey player. No major awards, no real indication of notability. Reso lute 00:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with Resolute as to how WP:GNG permits articles for amateur hockey players who pass its own criteria; that being said, WP:ATHLETE is what it is, and sentiment runs to tightening the standards, not loosening them. That being said, Alavie has won no honors, hasn't been drafted, lacks any prominence on his team, and my reading of the article is that this alleged award and radio interviews pertain to his father, not to Alavie himself; of course, notability is not inherited. Ravenswing 01:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:13, 11 October 2009 (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. Tone 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2160p

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

Contains only crystal-balling. References are completely irrelevant to the information inside the article and external links are merely proof-of-concept demos, not actually defining a standard as the article seems to claim. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think crystal ball is meant to be applied to Wikipedians forecasting the future, not the rest of the world. If everyone does it, it's not really crystal ball anymore. Like having a page for the 2016 olympics. It hasn't happened yet, but they are definitely working on it. Sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. There's also a number of journal articles discussing 2160p. Seems real enough to me. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of them happen to be proof of concepts and demos. Unless anyone can show that an official 2160p standard is being worked on, it's just crystal ball predictions. The Gran Turismo demo happened to just be four systems joined together to form a pseudo-2160 image. On the contrary, Super Hi-Vision is a proposed standard with the approval of the Japanese government, with support by multiple major broadcasting corporations. 2160p is the exact opposite; merely a hack-up of several 1080p video displays to show off demos and whatnot.

Basically, 2160p is not a proposed standard nor are there any experimental TV transmissions with the format, but just an odd display resolution made by a few TV manufacturers, so it shouldn't have its own article. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If people write about it, and make prototype products even that get reviewed, then it is no longer CRYSTAL. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely missing the point here. Read my comments above. Articles like this are not supposed to be about a certain prototype display but rather a proposed standard or some type of super-high definition format being worked on. Writing an unsourced article about vague collections of display monitors with high resolutions is hardly encyclopedic.

_{(Also please pay a bit more attention when de-prodding articles like this; check the sources, don't just look at the article, see apparent sourcing, and then remove the tag. Especially when it's regarding a completely unrelated section [which I've since removed as it has absolutely no bearing to the subject of the article]. The idea of prodding is to address a nominator's concerns and examine the article!)}

GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete The article says it is a proposed standard. Standards are a BIG DEAL. No references to a CE organization, VESA, IEEE, ISO, or any standards organization exists for this article. One-off prototypes at CES are not reference sources or standards. The existence of high-resolution monitors is not a standard. This resolution is an obvious choice for post-HD products, but it isn't a standard. Several standards above HD already exist, and most don't have articles, the abbreviations redirect to several other articles. We don't create articles on every XX by YY video resolution that gets a few products. Recommend redirect to List of common resolutions. Miami33139 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, someone who can understand my reasons for deletion. Standards are indeed quite a big deal. GraYoshi2x►^talk 16:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There may be no standard, but the term is in relatively common use to refer to 3820x2160 televisions, with sources in the article and more on the internet. http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37511/97/ , for example. If the problem is that the article implies that there is a standard which is not yet (and may never be) in existence, we can fix the article. gnfnrf (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles titled like this should be about a standard. Labeling it as 2160p is very misleading as there is no official designation unlike 1080p and the resolution is hardly used. You're also mistaken since such products are extremely rare and are sold to large corporations as monitors (NOT televisions) or made simply for CES demos. The terminology isn't common either: there are only 46,600 Ghits for the term, as opposed to more than 28 million for 1080p or even 1.4 million for Super Hi-Vision (which is an actual experimental standard).GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It also seems that people with little knowledge of television-related technologies are posting here, which makes a very awkward deletion discussion as people have to end up explaining to them what the problems are with the article. I would ask people with a little more technical insight to please leave your reasoning here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:CRYSTAL to claim this falls under it, it's certainly against the spirit and intention of the rule. The fact a technology is proposed and/or under development is not the same as saying that any article about it is speculative. I'm sure the 2160p article could be improved, but there's no call to actually delete it, which is a draconian and serious action whose harmful consequences tend to be underestimated by those who propose it. --208.152.231.254 (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT under development nor is it a proposed standard. I've stated that multiple times above. Please actually read my reasoning before making a statement that completely contradicts what I just said. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. There is no such experimental standard for "2160p" (which doesn't even give any proper Google search results) as opposed to Super Hi-Vision. GraYoshi2x►^talk 15:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your statement. It's wrong. Indeed, if you care to look at Super Hi-Vision, you'll see that much of the development was used using technologies originally designed for 2160p, such as 2160p CCD sensors. And before criticising me for not reading your comments (I did), you might want to read mine - I didn't say it's a proposed standard, I said it's a technology that's proposed and/or under development. In this case, it's both. 2160p panels and cameras are under development and in some cases are in production and being sold. Super Hi-Vision tests were conducted using 2160p sensors arranged in arrays. They exist. The technology exists. --208.152.231.254 (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The camera itself was built with four 2.5 inch (64 mm) CCDs each with a resolution of only 3840 × 2048" - Explain to me where it states that it used "2160p" displays and CCDs. Sounds like you need to do a little more research before just posting misconceptions here. Articles titled with such a name ([x vertical lines of resolution]i/p) should be about an actual experimental or proposed standard, not some one-off fancy display resolution. Should we create an article on 600p because a few netbook manufacturers made a screen with a resolution of 1024x600? I think not. It should either be redirected (as in this case) or simply deleted if it were created. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand GraYoshi2x's point. I disagree with his claim that it is not under development. Several companies are indeed producing prototypes that they describe as "2160p". I understand that GraYoshi2x does not consider these as real 2160p screens. I agree that it is not yet a formally proposed standard. In my opinion, the term is used widely enough by different independent sources as to justify its inclusion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has little to do with notability as you are suggesting. The fact that this isn't a proposed standard alone is enough to warrant deletion, especially if it's not real as you say. Anyways if you support my exact reasoning then why are you suggesting to keep the article? GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the fact that this isn't a proposed standard is enough to warrant deletion. I don't support your exact reasoning. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apertura 2009 F.C. Atlas Season

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

No other team has their own season article. It's written poorly and its has many POV statements. It is poorly source, the only references to this article are only to the transferred players section. Black 'n Red 20:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - consensus is that season articles are acceptable for teams in national leagues and this one plays in the Mexico premier division. Sure it needs work but the solution is to improve it not delete it. TerriersFan (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep team plays in the highest division in Mexico – the Primera División. As mentioned above, article is in need of a major cleanup and not deletion. --Jimbo^[online] 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They're in the Mexican Primera Division, so are notable. "Written poorly" and having "many POV statements" are causes for rewriting, not deleting. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs a lot of improvement and needs to be edited for MoS. Govvy (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, needs improving not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be considered to also include one of the surrounding Clausura tournaments (either 2009 or 2010) into the article as season articles are usually portraying 12 months of a football club. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:27, 16 October 2009 (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. Tone 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Santos

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

Fails wp:bio. Previous prod removed without indicating encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-10t19:56z 19:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete was created by User:Santoscr who then removed COI templates. Can only find listings of parts at All Media and IMDB, and what appears to be one interview. Couldn't find anything relevant on Google News Archive. --Cedders^tk 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although she biggest claim to fame is the number of stunts she did, she doesn't seem any better than the average professional in her field.--SonicRay (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2009 (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. JForget 22:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Leslie (Canadian broadcaster)

