The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aside from nominator, unanimous consensus for Keep, with no objections to delete. All those that commented in the AFD, other than the nominator, expressed viewpoints that the page should be cleaned up and fixed, and one editor stated he had done so during the AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon-India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This Page is not well written, the information it has is not properly applied. Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider improving it by searching for references. Nickelodeon is a major company, and that shouldn't pose much trouble. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think we should improve it. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an obviously notable subject. I have removed the marketing bollocks-speak from the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable. Nominator is correct that the page is not well written, but that is an argument for editing, not deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as wrong venue. Redirect are discussed at WP:RFD. If you think the move is uncontroversial, then you should use {{db-move|page to be moved|reason}}. (NAC). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfDAfD statistics)

This article only used to redirect to Light. When in fact, a musician called Lights should be moved to it, but it can't because the article already exists. I remember a very similar thing happening with Kesha. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't this be at redirects for discussion instead? AnemoneProjectors 00:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yes, there are RS, but that does not constitute significant coverage. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Alaska, 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and nothing can reliably be written about this article for a number of years. Lets finish this election season before we go forward 4 years? TM 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An article on an election that is four years in the future? And the only candidate that we can verify would have run is dead. Everything else is pure crystal balling. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WAY to early for this. The only other one in United States Senate elections, 2014 that has an 'article' is Massachusetts, but that only redirects back to the main page. Speaking of which, do we actually need the article on US Senate Elections 2014? VikÞor | Talk 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete It's going to happen eventually so it's not as much a crystal ball issue, but unless there's content specifically mentioned towards this election, I think future elections should be limited to the "next" election, which is either 2010, or 2012 if you consider 2010 as "now" since it's so close. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. We normally keep one set of elections ahead. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yes, in US politics, politicians do start planning that far ahead, and there are RSs to prove it. I think probably the general rule is that we should have articles for the next forthcoming election for all national level politcal races. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, this seat being on a six-year cycle defeats all crystal-ball arguments. Two candidates having announced and one of them dying is sufficient starter text. There are several more sources easily found on just the ramifications and facets of those facts. What, are they not gonna hold it? Here and elsewhere Lisa Murkowski is being approached to file for the seat. JJB 07:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Joaquín Fernández Sáenz de la Torre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORTS as hasn't played in a competitive first team league/ cup match etc. Contested PROD - removed by IP editor Steve-Ho (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Steve-Ho (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Without any competitive appearances for Liverpool, he fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG. Recreate this article if and when he makes his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hasn't made an appearance in a professional competition. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has yet to appear in a fully-professional game. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lackadaisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Sources are all primary or interviews. Won a Web Cartoonist's Choice award, but precedent is that the award is not enough to confer notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures). Last AFD in 2007 closed as delete, but comic was less than a year old at the time. In the three years since, I see almost no further notability than was present in 2007. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This AfD was originally speedy closed, based on the AfD from three years ago. I have discussed this with the closing admin, and received his permission to undelete the article and re-start the AfD. My rationale is this: Though this article was tagged as Delete back in 2007, it seems to have been substantially improved since then. It has doubled in size, and received attention from numerous editors. Awards have been added, and on searching for sources, it would appear that the topic has been covered in third-party international press. Further, it is not strictly a WP:WEB matter anymore, since the webcomic being discussed has now been published in hardcopy as well, and is being carried internationally. Considering these factors, I believe a second AfD discussion is appropriate, to see whether or not the article now meets Wikipedia guidelines. --Elonka 16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Elonka 16:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Elonka 16:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would say that the Escapist and .Net magazine refs are enough alone to push it over the edge of notability. Nice improvements to the article (though the characters section might need to be trimmed a bit...) Silverseren^C 18:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Winning multiple WCA awards in two years and articles in two notables magazines are enough to establish the notability of this webcomic. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep maybe not a major webcomic, but definately notable. Very talented artist, very detailed artwork.VikÞor | Talk 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The comic had been linked from several other articles, and all those links got removed when it was SpeedyDeleted yesterday. Anyone who uses the number of other articles that link to it as one of their criteria for notability should take this into account, and if the result of this AfD is Keep, those should be reverted (maybe they should anyway while this AfD is in progress). --mwalimu59 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Silverseren^C 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The awards section shows enough notability. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Grover (martial arts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I'd like the community's input on whether or not this person is notable enough for an article. As it stands, the article is not very suitable for Wikipedia, and I'm a little concerned that the subject may not be notable enough at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The article is a shambles, but there are a few nuggets of information plus the CNN coverage that would warrant a stub on this subject. Some very severe editing is needed here. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep: if somebody takes the time to clean this up and change it from a resume into an actual encyclopedic article... I think notability is there, but the current condition is just not up to standards. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Article clearly needs work, but I believe there's enough there to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would like to try and take over this page. I may need some time to bring it up to spec so please bear with me. User:5thprofession47 —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the article's creator. The issue of redirecting, merging, renaming or what have you can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Berić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Procedural nomination. The article was recently blanked by its original creator, who replaced it with the following text:

“

I am a nephew of Alexander Beric. I HAVE CREATED THIS SITE IN WIKIPEDIA - NOT YOU. You have deliberately deleted MY EMAIL ADDRESS I LEFT HERE THAT WAS USEFUL FOR SUCH CONTACTS THAT MAY LEAD TO FIND ANY SURVIVORS FROM THE WARSHIP HE COMMANDED. I WANT TO DELETE A PAGE THAT ANYWAY I HAVE CREATED, NOT YOU. IF YOU CONTINUE DISPLAYING THIS PAGE IT WOULD BE DELIBERATE FROM YOUR SIDE. I HAVE CREATED AND I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DELETE IT. I DELETE IT PURELY BECAUSE OF A REASON YOU DELETED MY EMAIL ON IT.

”

While I do realize that this does not really constitute a valid deletion rationale under Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, and that policies like WP:OWN pertain here, I'm submitting a procedural nomination through Wikipedia's proper deletion process strictly as a gesture of good faith after reverting and editprotecting the article back to its prior state. No vote from me, although I will note that both the conflict of interest issue and the article's lack of reliable sources suggest that there may be a more policy-based reason to consider deletion anyway. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose, since it's under full protection, you don't want anyone to add to it? I was going to add references and such to show notability, but that's kinda difficult under full protection. Silverseren^C 22:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was keeping the original user from blanking the article again. But I've now taken off the page protection and switched it to "revisions require review" instead — if that still poses a problem, then let me know and I'll figure something else out. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I can edit it, that's all I need. Thanks. Silverseren^C 22:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I actually can't find anything. It's quite clear that he's an important Serbia war hero, but nothing I found that said that was a reliable source. He seems to be one of those people that the academic writers and historians let slip through the cracks. Silverseren^C 22:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Um... G7 anyone? Hamtechperson 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the original author is not the sole contributor to the article, no. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are IP edits that follow the original creation, and there exists no means to tie those edits to the original author. We can disregard tags and maintenance edits - otherwise just tagging the article G7 on someone's behalf would mean it couldn't be deleted G7. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning toward Keep Bowing to him sets a bad precedent especially when our little disclaimer below the save page button says"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." Sadads (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reason for deletion is not useful, as the author of the article is free enough to post his e-mail on his own user page, display himself as the original author of that article, or otherwise allow contact through the "email this user" function. He can even state his secondary objectives on the article discussion page, and state that contacting him is a better venue rather than using the article discussion page as the forum for tracking survivors. In addition, authorship is shown through page history, making claims of exact ownership a moot point. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect or rename: I don't think the individual meets WP:MILPEOPLE, but the incident seems to be notable. I've asked for some help at WT:OMT in converting this into an article about the battle or the ship... I would prefer to see this renamed to Yugoslav monitor Drava. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Invasion of Yugoslavia#Naval Operations, where I have named the subject as commander of the Monitor Drava (with a source, of course). I can find no evidence that the article subject himself is notable, and it looks to me as if the "keep" opinions above are calls to punish the article creator for misunderstanding what Wikipedia is for rather than considered judgements of the subject's notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Captain of a warship is notable. No need to merge or rename. Additionally, I think we should as a matter of policy ignore all requests for deletion based on the failure to have ownership of a p. It's the exact reciprocal of not allowing articles from banned editors. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to iPad. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITablet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Vaporware that doesn't seem to have seen the light of day. The previously deleted article of this name was about what eventually became the iPad. Note this was proposed for a WP:PROD by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) and I screwed up and created an AfD request - this is his rationale -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to iPad Personally I suggest its turned into a redirect to iPad as its viewership seems a bit high for a vaporware stub article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I like Eraserhead1's argument. This could profitably be redirected to iPad. --TS 22:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to iPad. All the info seem to come from press releases. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimous consensus to delete, which started out as a PROD initially, with only comments made during AFD being about lack of reliable sources, namely, zero reliable sources found. -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Will consider restore and relist upon request. -- Cirt (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P is for Panda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