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. (WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply here, per discussion here.) [7][8][9][10] (not to be confused with the relatively more notable Michelle Leslie.) ƒ(Δ)² 17:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:OR. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO and WP:RS. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Minor broadcaster, does not establish significance. GlassCobra 16:55, 17 October 2009 (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 George Washington University. JForget 22:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GW Patriot

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

Previous AfD was closed early when nom agreed to redirect to George Washington University. That redirect was since reverted. This article about nonnotable student journal cites only one third-party reference, which is a student newspaper and mentions it only once. All Gnews hits I can find are trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Washington University Ikip (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I just don't see any sources to support keeping this. Per WP:Preserve I suppose a redirect is better than a delete and redirect though I don't have significant opposition to that option. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect if necessary. GlassCobra 16:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peakers

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

Laudatory and unsourced article on a website. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless article. Ref is dead. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Site would fail notability test even if it were still up. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Worlds Collide (2010 film)

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

Contested prod. Future film not even close to passing WP:NFF. Any reliably sourced information about the supposed remake can be included as a section in When Worlds Collide (film). Hqb (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: at [11], it stated:

In the July 2009 issue of Fantastique magazine, director Sommers had the following to say in an interview: "Steven Spielberg and I have a great script for When Worlds Collide. We just have to wait now because of Roland Emmerich’s 2012. It’s too close a project."

Doesn't this imply pre-production?--Coin945 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles.". Joe Chill (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Coin. Joe Chill (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice until principal photography has begun, as noted above. Cliff smith ^talk 19:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A film with a script alone is not a notable film! Fences&Windows 02:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of great scripts languishing in archive boxes. Wait until this one starts filming. Background info can go in the original When Worlds Collide (film) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate so that article concerns may be better addressed. Coverage of this project since 2004 in Rs and in books allows that it may prove to be one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF. My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with the article that cannot be fixed... including concerns with copyvio. I had many years ago read both When Worlds Collide and the sequel After Worlds Collide, and although I was disappointed in how the 1951 film failed to meet expectations, if this gets to the incubator, I will happily assist in addresing concerns and improving sourcing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenlivet Challenge

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

Contested prod (see talk page). Drinking game. The Importance section pretty much gives the one reason why Wikipedia cannot have an article on this at least for the time being ("While the Glenlivet Challenge may not be notable to date..."). Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't imagine can ever be verified by anyone not taking part (and possibly not even then). --Cedders^tk 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable RT | Talk 17:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable by articles own admission. The fact that it might one day be notable if this article is allowed to stay is not a reason to keep it. Even if it were to stay the article is an orphan and will get minimal traffic. There are also numerous other issues, including the whole article being far too informally written. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources/references whatsoever. Article admitted that this is non-notable. When this becomes notable in the future, recreate article and of course with sources provided. Until then, delete. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "While the Glenlivet Challenge may not be notable to date, it is a game that has generated a lot of interest in the Greater Lehigh Valley." Joe Chill (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. I have actually heard of this and think it has been discussed and played in several comedy movies. After reading this article my friends and I played and it was actually quite competitive and enjoyable. Anyone recommending deletion should rethink their reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MAtlien (talk • contribs) 21:49 12 October 2009 — MAtlien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do you have any reason for not deleting that's actually based on Wikipedia policies? Just because it's fun does not mean it's notable. Is there any documentation about the movies you claim it appeared in? If so, do the movies refer to it as the "Glenlivet Challenge"? Can you tell us, specifically, what movies you are talking about? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm not sure why such haste as to automatically delete? The only arguement that anyone has made for deletion is the fact the author mentioned the words "may not be notable". As per the deletion policy, an article can also be "edited" as opposed to strictly "deleted". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.18.193 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC) — 204.186.18.193 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete : Here is a reference from the Internet Movie Database. A quote from Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. http://www.imdb.com/Find?select=Quotes&for=three%20fingers%20glenlivet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsst62 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of full disclosure, the above editor is the article's creator -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linked quote actually makes no mention of this so-called "challenge", merely the fact that the character planned to drink a standard measure of the aforementioned brand of whiskey. So that doesn't prove its notability in any way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Do Not Delete*** I think the author of this article may have underestimated the games noteriety. This game is one I am personally familiar with and have played several times over the course of the past year. I think based on the grounds of the games spreading popularity, the article should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Doug E Fresh (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC) — Mr Doug E Fresh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, no notability per WP:RS, and violates WP:V as written. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so, after reading the whole article, what this boils down is that this so-called "challenge" is in fact a coin toss and, erm, that's it. Obviously completely non-notable. It's funny how people arguing to keep articles on made-up games always seem to claim that it has "growing popularity" or similar wording but singularly fail to prove it in any way......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin (emulator)

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

No indications it is notable, only one third party reference (every other reference is from someone involved in the emulator, like the website of its makers and various YouTube videos showing the emulator in action). Previous AFD was withdrawn due to an on-going discussion at the time regarding emulators in general (and most of the Keep votes were pathetic excuses like "Keep because it's the only GameCube emulator"). The article in general just seems like spam. TJ Spyke 15:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: ~~I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)~~ Per Odie. I also found this. Joe Chill (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: See [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Covered by 1up.com, Joystiq, Kotaku, and Eurogamer. Main stream magazines won't touch it since it's a recent emulator, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. All the independent reliable sites cover it, and it's covered by every recent emulation site out there. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , well covered and notable, per Odie5533. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 20:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Odie5533 --Cedders^tk 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Odie5533. Warrah (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Odie5533. Haseo9999 (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Odie5533. Rickington (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Dolphin is one of the most "famous" emulators for being the only emulator being able to emulate a Seventh Generation Console with a decent frame-rate and graphics. I think it deserves recognition and acclaim with its own Wikipedia page.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Odie. It has received enough media coverage to make the cut, it's just a matter of revising the article and bringing it all together. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2009 (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 characters in Heroes#Hana_Gitelman. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Gitelman

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

Non-notable character. Only appeared for less than a minute on-screen. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to merit her own article since no discussion of real-world importance. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge main text to List of characters in Heroes#Hana_Gitelman. The character mentioned immediately below that got vastly more screen time and doesn't have own article. Features in spin-off media are worth mentioning, but doesn't look like those sections will get written. --Cedders^tk 20:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. What can I say? I created the article assuming the character would develop and others would maintain/expand it. As of this date, it actually looks worse than when I "created" it (mostly just siphoning off existing content and updating per each issue/episode/appearance). Sorry the character, series, and Wikiproject haven't gone very far/well since I left the fold. Anyway,b when you merge, try to find the GN data. I can only assume its buried in the history somewhere. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:09, 16 October 2009 (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 The Fame#The Fame Monster. Tone 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fame: Monster