contested prod. No reliable sources found to establish notability of a company. This blog post seems to be the closest to such. tedder (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. No Reliable Sources found, just self-referential sources, social media sites, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimous consensus to delete, with no objections to deletion raised, and in addition, rationale for speedy deletion asserted during AFD discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Will consider restore and relist, upon request. -- Cirt (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jiwa Mines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

dubious notability, advertisment Melaen (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Creating the page was the creator's only edit. Primarily Advertisement. VikÞor | Talk 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under A7, "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." In fact the article isn't about the mine at all, it is about the owner - and it's full of unsourceable blather like "Dr.Gowda has sadly attracted a lot of jealous competitors also along the way who don’t like his success at a relatively young age & are always looking for a way to spoil his credentials.But he has taken such things in his stride & never let such cheap gimmicks affect him in any way.He has always come out clean no matter how much his rivals/detractors have tried to trouble him." --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AS One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

can't understand wich model of car it is. I've found only this topgear video Melaen (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wow, a car that only exists in Top Gear! No coverage anywhere else; I suspect this is an alternative name for something, and would support a redirect if someone could work out what, but it doesn't justify a separate article. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of additional information; no objection to the redirect, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Curt Mansfeild Hofmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable Lateg (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources don't show notability, and written as a resumé/advertisement. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a notable attorney. There is nothing in his career that shows notability. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Possible WP:COI. Location (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BioFUEL Caffeinated Popcorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

scarce notability, looks like an advertisment. Melaen (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources don't show notability, and the passing mention on the today show is insufficient. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertisement. Bareley mentioned in the article. VikÞor | Talk 22:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ad, but at least keep the debate up for 3 weeks so more people can enjoy the joke! This one got the most laughs out of me, that's for sure. The "formula is said to contain" [fn biofuelfoods.com] ?! JJB 07:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Datacentre Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