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete, redirect and WP:SALT. This is a special edition of the album The Fame, and therefore does not warrant its own article as it fails WP:NALBUMS. All relevent infomation is already mention in the existing article, so why need for a new one? SALT due to frequent fanboy re-creation. Dale 14:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fame#The Fame Monster, then lock the redirect to avoid recreation. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to The Fame. It is just a re-release and they shouldn't have their own articles. --PlatinumFire 16:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and lock per nomination. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Fame. It's a RE-RELEASE!Zefron12 (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Fame#The Fame: Monster and lock. talking birds 18:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Other album re-releases don't have their own page, so this is no exception. ---Shadow (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it's just a re-release --♫S manu! 08:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and full-protect Re-releases and special editions do not receive articles. Given the chronic recreations, protection is necessary to prevent immediate undoing.—Kww(talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Full-protect per Kww and Dale. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to section If this is simply a reissue of the existing album (enhanced or otherwise), then it should be a section within the main article. While some exceptional cases may warrant their own articles (e.g. Pet Sounds Sessions), this does not. The redirect will prove useful for searches and anyone who tries to recreate this material as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and lock per nomination.--XL XR2 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We won't know how much it is a duplicate of the Fame until it comes out. We should have waited until the release to create this article and have this debate. Until then, Weak Keep Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do know already. 17 old songs, 8 new. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect THIS IS A RE-RELEASE, NOT A SOPHOMORE ALBUM! JUST AN EXTENSION OF THE FIRST EFFORT! MERGE AND LOCK!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.26.250 (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Knox

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

Non-notable wrestler. ^Bongo_matic 13:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has limited to no coverage through a simple Google search, so far fails to meet the General Notability Guideline and WP:ANYBIO. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You actually need sources to contest that something is notable, so unless some materialize, I can safely claim that this is a blatant fabrication, even if I think or know it's not. No sources, no page, that simple. Nezzadar (speak) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:OR. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no notability per WP:BIO and utterly violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:06, 16 October 2009 (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 real Mr. Schmidt has had no illustrated evidence of passing our notability criteria, and has since been closed as delete. Google already gives mixed results and the idea that real people should outrank fictional characters is not enough to get the article kept. (Imagine James Bond replacing James Bond) My advice to Mr Schmidt would be to speak to Showtime, or hope that people don't confuse you for a fictional gay accountant from Pennsylvania. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Schmidt

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

Fails WP:BIO. The only reference provided besides his own website is an article where his name is mentioned once as a little side detail. Web search returns just various lists of businesses… Skarebo (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. one possible solution: ∆

"This article is about a living person, and must adhere to the policy on biogrpahies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be added and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." - Wiki policy

The article is about a living person: Ted Schmidt (Talent Agent) It has been repeatedly edited, and redirected to a fictitious person, Ted Schmidt (Character in "Queer as Folk). This character has personal problems including drug and pornography addictions which make this listing libelous to the living person Ted Schmidt (Talent Agent).

As Wiki articles typically appear in the top search engines, I am respectfully requesting that the living person be granted precedence over the fictitious person. Failure to do so is libelous, negligent, and reckless; resulting in an undetermined amount of financial damage to the living person.

Perhaps the best solution to this problem is a disambiguation. A living person should take precedence over a fictitious one. 72.144.89.190 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Ted Schmidt[reply]

Without access to the sources it is unclear how much coverage there is so I don't know whether the article should be deleted or not. There is an article in the Miami Herald that is probably about the talent agent[19] but I don't have access to it. Whether the article is kept or not, there should be at least a link to the fictional character; there is nothing libellous there as it's clearly not the same person, and it isn't biographical material about a living person so the BLP policy isn't a valid reason to remove it. The history of the original article (about the fictional character) is still needed as the list of characters was created by merging the separate articles. snigbrook (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is irrelevant here. Information about a fictional character that coincidentally has the same name as a real one is not "material about living persons," and the fact that there is a character named "Ted Schmidt" on the show Queer as Folk is not "unsourced or poorly sourced." The legal claims above are pure nonsense as well, unless we're genuinely concerned that the general public will think that content about a fictional character in a major television series, which is expressly identified as such, is really factual statements about a real life talent agent, who may or may not merit his own article. Perhaps he should send a cease and desist letter to the producers of Queer as Folk to stop using "his" name. If this talent agent does merit an article, there is no valid reason not to provide links at the top to other unrelated topics with the same name, and if he does not merit an article, there is no valid reason not to redirect this name to the list of characters.
See also Wikipedia:No legal threats. If Mr. Schmidt wants to discuss whether he merits an article, fine, but the "libel" threats need to stop right now. Postdlf (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it that policy, like all WP policies, applies to editors only. Subjects of articles are free to make legal threats if they want to. (Although in this case I don't think one would have much merit.) Northwestgnome (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding outside references, there are only two other references on the fictional character, this hardly makes for a notable person, fictional or not. There is also a more famous Ted Schmidt who was the editor of the Catholic Times. Again, I do not have a problem with a disambiguation. 72.144.89.190 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Ted Schmidt[reply]

Revert to TV Character No need for a disambig to accommodate a non-notable talent agent. And considering 72.144.89.190 appears to be the talent agent in question, I'd say NPOV is out the window. --JaGa^talk 19:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article about the real person and restore redirect to the TV character. The living Ted Schmidt shows no particular evidence of notability, such as third-party press discussing him specifically and nontrivially rather than merely mentioning him in the context of an article about something else. And sharing a name with a fictional character is neither a good reason to create an article about a non-notable person, nor a good reason to create a separate disambiguation page in violation of our guidelines that a dab page have entries for three or more notable topics, nor a good reason to get rid of the redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to Ted Schmidt (agent) and create disambiguation page. About 20 incoming links for the TV character, none for the (real) talent agent. Not sure non-notable: letter from Jimmy Carter suggests notability within own field. Just need quotes from the print sources. --Cedders^tk 21:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and lets block some people while we're at it! Seriously folks? Threats? Someone needs to be blocked for a while, or forever, what ever suits the admins' fancy. What I see when I read this article is an un-notable person with marginally noticable family members. I also see a WP:SPAM violation. As for the issue of the Miami Herald, trust me on this one, it's reliability as a legitimate source is questionable at best. Read it. Really, don't, it's not worth it. In conclusion, grow up please, making threats over the internet because of this seems remarkably childish. Nezzadar (speak) 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me see if I have this correct. This article is being edited by a group of volunteer (Unpaid, therefore amateur) editors, who are nameless, unidentifiable, and who's credentials are totally unknown72.144.89.190 (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Ted Schmidt[reply]

Which begs the question of why you'd want to be the subject of an article here, doesn't it? Welcome to Wikipedia. Postdlf (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? “As Wiki articles typically appear in the top search engines…” Skarebo (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not up to wikipedia to fix Google searches that people don't happen to like. Go whine to Google and see how far you get. Hairhorn (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious vanity article; restore the character people have actually heard of. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete character is notable, real person is not - only one way to go here. Think the IP could be breaking WP:NLT Bacchus87 (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2009 (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. JForget 22:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G5 (British universities)

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

notability - no sources provided. Never heard the term (and would have expected to if it was in use); no sources, and can't find any (it's hard to search for). Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know why they would even try reference it by using Wikipedia. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Background: this seems to have been started by a complaint in the help desk (Wikipedia:Help desk#The 'G5' (Oct 10)). In response I added some cleanup tags but before I was done Rd232 put in the AfD. Rd232 also removed a bunch of CFORK material on the the 5 universities involved and I removed a links to the page that were unreferenced. It appears that the G5 is supposed to be analogous to the Ivy League in the US, the G13 in Canada and the G8 in Australia. Britain also has the Russell Group and some unofficial terms such as Oxbridge and the Golden Triangle which is composed of the same universities that are in the "G5". (This is what my research turned up at least--I'm not a Brit so I can't claim to be an expert.) Reasons for Delete: It seems clear that "G5" is also an unofficial term but I haven't seen any outside evidence that it's in actual use. If it is an actual nickname for these universities then it's hard for me to understand why it's not a synonym for the Golden Triangle. A synonym should just be added as an aka and not have its own article.--RDBury (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable term with no evidence of actual use; the only "reference" in this article is a link to another Wikipedia article! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eak Keep Never having heard of it is one of the classic non-reasons. But it would help to have the specific reference to TES, and whatever else there might be.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Metropolitan Community Church. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Community Church of Manchester