delete or redirect to datacentre, no reference found for this term , also mention of be specific consulting ldt. seems an advertising.
see also in DCU article the acronim definited as [Datacentre Unit]], Be Specific Consulting term for datacentre units Melaen (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I was tempted to tag this for speedy deletion as lacking context, because the article seems to just string together various bits of pseudo-technical management bollocks-speak without actually enlightening us as to what the subject actually is. If the article was created as an attempt to promote Be Specific Consulting then it is completely counter-productive, as it gives the impression that that company's representatives are incapable of explaining in comprehensible language what services they are offering. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as best as I can figure, it is an abstract unit of measurement for capacity planning in a datacentre with the "unit" being various aggregations of infrastructure with an aspect of measurability. However, I can find no reliable soruces covering this concept. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 'Article' is word salad nonsense -- omit the word "datacenter" as you read the article, you'll see what I mean -- and probably a lame PR attempt from the (I'm sure) fine folks at "Be Specific Consutling." Even if it weren't word salad nonsense, it reads like a definition and is thus more appropriate (again, if not for the fact that it's nonsense) for wiktionary. Delete, delete, delete! A thousand times DELETE! Mtiffany71 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Haines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I've just deleted a large chunk of biography copied from a copyright page on his campaign site. In the process I've been looking for clear evidence of notability, but haven't found any. Of course, I may have missed something. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate for office not otherwise notable. ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At present, there do not appear to be any significant coverage of the subject to show that he meets WP:GNG, or any non-trivial coverage about the campaign to show notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Being a winning candidate in a provincial election might (?) grant notability, but without any actual sourceable content, being a losing candidate surely does not. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete, Merge to Bramalea--Gore--Malton (provincial electoral district) in accord with what should be a policy. JJB 08:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Other than the fact that he was the party's nominee, the article on the candidate doesn't even mention the election for that political district. Likewise, that article is about the district, not specifically that year's election, and doesn't look like a good place to dump an NN-bio about what appears to be also-ran candidate. I don't see anything worth salvaging that legitimately belongs at that article. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per guideline at WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Although I don't quite agree with what JJB has suggested, there should be more discussion someplace regarding how to deal with candidates and elections and the coverage they do receive. I don't believe routine election news coverage is enough for creating stand-alone biographies, but an argument could be made for merging those details into articles about higher level elections. Location (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University Scholars of Seattle Pacific University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete and merge minimal content to Seattle Pacific University. This program is not notable. It is not discussed in any significant secondary sources, and thus fails basic WP:Notability. All of the citations in the article are to internal SPU sources, or are links and quotes from them, or are incidental to the program, such as biographies of professors. The article was marked with notability problems, and the creator responded with some external citations, but has been unable to find significant discussion of the program in published secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As indicated by the nominator, there does not appear to be any actual notability for this particular program that can be attributed to a non-SPU source. I see nothing to merge as the actual information about the program itself is extremely limited and doesn't look like it could add anything non-tangential to the main article on SPU that isn't already there. The content on extracurriculars, etc., is wholly unnecessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of the sources are not independent of subject. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the original research present in the article is a surmountable problem. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apes and pigs in Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

delete the article is not about real pigs and apes in islam .the article is also a mix of different things. Melaen (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain...Historianism (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let's not be fooled by the references: this is not an article but a semi-coherent rant against a certain brand of Islam. Pichpich (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC) What's wrong with the PBS and other RS sources?Historianism (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as essay. Roscelese (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pichpich. Shiva (Visnu) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The facts are noted not only in history, such as in Spain, but at present conflicts such as embedded in Hamas and in Hezbollah propaganda, especially the uproar in England in the Saudi school addas to notoriety, actuality.Nazarethian (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems quite a notable bit of scripture, covered in sources such as The legacy of Islamic antisemitism. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The useful information here can be incorporated into Islam and anti-Semitism - it can also be argued that this is duplicating that article's purpose. Shiva (Visnu) 15:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, It's also about Christians, where does anti-Semitism fit in here?

Apes and pigs doctrine upon Christians

1) From Dhimmis and others: Jews and Christians and the world of classical Islam' Mesopotamian Civilizations, 10 Authors Ûrî Rûbîn, David J. Wasserstein - Page 89: (Ûrî Rûbîn, David J. Wasserstein - EISENBRAUNS, 1997, ISBN 1575060264, 9781575060262)

APES, PIGS, AND THE ISLAMIC IDENTITY Uri Rubin That Jews and Christians were once transformed into apes and pigs by way of punishment, is a well-known Islamic idea. It is based on the Quran and is elaborated in Islamic literature [1]

2) Islam and Dhimmitude: where civilizations collide - Page 464 Bat Yeʼor, Miriam Kochan (Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 2002 ISBN 0838639437, 9780838639436)

The reference to monkeys (apes) and pigs relates to Jews and Christians

3) Arab dress: a short history : from the dawn of Islam to modern times - Page 105 Yedida Kalfon Stillman, Norman A. Stillman (BRILL, 2003 ISBN 9004135936, 9789004135932)

The patch for Jews had the image of an ape and the patch for Christians the image of pig...