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

There appears to be little of notability about this church. A discussion at WT:GM appears to reveal there may be a consensus to delete Pit-yacker (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: into Metropolitan Community Church as the local congregation is not notable. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 08:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. I think a case could be made that a good article is possible but as yet no one has put in the work. A church around for as long is certainly likely to have numerous media mentions et al but for now just redirect to main until a list of MCC churches is pulled together. -- Banjeboi 17:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If sources exist, i didn't find them, not even enough to make a redirect worthwhile. It is just one, small, not very old, local congregation of a national church. Merging paragraphs from every local congregation into the parent church would make the parent a very poor article.YobMod 10:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think searching under "MCC Manchester" may help although different names certainly may also be used. -- Banjeboi 10:38, 16 October 2009 (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. Various web outlets report that the artist in question has stated that this future album is a fake. In view of this, the article should only be recreated if there is solid reliable sourcing for its existence, per WP:V. Sandstein 06:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Streetz Is Mine

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

Fails WP:MUSIC with no independent, reliable sources. Also, it's a bit crystal ballish. PROD removed by IP. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page can be expanded with some editing and research. How is a future release not going to be crystal ballish? avs5221 (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the definition in the link. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Billboard confirms the release date as 5 weeks time, and there is already enough coverage: [20], [21], [22]. I see no benefit from deleting this when the album is only a few weeks away.--Michig (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Gongshow ^⊕ 20:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, now there's the possibility that this album is "a fake". Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC) 09:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is why "crystal ballish" information does not belong. Things change, reliable sources report that something will happen but it doesn't. Wikipedia is not a news organization. Wikipedia summarizes notable subjects and at this point this album is not. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pere GB fan. Apparently "fake" album title --Cedders^tk 21:07, 10 October 2009 (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 Non-admin closure wrong forum. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humanoid (Album)

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

Article is unnecessary; another article, Humanoid (Tokio Hotel album) already exists --Theworldsucks (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Theworldsucks[reply]

Comment This discussion belongs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion since the tag was placed on a redirect not an article ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:01, 10 October 2009 (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. G4 Tone 22:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jax Desmond Worldwide

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Previously deleted at AfD. ^Bongo_matic 07:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article has already been deleted before, per G4. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it has been previously deleted via AfD (although I think this version isn't "substantially identical" enough for a G4), and this version does not establish notability any better than the original. The "references" provided are rather bogus... some press releases and the rest don't even mention the subject. Editor appears to be a WP:SPA whose only purpose appears to be getting around the previous AfD and salting of the article Jax Desmond. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:39, 10 October 2009 (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 06:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block Dude

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

Non-notable calculator game. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I found and added a passing reference from the New York Times. It is not enough to save the article, but it makes me believe there must be something else out there. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources so that is why I am recommending delete, although weakly. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This game was included with Ti 83+ calculators in the PuzzPack application. A lot of high school students have played this game. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it notable.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gumb

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

Wikipedia is not for neologisms nor for stuff made up one day. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously made-up, I gritted my teeth and Googled to double-check that there is no evidence of anyone actually using this acronym. Ben Kidwell (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like the Yeti, no evidence of existence. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails being anything remotely interesting. -WarthogDemon 15:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 16:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a hoax. Even if it where real it probably belongs in a dictionary rather than encyclopedia. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where are the references/sources to justify notability? Answer: there is none. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An acronym isn't notable because two human beings like to use it. --JamesAM (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourceable neologism, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bissan Rafe Qasrawi

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

No suggestion of notability. Good faith news, book, and web searches (which should be reasonably relevant for someone born in 1986) identify no significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 06:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Negative for search; fails WP:CREATIVE since she has not:

...created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or,

won significant critical attention in particular. ceranthor 14:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as WP:AB (the creator/main contributor is the person in question). Skarebo (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DDtrac

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

Borderline case of non-notable software from non-notable developer. Orange Mike | Talk 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Merge with Developing Minds Software - Between the company and the software product there does appear to be sufficient coverage to establish notability although each individually is probably borderline. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the merged article meeting notability either. Note that the Eparent article referenced in the article is written by the founder of Developing Minds and creator of the DDTrac software. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, the merge target isn't notable either so placing this there isn't going to fix the problem. On the other hand, if there is non-trivial coverage on this particular subject I would be in favor of retaining it... but I cannot find any. JBsupreme (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge per UrbanRenewal. It seems adopted in the autism community, with some coverage by autism websites [23] , [24] , [25] ; plus it has been used in at least one academic research [26]. I would merge Developing Minds Software within this article. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the sources found by Cyclopia, I found this article from American City Business Journals. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central European Diabetes Association

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

I was unable to find non-trivial coverage in independent sources about this organisation. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For an international scientific/medical organization which has met for many years, it is surprising that I cannot find them mentioned more than once at Google Books or Google Scholar. Having several names in different languages might mean that they show up under one of the names but not the ones I tried. The article is largely a cut and paste from their website, and would need stubbing or rewriting in any event, but some source other than their website is needed to satisfy WP:notability. Subject to change if someone can find multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I suspect that the lack of Ghits is because any WP:RS on the subject will be in German or other Central European languages, not English. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:BURDEN - reliable sources actually have to be presented, and speculation that they might exist is not a valid substitute for including those sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I searched by "Zentraleuropäischen Diabetesgesellschaft" also, nothing much. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only source I could find (by searching for lots of permutations of names and abbreviations in both English and German) that may be more than a passing mention, or a citation to one of this organisation's symposia, is this article in a peer-reviewed journal, but I don't have access to the full text. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison and Phil Bridger. Surprising, though. GlassCobra 16:47, 17 October 2009 (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 DDtrac. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Developing Minds Software

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

Non-notable small software company; speedy declined because it won a campus-wide business plan competition!? Orange Mike | Talk 19:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- footnote - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DDtrac. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would disagree that this article be a suitable candidate for speedy deletion as there seems to be a fair amount of coverage on various websites through a simple Google search. However as for notability of the company itself, I'm not sure. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only real coverage is about that $10,000 prize, and I don't think this meets the requirements of WP:CORP. Favonian (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree that this article be a suitable candidate for speedy deletion. A simple Google search reveals that this organization has contributed to a deeper understanding of the importance of special education data tracking. Additionally, the organization is mentioned in several publication for winning an the Business Plan Competition award as well as a University Sponsored Research Symposium.QuazyMike (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC) — QuazyMike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Not to diminish the accomplishments of these entrepreneurs, but these awards are rather minor. Coverage about the comoany in reliable sources is lacking. If the ability that generated these awards also propels the company forward to eh point where they are garnering significant coverage, then an article would be appropriate then. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Merge with DDtrac - Between the company and the software product there does appear to be sufficient coverage to establish notability although each individually is probably borderline. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only trivial coverage. Even the awards weren't covered anywhere but by the place giving the award. If they really had "contributed to a deeper understanding of the importance of special education data tracking" there would be at least one journal or news article written about them. I can't find any. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to DDtrac, which is the best alternative to deletion. Since this article is sourced, this useful content should be preserved. Cunard (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Lullabies - Very Best of The Blow Monkeys