4) Jews of Islam - Page 33 Bernard Lewis - 2002

The conventional epithets are apes for Jews and pigs for Christians

[2]

5) Journeys Into the Heart and Heartland of Islam - Page 279 Marvin W. Heyboer (Dorrance Publishing, 2009 ISBN 1434901882, 9781434901880)

To Islam they were and are the worst of creatures. In the Muslim culture they are animals, “apes and swine.” Christian women cannot ride public transport without risking insults from adult Muslim males, who call them “whores” [3]

6)

School's books are racist, says sacked teacher | UK news | The Guardian

Feb 6, 2007 ... A Saudi-run school in London uses textbooks which describe Jews as monkeys and Christians as pigs...

[4]

7)

A former teacher at a Muslim school in London says textbooks there describe Jews as "repugnant" and "apes," and refer to Christians as "pigs ... [5]

• keep By all means!!! No case or argument for deleting, the notoriety is obvious, including on sites such as: PBS, CNN, The Guardian and history books such as by historian Bernard Lewis and others.

(See above quotes upon Christians as pigs, not only apes about Jews).Historianism (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then would it not be more advisable to reorganize this article as Racial and religious discrimination in Islam? The data can surely also be incorporated into Islam and antisemitism, Dhimmi/Dhimmitude, Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism, etc. I don't get the point of having "Apes and pigs in Islam", if the actual aim is an article that is supposed to tackle discrimination issues. Shiva (Visnu) 17:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per historianism, To: s h i v a!

It deserves a page by itself, it is a concept in and of itself.Ip101 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one would need to prove that apes/pigs are a substantial part of the discourse around Jews and Christians. For that, secondary sources about that discourse - not just about specific incidents - would be necessary. Roscelese (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link [6] says just that is a well-known Islamic idea. It is based on the Quran and is elaborated in Islamic literature cited above by historianism.Ip101 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's some crap in the article, which should be fixed via the usual editorial process. But the topic is real and notable, as the cources cited in the article show. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, formally, this is no different from figs in the Bible. Big informal difference of course. But a clear theological subcategory that, with semiprotection maybe, would be a useful article. JJB 08:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Calling it unusual does not make it so; saying that the reason for her news coverage is because it is unusual is merely speculative. It is not a "well-documented historic event" as claimed; the news articles are of a transient nature. Note that "not ingenious" is not a reason for deletion; it is simply that this story is not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No indication that this individual meets the notability requirements. Just looks like a run-of-the-mill murderer. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill is meant to preclude streets, restaurants, shopping malls... etc. It states that "run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from all the rest". A nurse who runs a care home and breaks her duty of care by stealing patients' medicine, leading to deaths and a huge murder inquiry is not exactly run-of-the-mill. The extensive media coverage shows this. Malick78 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability criteria. Crime not particularly ingenious. --Bejnar (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for criminals, there is nothing special about this crime. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTABLE. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it fail WP:NOTABLE? It has significant coverage in reliable sources. Please elaborate. Malick78 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She's clearly notable as 2,800 articles on the internet show. Her crimes do not have to be "ingenious" as Bejnar assumes, just - as notability criteria for criminals says - the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime [should be] unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event". The amount of media coverage shows it to be well-documented and noteworthy, and her reasons (a drug habit - strange for a nurse) seem to be unusual. This is not an ordinary criminal (e.g. a mugger) for whom the guidelines were probably written. Malick78 (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the statistics. The primary cause of a nurse losing her/his credentials is drug abuse. --Bejnar (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So show us the statistics please. As it is, newspapers have covered Baker's case because they deem it unusual. Furthermore, drug abuse in nurses may lead to them losing their credentials, but I'm not aware that it's common for it to lead to a spate of patient deaths. If you think it is, then once again, please show us the evidence. Malick78 (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:BLP1E. To elaborate further, this appears to have been a newsworthy story at the time, but nothing seems to indicate encyclopedic notability of this person or this crime, per se; the historic significance per WP:PERP does not seem to be met. Without getting on a soapbox, this type of nursing home abuse and/or drug abuse by a healthcare professional happens quite often, unfortunately; hence the unusual aspect of WP:PERP does not seem to be met either. While this type of story does get briefly sensationalized by the media, WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a nurse, the owner of an old age home, who kills her patients, is unusual and notable . DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kidwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Kidwan city does not have any claim to notability. A Google search turns up disappointing results. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As long as Wikipedia remains a gazetteer, all cities, villages and towns, as long as it can be verified that they exist, are notable. Please also see WP:OUTCOMES. Silverseren^C 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cities whose existence can be established through one or more reliable source(s) are considered to be notable per se. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, village whose existence can be verified from reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up? Eastern Shore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:WEB on all three criteria. The only claim to WP:N is first place in a non-notable award in a category for having the "best party" - certainly not "a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this is a notable publication. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable publication. Sounds like just another of those slick lifestyle-cum-advertising magazines distributed free in high-end neighborhoods. --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up? Annapolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:WEB on all three criteria. The only claim to WP:N is second place in a non-notable award - certainly not "a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Toddst1 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this is a notable publication. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable publication. Sounds like just another of those slick lifestyle-cum-advertising magazines distributed free in high-end neighborhoods. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Branch (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