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

i can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted again as no discussion on-going. JForget 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also found nothing on this album in the usual databases, and nothing on google except for the fact that it exists. Trimming P O_r V and sourcing from the album's own liner notes (written by band member) would leave little beside a release date and track listing. Even Dr. Robert's Offical Website (the only external link provided at current time) does not list the album as part of the Blow Monkeys' discography. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:05, 10 October 2009 (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. Withdrawn. I commented on this, but I don't think there's any problem with closing this given that the nom has withdrawn it. Black Kite 16:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adele (1906)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Also is a cookie cutter article that would need substantial editing to become encyclopedic. Not all sources apply to the page, as evidenced by the dates in the book titles. Nezzadar (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; bogus rationale. Per Wikipedia:Notability, "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." This ship clearly does meet that criterion. It is covered in the sources listed, and is also covered in Herman Gill's History of the Royal Australian Navy. Contrary to the rationale given, all dates in the book titles listed intersect with the period of this ship's existence i.e. 1906–1943. Hesperian 06:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability proved by publications. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I don't doubt that the wreck is mentioned somewhere in the set of literature mentioned there currently is no indication of any substantial specific coverage. Actually there isn't any substantial content at all and it is difficult to imagine how this can be expanded if there is only a set of generic bibliography and links that are essentially the same as for a set of similar stubs. E.g of the three on-line sources, two are a search page respectively a contents page and one merely has one sentence ("Adele. Steel screw steamship, 288 tons. #123022. Built Great Britain, 1906; reg. Adelaide, 3/1907. Lbd 145 x 22.4 x 13.2 ft. Struck the breakwater at Port Kembla and declared a total loss, 7 May 1943.") Unless someone can actually come up with a source that contains more, this goes against the idea of wikipedia not being a directory of all known shipwrecks.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you thank a ship could be wrecked in a port and not make the newspapers of the day? Hesperian 11:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, from the quote above, I would not have wanted to speculate. Let me also clarify that with expansion I mean more than combining a few short mentionings in specialized sites and data directly from registries. Some reliable sources that has done that already and e.g. clarified some facts whether the ship was bought in 1915 or requisitioned in 1939 such as the one provided now does, so I m happy to strike.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Copyvio issue Is there any information in any of these articles that isn't directly lifted from the publications listed? . Fixed. Keep. Black Kite 13:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article can be expanded quite easily using the Lloyds Register entry for 1930 Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- is a cookie cutter article that would need substantial editing to become encyclopedic - the solution to that is to substantially edit the article instead of putting it up for deletion. The ship served with the Royal Australian Navy under two different names in two different wars. Nothing a little searching couldn't uncover. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nomination does not meet deletion guidelines. I have added a good source - only took a minute. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is NOT a directory, and this guy has created at least a dozen identical one line articles with the identical sources. It has no EV, I could find out more, faster with a google search. The fact that he is able to create this many articles this quickly in and of itself is an indication of how little effort he put into it. I could churn out crap articles just as quickly, say 200 articles on unnotable car crashes on US1. It would have the same EV, except boats have the benefits of names. If his argument is that this boat has something special, he has to justify the other ones too. Nezzadar (Speak) 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notability proven, looks like a competent article on a notable subject to me. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination

For the record, the article I nominated for deletion was certainly not this one.

Keep Wow, cleared my cache and saw the new work. The magic of Wikipedia. I go to sleep and the article is two lines, I wake up and it's a full fledged article. I withdraw my nomination. Nezzadar (speak) 16:29, 10 October 2009 (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. Nom considered withdrawn per the statement below. 88.108.233.96 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandman

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

Sorry for being over the top, but what a shit article: about 9% of it is of any relevance, the rest is simply an example farm of extreme triviality, many being very poor or irrelevant (game characters, movie lines), and there is little to scavenge from this article after a cleanup (merge with Rheum or folklore?); almost equivalent to an "In popular culture" article. 99% unreferenced and highly unlikely to ever be referenced. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Being poorly written is not a criteria for deletion, and the subject is obviously a notable one. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A very notable mythical character. Joe Chill (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable meme, as in Mr. Sandman. At Google book search, see [27]. Edison (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, how are many of these instances going to be referenced? A large majority fail to meet WP:V and WP:RS, and many of the WP:TRIVIA entries lack relevance:

In Team Fortress 2 computer game, the unlockable weapon for the Scout class, "The Sandman", is a baseball bat that hits a baseball that upon hitting the enemy's head, stuns him for a couple of seconds.

in SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Fireteam Bravo 2: the main character's Codename is "Sandman".

In the Special Unit 2 episode "The Grain", the Sandman is depicted as a link, made out of sand, who enters a person's body while they are sleeping, possessing them and unleashing their Id.

In the 2000-2002 series Dark Angel (starting in Season 2), a character known as Sandman (whose true last name was "Sandeman") was noted as being the father of all the transgenics.

Jim Fullington, a wrestler formerly contracted to World Wrestling Entertainment and Extreme Championship Wrestling, wrestles under the ring name of 'The Sandman'. He is known for smashing a can of beer on his forehead prior to matches, sometimes cutting himself open and bleeding. Also, he has a tradition of using a Singapore Cane to hit his opponents on the head during Hardcore matches.

Nilus the Sandman is the main character of a same-named children's television show (1991-1997) [28] and a Christmas movie, "Nilus the Sandman: The Boy Who Dreamed Christmas". [29]

Blue Velvet has a scene where Ben (Dean Stockwell’s character) lip-syncs the Roy Orbison tune, "In Dreams," which features the Sandman in the opening lines.

Northern Exposure tv series aired an episode called "Mr. Sandman", 10 January 1994 (Season 5, Episode 12). The episode was built around a strange effect that the Aurora Borealis had to the dreams of a small Alaskan community, with people seeing other people's dreams.

Another possible problem could also involve WP:N of certain examples. However, once the examples are removed, all we have is a tiny stub; currently prose in paragraph form only accounts for 1,600 bytes, while the whole page makes up 16,711 bytes. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please remember that AfD is not a place to punish articles for being bad, but a process for filtering out articles on non-encyclopedic topics. This mythical/fictional character easily meets notability requirements and documenting the appearances of the character in notable cultural works is not difficult. Ben Kidwell (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable subject, and however the article looks at the moment, it can be improved.--Michig (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might have to call WP:SNOW on this one. If there is no change in the wind in five hours from now (07:40 UTC), I shall withdraw. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a very notable character in Western folklore. The huge list of pop culture references should be trimmed, though. JIP | Talk 16:24, 10 October 2009 (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 06:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Handful of Blue

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

Fails WP:BK Tim1357 (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The New Zealand Children's Literature Foundation considers this book to be notable.[30] Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 05:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability by the New Zealand Children's Literature Foundation is not a criteria for inclusion in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insufficiently notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Pepper