College literary magazine with the main claim to fame being published by the Stadler Center for Poetry (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadler Center for Poetry.) GrapedApe (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I googled it and couldn't find any additional references to support claims of notability, Sadads (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this is a notable publication. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ever discounting the sockpuppet, there is consensus this has insufficent notability to belong as an article in the encyclopaedia. Courcelles 17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quahog 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate that this fictional television station is notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article currently fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. JJ98 (Talk) 01:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Element of fiction appears to span seasons of notable franchise. Nominator does not address the possibility of merging content, indicating that WP:BEFORE has not been followed. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Notability of the series does not mean that every individual element of the series is independently notable. There need to be reliable sources that discuss the fictional TV station to establish independent notability. Nothing here is sourced and the characters, which make up the bulk of the content, are covered in the characters list. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Cow is correct in saying that an element of a fictional series does not inherit notability from the series itself. It is required to demonstrate its own through reliable, independent sources. Furthermore, the article is not about the TV station at all, it's just about the various characters that work there. We already have an article on that, which covers these characters in appropriate depth, but there's nothing to really be said about the TV station itself. Reyk _YO! 19:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or weak merge to List of characters in Family Guy#Channel 5 (WQHG), where the more notable recurring characters are already mentioned. Don't keep as a separate article, because the radio stations does not appear to be sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article and because recurring characters can be covered in a List of characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see no point in a merge; much of the information is already in List of characters in Family Guy#Channel 5 (WQHG). What is not already in the second article is either OR or overly detailed. The fictional radio station itself is not notable - there appear to be no significant coverage in independent relaible sources. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close and allow renomination if required. Nominator User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of indef-blocked abusive puppetmaster User:Otto4711. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Sorry MQS but I can't punch this one either, too many good faith "delete" !votes aside from the nom. However, I will say this. I would rather that the discussion on these take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Family Guy then at AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Styles and Themes of Joss Whedon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete - 100% original research. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research article and no sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy back to author User:Morda898 and tag it as personal essay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, total OR. If there was anything from a reliable source I'd suggest merging that content to Joss Whedon, but there doesn't appear to be anything. Roscelese (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatant original research. Userfication would be appropriate in a situation in which the creator could possibly incubate the article, but the lack of sourcing, tone, etc., seem to indicate that isn't likely. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator of this article has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of indef-blocked abusive puppetmaster User:Otto4711. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wetland Degradation- A Case Study of Rudrasagar Lake (Ramsar Site), Tripura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Original research, plain and simple. Deprodded by the author. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Rudrasagar Lake and Keep. I've cleaned up the article and removed large portions full of original research. utcursch | talk 09:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per utcursch. Rabbabodrool (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced essay and WP:OR. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in its new form, as the lake seems to be notable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if we delete this article I'll volunteer to begin Rudrasagar Lake, using appropriate available sources. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've moved the article being debated to Rudrasagar Lake, and added references. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep in new form—needs work, but obviously notable. —innotata 18:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin College Fine Arts Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable college theater building. No third party references to establish notability. (The Spark reference is an alumni magazine, AND it only mentions the Fine Art Center in passing). There's really nothing here that makes this anything but a run of the mill theater building at a college. GrapedApe (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable building. No need to merge or redirect to Calvin College since it is already described in detail there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A fine redirect I know the building and would let it simmer in the main article per MelanieN until it ever became independently notable. JJB 08:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Goodnightmush (talk · contribs) at 21:26, 18 September 2010 per A7. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Prod message was removed without improving an unsourced BLP article that consists only of an infobox. That aside, I fail at finding anything that demonstrates the notability of a wrestler named Megan Brooks. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Update: the name in the infobox doesn't even match the page name. De728631 (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No google hits for either names. Derild4921☼ 16:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. No assertion of anything. The article isn't even consistent about her name and states nothing about the subject whatsoever. Pburka (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7, there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7 and posibbly A1. Very little content. No mention of notability. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew nomination, non-admin closure. StAnselm (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gender of the Holy Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is an essay consisting of WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. Although there are many references, many of these are to works of art or Biblical verses, hallmarks of WP:OR. There are no references for the primary claims (e.g. that "the gender of the Holy Spirit has been the object of some discussion in recent years"). Pburka (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite the article. The article appears to be well-referenced in how it addresses the contradictions surrounding the subject, so any of the matters regarding original research or subjective commentary can probably be addressed by editing. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. On further review, I think that a small part of this article might be salvageable, but not enough to justify an article. I've discovered that there is a Gender of God in Christianity article which this could be merged back into. Pburka (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie World (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable, unofficial mixtape. –Chase (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Mixtapes are generally not notable and this is even unofficial. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The first sentence makes it clear that it was fanmade. Fixer23 (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's an official fanmade that was passed along the internet. Every song on the track-listing is either a Nicki-verse only on a featured song, or a leaked song. Thats it... Theuhohreo (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Please. Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, this mixtape isn't even at the correct article title. Yvesnimmo (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not like that really matters at this point. –Chase (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Protestant Reformed Churches in America. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Reformed Theological School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article is free of content, the same information is repeated on the denomination's page, Google and Factiva searches turn up no significant independent coverage. Zeagler (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable entity. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Protestant Reformed Churches in America. Pburka (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge as above. It is not a degree-granting institution [7] and thus does not fall under the "assumed notable" guideline for schools. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Lutgens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Shirt58 (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Teenage musician with no sources and no G-news hits VASterling (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Winner of several non-notable piano competitions, but no news coverage. Article was created by a WP:SPA, possible WP:COI. Pburka (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe has won some minor competitions, but no significant coverage anywhere else. Non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources found to verify the information in the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 20:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Without sources this can't meet WP:MUSICBIO, and to date no-one has been able to find any. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted per G7 (blanked by creator). — GorillaWarfare ^talk 15:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Appy (Late 1990s TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article about a tv show without reliable sources or claim to notability. JNW (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, as soon as my soccer game is over today, I'll dig through the tapes in which my mom took of all the shows I liked as a little child, and if I find any Happy Appy, I'll upload it to youtube and show you. (I made this article)