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

Delete. Perhaps Google News archives aren't the best for this subject, but I'm not finding multiple non-trivial coverage.` JBsupreme (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The awards make her notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the award. LovesMacs (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to the Order of St. John award? JBsupreme (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had been thinking of that before I read the Order of St. John article...now I think the International Red Cross and Order of Canada awards are better claims for notability. Loves Macs (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point of my question is this: Is having such awards enough to turn a blind eye to the fact that there is really nothing substantial in the way of non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources about this individual? Ordinarily we enforce that rule even stronger when dealing with biographical topics. JBsupreme (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References don't have to be multiple as long as they're good ones. The references include an article in The Globe and Mail. She appeared in a Canada Remembers - Part Three - Endings and Beginnings, documentary film produced by the National Film Board of Canada reference. This search is also helpful, although the link from that page is broken. She received her Order of Canada before the Governor General's office started to post the citations for Order of Canada recipients on its website. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2009 (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 all. Sandstein 06:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MelodyVision

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

Non-notable internet music "contest" [31]. Also note WP:COI: article was created by User:Donikanuhiu (talk, contribs) and among the "directors" of the "contest" there is some "Wikipedia MV" called Rinor Nuhiu. Barocci 01:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

delete, zero evidence of notability through independent media coverage. Also, articles create the false impression of this being a real-world event of the same type as Eurovision Song Contest, deliberately misleading as to the true nature of the "contest". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article fails WP:N, no reliable sources covering subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online music contest. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Please also delete Albania in the MelodyVision. GlassCobra 18:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I've added the page to nom. Barocci 03:51, 17 October 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croxley Green Business Park

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

Non-notable business park (also totally unsourced, but that's not reason for deletion). Orange Mike | Talk 01:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since when are Business Parks notable? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I say that an article with no sources needs one of two things, 1) sources or 2) deletion. It should take 30 seconds to decide which one best suits it. In this case, I go with 2) delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE and can't defend against that because it has no sources. How's that for efficient? Nezzadar (speak) 23:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its assertion of notability is "Watford's largest business park"; I'd argue that in almost all cases the formula "(small town)'s largest (whatever)" does not establish notability. (See WP:MILL.) Further there are no reliable sources and unless there's some particular architectural or historic significance to the place any presumption of notability established by sources would be easily rebutted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Croxley Green, then Delete. It is notable in the context of Croxley, but certainly not worthy of a stand alone article. WFCforLife (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Lossless Video Codec

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

I can't find significant coverage for this codec. Joe Chill (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some : I've worked in this area in the past and lost touch with state of art but seems to be some hits buried in here, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=moscow+lossless+video&btnG=Search , and it looks like one patent by an unrelated group http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7417570.html refers to it by this name so it is likely to be known. I would give it a chance before deleting. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Very hard to find stuff via Google web search [32]. There are, however, a handful of studies on the efficiency of the codec compared to similar lossless codecs available on gScholar [33]. If anyone else can find some reliable sources it would really help. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Academically notable, as per Odie5533. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 20:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Odie5533 (the fact it exists on numerous reputable download sites masks any commentary) Also linked to in compression template. (Those aren't additional reasons to keep, just observations) --Cedders^tk 19:20, 11 October 2009 (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. Tone 22:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Truex

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

fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to compete in the Sprint Cup series, and being a sibling of a Cup driver doesn't automatically make one notable. ArcAngel (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 13:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He just became the 2009 champion in the NASCAR Camping World East Series. This is a national-level feeder touring stock car series sanctioned by NASCAR, and I expect that every champion of this series is notable enough to justify an article. Truex is also a developmental driver for a major NASCAR Sprint Cup Series which significantly adds to his notability. Both are indications of him being a sure shot to go higher in the next year or 2; NASCAR's article on his championship says that he's planning to run some Nationwide Series races after he turns 18 in March 2010 (NASCAR's minimum age in it's 3 largest series is 18). So to prove that's he's notable, I've added sufficient multiple independent reliable sources to assert this notability. I was thinking about creating a page for him a few months ago before I found out that he won the national championship this year. Royal broil 04:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His accomplishments in his own right establish a claim of notability that is backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person is notable for winning the 2009 NASCAR Camping World East Series. Also it is backed by news sources. Techman224^Talk 01:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. He would have been notable just for being in the series. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2009 (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. Okay there is enough consensus now. Also, the nominator was blocked for various disruption too as I found out and thinks to an IP comment on WP:ANI as well. The improvements by User:Joe Chill helped the article very well. JForget 15:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prevx

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

This article has been tagged for notability since March 2009 and fails in WP:NOT S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources/references (except offfical page) to justify notability on this one line article since March 2009. Notability still not established. Ghits have not found much reliable sources. Most of sources are sites in which we can download this freeware. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 19:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Neutral ~~I still think that this article must be developped more as one line is definitely not sufficient... and add references.~~ Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per this, this, and this. Joe Chill (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call Joe Chill. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded and sourced. Joe Chill (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent job. Keep it up. (+ I crossed out my recommandation) ;) Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 14:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won an award in a major magazine, and other sources. Dream Focus 14:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why was this relisted? The neutral comment can be ignored because the editor obviously thinks that the article passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per expansion done by Joe Chill. --Milowent (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – seems notable enough to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 11:41, 10 October 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Points West (radio program)

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

non-notable radio program as there is not sufficient sources. Tavix | Talk 15:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A CBC Radio One show. Would in itself be considered a reliable source and evidence of notability when persons are featured on it. --Oakshade (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't source a wikipedia article as a reliable source. Do you have any third party sources to back up your claim of notability? Tavix | Talk 02:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all significant reliable sources are going to have significant reliable sources about them. Even the heading of WP:NOTABILITY states it should be handled "with common sense and the occasional exception." If WP:IAR is used sometimes, this is a common sense time to employ it. --Oakshade (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are misrepresenting WP:IAR because you can't find a reliable source to back up the claim! Per WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". This article doesn't have any reliable, third-party, published sources and per WP:N articles that do not have reliable sources for the can be determined non-notable. Tavix | Talk 13:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how you conjured up a misrepresentation of WP:IAR. Quite the personal attack. The topic is considered a reliable source per WP:RS. It's common sense that a reliable source is a notable topic. It's a common sense reason to employ WP:IAR. It's already clear that I can't find reliable sources about this reliable source. That's why IAR is being used. Tavix, I'm sorry you're angry that somebody is using it in your AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misrepresenting WP:IAR just so you can use your topic as a reliable source. That isn't a common sense reason, and you don't have anything to back it up besides vague references to the WP:RS. Show me in WP:RS that a Wikipedia article (which is what you're using) can be used as a reliable source for a different Wikipedia article, and I'll buy it. Until then, I'm sticking firm to what WP:RS really says. And I quote: "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". I'm just not seeing that and therefore it is deemed non-notable per WP:N. Quoting again: "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". This article does not have this. Tavix | Talk 16:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the standard WP:N line isn't going to change that this is a common sense time to employ WP:IAR. It seems you're missing the point that WP:N is what I'm choosing to ignore. Repeat text from it all you want, I'm ignoring it. Never did I "use" the topic as a reliable source. Don't know where you got that from. I'm saying that this program is a reliable source in itself and I think that a reliable source should be considered notable, not that the reliable source is supporting itself. Misrepresenting WP:IAR? The full text of WP:IAR is : "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That's what I'm doing. I'm sorry this is so angering for you.--Oakshade (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not angering me, it just confuses me. This is not a common sense time to invoke WP:IAR because it's not a matter of improving Wikipedia. When something is not notable, it can be deleted. Deletion can improve the encyclopedia since we don't need every single radio show in the history of radio one here, just the notable ones. Just by saying that it is notable because it falls under the scope of your topic of choice does not make it notable, even by WP:IAR. Tavix | Talk 19:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I think that having an article about a CBC Radio One show that's been on the air for many years most certainly improves Wikipedia.--Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think having an article about a notable radio show improves Wikipedia, but this show isn't it (per above). When this show gets significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, that's when it improves Wikipedia as a notable radio show. Until then, it's non-notable spam. Tavix | Talk 23:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is there nothing about the article that looks like spam and it looks like a normal strait-forward article about a radio program, but you've made quite the personal attack on administrator Bearcat for creating spam. Unless you can provide evidence that Bearcat somehow has a conflict of interest with this program, I would suggest striking that "spam" charge. --Oakshade (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One comment was moved to the Talk page. DoubleBlue (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Chill; WP:IAR is not applicable there. Whytye (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:IAR applies only in extraordinary cases and only when there is a clear concensus that Wikipedia would be better off if the rules were ignored in that case. There is no concesus here. Even with IAR, references are not optional RadioFan (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Long-running show on a major network--to my mind, inherently notable. Blueboy 96 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to back up your argument? Tavix | Talk 23:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the air since at least 2006, per the Internet Archive. Blueboy 96 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provincial-wide programme on CBC Radio One, said to be BC's top afternoon radio show. GoogleSearch WP:NMEDIA#Programming DoubleBlue (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Double blue, Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard D. Carey

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

Delete. Article about an office-holder in veterans groups. Likely written by the subject of the article. No references from reliable third-party sources. Fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). WWGB (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WWGB. Buckshot06(prof) 07:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: possible WP:COI, unreferenced, fails WP:N, WP:V. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per wwgb. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons given by benlisquare. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per panel above. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June Martino

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

Delete: Pretty obvious vanity page; fails WP:NOTABILITY. [email protected] (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Unless she appears in published histories of the company or other WP:RS, she should not have a page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The very first of the 137 Google Books hits helpfully linked above is this published history of the company. I'm rather surprised that those commenting above didn't notice this when researching this subject. Limiting the search a little to exclude false positives finds loads of reliable sources confirming that Martino was an important part of the development of one of the world's best-known brands. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Martino has only 137 direct ghits is a rather poor argument against deletion. [email protected] (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said Google Books hits, i.e, actual printed books that write about her, not web pages. And the number doesn't matter - have a look at what they say and see if she's notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PB. JBsupreme (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Currently the page fails WP:RS to establish WP:N, although WP:V can be strengthened if someone can find sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to create a full article. The person may not be the most important out there, but seems notable enough and to have received sufficient coverage to warrant an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Phil. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2009 (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. There is no initiative to delete this article. The outcome will be renaming or merging but this can be decided on the talkpage. So I am closing this debate as a No consensus (a keep would not do much and there is not a clear consensus what to do with the article at the moment). Tone 11:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclic permutation of integer

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

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

Disjointed article, containing a fork of parasitic number and some extensions, some comments that might be suitable for repeating decimal, a few random mathematical results and proofs. The title, Cyclic permutation of integer seems to be newly created, and, although there have been some works on the parasitic numbers an and extensions, it mostly appears to be the ~~principle~~ principal editor's original work, although some of it is my original work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the principal editor referred to by Arthur Rubin. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has more data than the (generally better written cyclic number. Merge? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change title: If the title is a problem, I suggest a change in the title.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title is one of the problems. Most of the concepts seem not to have been published. Certainly the addition section belongs in Wikibooks, if you're willing to move it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a reliable concept and theorem, then think in terms of ~~cyclic~~ multiplicative group of integers modulo n . The numerators of the set of fractions representing the cyclic permutations are the elements of a ~~cyclic~~ subgroup. The denominator becomes the n used in the modulo. The group theory concept explains comprehensively.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ~~cyclic~~ subgroup is generated when multiplied by 10 (or b for any other bases) modulo n. Now do you still think the theory is something new? I am just applying the group theory without quoting the theory. I am still learning group theory though I know the theory has been in existence for a long time. Shall verifiability be so rigid that there must always be a writing when the theory has been in existence for a very long time...--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the name change, I have removed the 'addition' section which becomes irrelevant or trivial to the subject. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into cyclic number. Possibly some could go into repeating decimal. Anyway I'm pretty certain we don't need yet another article with an unknown name repeating the same subject as other articles that have known names. I am not sure some of the stuff like the extension to moving two digits around should be kept at all, shouldn't it at most just refer to a citation for things like that and not go on and on?. Is it really something that a number of people have shown interest in? I'm not totally convinced by the first paper in the references which after going into that has a chapter on 'More Digital Trivia'. Dmcq (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article is no more unknown. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dmcq, removing any OR. The parasitic number article has closely related material and might be merged as well if it wouldn't make the article too big. Not sure there's a reason to keep a redirect page if the terminology is non-standard, except to keep an archive of the talk page. For what it's worth, MathWorld does have an article for "Cyclic Number".--RDBury (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the endless arithmetic examples and the repetition and the special cases and the unsourced claims; whatever is left (if anything) can be merged into repeating decimal or cyclic number. But on no account merge the article without extensive trimming first. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last effort in saving the article. I have moved the article to Transposable integer. There are sources using this term:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the first reference book of the article, the following book quoted many other references:

Joe Roberts, PP26-27, Lure of the integers

There are also other sequences quoted as anagrams at http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=anagram&sort=0&fmt=0&language=english&go=Search in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences.

Would you re-consider since the subject is different from cyclic number and repeating decimal?

Merge with parasitic number: My most current opinion is thus staying as an independent article or merge with parasitic number--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~:I also copy the following posting at Talk:Cyclic number#Cyclic permutation of integer:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling Kah Jai (talk • contribs)

Actually, I think Cyclic permutation of integer should be merged with Parasitic number, if an appropriate name can be determined. It seems more appropriate than Cyclic number as a target. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The new name, transposable integer , has little reference in reliable sources. Google books (above) has one hit on point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about reviewed articles quoted by Joe Robert? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the article isn't about the name, it's that the subject here isn't different enough from existing articles to justify having a separate article on it. Closely related ideas should be combined into the same article where it makes sense, in order to prevent content fork issues for one thing and to show the relationship between the ideas for another.--RDBury (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has evolved to such a stage that it is very difficult to add new stuff to all existing articles. The new stuff usually get deleted by users. A good example: when I add a short section to parasitic number, the writing get deleted. Similarly, many users will object to appending the writing in this article (new concept) to repeating decimal and cyclic number, quoting OR. I received the same obstacles when I added stuff to track transition curve and later I was advised to start a new article euler spiral. I had very bad experience. I always thought that verifiability is something that can be verified, like simple mathematics or proof or something similar. Apparently I am wrong, it is different.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't mind where the writing is incorporated and think that I can contribute to Wikipedia. However my writing often get denied not because I am wrong. I usually get response like, "you are right, but...". I am really discouraged and lose my passion. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that but yes you've misunderstand verifiability. Here it means verifiable as an encyclopaedia entry where one can look up what's said, not that it's true. It also acts as a bar to original research and stuff of limited interest because it won't be written up in a reliable source somewhere. Dmcq (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that intrigues me: I refer to many mathematical (or other subjects) articles, I don't really see a lot of in-line citations. Most often people don't challenge writings or sources when they know that the statements are true, not that the writing has enough citations. Then the basis of deletion seems to be whether a user thinks the that the stuff is of interest to him or in his mind it is of interest to the public; rather than whether there is any source for the stuff. It is still his judgment, not the judgment of the public. Do you think so? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the mathematics articles often tend to a lower level of verifiability than other articles. This does not mean though that they cannot be challenged on that ground but the consensus seems to be that a lower level of wiki type verifiability is required if they can be verified in the maths sense, provided they do not stray too far from the notability established for the article as a whole. This particular article though did not establish notability for the article as distinct from others, and it is composed of lots and lots of little bits that have no separate claim notability. Dmcq (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bit off-topic but I think a major reason that math articles tend not to use inline cites as much is that with math you can usually get the important facts from one or two sources and most secondary sources that cover the subject at all will usually have pretty much the same material. So for a basic article there really isn't that much need to glean different facts from a lot of different places where you need cite them line by line. But as the quality of the article improves and more information from diverse areas is added you start to see more inline cites.--RDBury (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2009 (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. — Jake Wartenberg 21:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of bladed rotors for HECS

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

The table filled with question marks seems unlikely informative or useful Beagel (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely to be helpful with all those question marks or accurate (creator hasn't bothered to contribute in the past 2 or 3 days) and the only sourcing is a dubious Angelfire free hosting site, which hasn't been updated in 9 years. GraYoshi2x►^talk 15:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that the chart at the moments doesn't have much info, but if it is kept it may be improved by the wikipedians, and the filled in article will then have significant value. KVDP (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note; KVDP is the article creator, who seems to be abdicating improving the article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unlike Comparison of ocean wave energy conversion systems (two up in this AfD list) I think there are too many question-marks and too few sources for this to be useful. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no changes made to the article since it was nominated. Abductive (reasoning) 18:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its inside information. Nobody in the world needs to know this. Szzuk (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no use in the fragmented summary on that page. Materialscientist (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Wah-bo

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

Short and unsourced article on a non-notable ancestor of Wing Chun Kuen. If any sourced information is found, then we could think about keeping this article, but given the size of it, it would be better just to place the information at Wing Chun's page. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 00:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have a very strict Wiki policy forbidding original research. JBsupreme (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V. No problem with WP:N since (if claims are true) subject plays a strong role in the art of martial arts. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The article itself is terrible (maybe CSD quality). As for the subject, there are some sources out there on it in magazines and books. See [34]. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Umm, what is this? I can't find a reason that this doesn't blatantly fail WP:NOTABLE. Nezzadar (speak) 22:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ripten

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

Not Notable, cant find major 3d party coverage. Tim1357 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only able to find a few reliable sources, and only trivial coverage ([35] [36]). WP:WEB. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - seems like a pretty non notable company/website. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2009 (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 per addition of sources and no arguments in favor of deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Williams

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

Claims to have won notable awards, but I have not been able to verify any of them besides the John Lennon award in this source. There are absoutely no hits on Google News, nor non-trivial sources anywhere on such sources as Allmusic, CMT, Country Standard Time, etc. John Lennon Songwriting Contest is an assertation of notability, as is being the sole writer of a hit single for Jason Michael Carroll, but it's meaningless without any non-trivial source coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I found a more specific source for the John Lennon award, and added it. I also did some more searches online and found additional sources, which I'll add. I would not say he "easily" passes WP:MUSIC, but he seems to be there. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He also passes WP:MUSIC as having toured extensively in coffeehousees in a National tour. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I normally close these "no consensus" but the subject of this article is a living person so let's give it a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - though the article needs work to tie into rest of the encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2009 (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. — Jake Wartenberg 21:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caulton Ray

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE and without any other evidence of notability, does not merit inclusion right now. May well have a bright future ahead of him; no prejudice against future inclusion. I just don't see notability today. Frank | talk 01:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Starting RB for a Major college football program. RF23 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on MSU's top three running backs for Saturday's game -- in no particular order -- are redshirt freshman Caulton Ray and true freshmen Larry Caper and Edwin Baker, Dantonio said', as quoted in the article? Frank | talk 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source discussed is from a month ago; it's possible that additional coverage since will bolster notability. On point, WP:ATHLETE includes "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport", which for football would be NCAA Football. Since there's a pro level above it, though, that might not be enough. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost went with Delete on this one, but then saw his starting status at Michigan State. Article needs work, but it should be a snap for someone to get it up to snuff.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and the brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Notability. There is a difference between being a good college football player and being a notable college football player. WP:NOT#NEWS applies here since coverage generally reflects stats and line-up changes. Location (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH, he may be talented but it doesn't mean he's notable.--Giants 27(c|s) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failes WP:Athlete. Just because hes a starter doesnt mean hes notable.--Yankees10 14:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer prank

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced (and therefore most likely non-notable) and unencyclopedic article. Looks more like some how-to screamer avoidance guide. It would probably need a complete rewrite to even become remotely encyclopedic. On another rather unrelated note, it isn't even titled right; the article only talks about screamers! GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, can we edit the article to give a quick overview on "screamers" and then discuss other such topics in the computer prank category? There must be more computer pranks that can be added to the article. --Delta1989 (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. The article now is almost hopeless; however the topic of computer pranks is likely to be notable and rich. I think it is a perfect candidate for our article incubator: a process for identifying and improving articles that seem to have potential, but which are currently likely deletion candidates. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I endorse Incubation. We should get to work on improving the article whenever we can. --Delta1989 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
I'm not 100% sure how well incubation works, but it sounds like it would be a good second chance for this article; as it stands this article is a complete disaster. The topic is ill-defined and IPs and low-editing accounts come by constantly to add unsourced "screamers" to the list which are almost certainly not notable and don't belong in the list. Removing them just results in new accounts coming by to re-add them. Also, occasionally people attempt to add a link to a popular list of other "pranks" that resides in userspace. I'm guessing this article is being used as a repository for links to screamers from other places on the web. If the topic can be better defined and the list of examples (if any are needed) controlled, it might be a decent article. Rnb (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam Blacketer actually makes a good point below that I hadn't thought about, regarding this article having a fundamental problem. I'm changing to delete. Rnb (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The unsourced nature of the current article may be fixable by editing, but each prank would have to stake its claim to notability and I don't see any of them properly doing so. Even if they did, one fundamental problem remains: why are computer pranks distinctive from any other sort of prank or practical joke, such that they have a discrete article? I don't think they are. Any particularly notable prank which involves computing (rickrolling, for instance) can find its place elsewhere. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Should we try to merge this with the article for pranks and have this be a subcategory instead, then? --Delta1989 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Salvagethis article just needs a few fixes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.195.48 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not merge. JBsupreme (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. Delete. --Delta1989 (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salvage. The article is fine except for the list of screamers. External links would be better. James1011R (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - or alternately create a series of xyz prank pages. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only lists some non-notable 'screamer' videos, and there's no accepted definition of a "computer prank" as far as I can see. Fences&Windows 04:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer pranks (2nd nomination). It was deleted once already in Dec 2006 under another name. Fences&Windows 04:54, 11 October 2009 (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.