That doesn't establish the subject's notability, merely that it existed--Youtube is not a reliable source. Please see WP:RELIABLE. JNW (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The search turned up nothing. --Confession0791 ^talk 13:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't upload anything yet. Second of all, this is pretty much some of the only proof we have AS OF NOW. http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=33941172 I will find more.HappyAppy (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max George (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable outside The Wanted. Content should be within The Wanted article. Andrew Duffell (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BAND, no notability outside the band and it is a unlikely search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BAND, Individual members of a band are not de facto notable. --Kudpung (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wp:BAND, since there's no evidence of notability independent of the Wanted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to The Wanted if desired. The majority of the content is about the band with very little actual content about the particular individual. No prejudice to recreation of this article if sufficient sources for a WP:BLP that are actually about him and that convey individual notability appear in the future. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Sykes (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable outside The Wanted. Content should be within The Wanted article. Andrew Duffell (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BAND, no notability outside the band and it is a unlikely search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wp:BAND, since there's no evidence of notability independent of the Wanted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to The Wanted if desired. The majority of the content is about the band with very little actual content about the particular individual. No prejudice to recreation of this article if sufficient sources for a WP:BLP that are actually about him and that convey individual notability appear in the future. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Parker (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable outside The Wanted. Content should be within The Wanted article. Andrew Duffell (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BAND, no notability outside the band and it is a unlikely search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wp:BAND, since there's no evidence of notability independent of the Wanted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to The Wanted if desired. The majority of the content is about the band with very little actual content about the particular individual. No prejudice to recreation of this article if sufficient sources for a WP:BLP that are actually about him and that convey individual notability appear in the future. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Wanted. Courcelles 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siva Kaneswaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable outside The Wanted. Content should be within The Wanted article. Andrew Duffell (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to The Wanted. WP:Be bold! No need to bring to AfD. Pburka (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to The Wanted per WP:BAND, no notability outside the band. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wp:BAND, since there's no evidence of notability independent of the Wanted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to The Wanted if desired. The majority of the content is about the band with very little actual content about the particular individual. No prejudice to recreation of this article if sufficient sources for a WP:BLP that are actually about him and that convey individual notability appear in the future. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Wanted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay McGuiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable outside The Wanted. Content should be within The Wanted article. Andrew Duffell (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to The Wanted per WP:BAND, no notability outside the band. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wp:BAND, since there's no evidence of notability independent of the Wanted. (I've also seen all the other members' articles - it's nothing that can't be put on the band's article.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to The Wanted if desired. The majority of the content is about the band with very little actual content about the particular individual. No prejudice to recreation of this article if sufficient sources for a WP:BLP that are actually about him and that convey individual notability appear in the future. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of home run calls in baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete - article cannot be saved through normal editing. With the extensive copyright violations and pervasive original research removed there would be nothing left. PROD removed by editor on the basis of his dislike of the PROD process. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as copyvio. Since the point of the list is to quote the home run calls, quoting them in full goes beyond fair use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- looks like this article has gone through a few different iterations in its history. It's possible there are revisions in the history that could be reverted to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very cool and fun. But an encyclopedia is for facts, not reprinting cool stuff. Wolfview (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 12:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Why relist this? It looks like an open-and-close case of WP:NN, WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO. Pburka (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The first version of this article was more encyclopedic but is still WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO. It was also very similar to this.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can't extrapolate any inclusion criteria from reviewing this (i.e., why these home runs and not others); they are not limited to home runs that clinched playoffs or world series, or even to home runs occurring in playoff games, or anything else that might be considered vaguely objective or clear. Its only apparent purpose—collecting quotes of sports announcers describing home runs—is not an encyclopedic one. postdlf (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete aside from COPYVIO problem, notable quotes from sports announcer can actually be included in the game articles. A separate list is not necessary.—Chris!_c/t 21:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Consent (film) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consent (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Little to no third-party coverage. Does not meet film notability for articles. BOVINEBOY2008 17:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, youtube and IMDB aren't sufficient. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for now, per awards, and reasonable belief that more coverage will be forthcoming. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Incubate this one for a few weeks. I just took the unsourced stub that was nominated,[8] and went through it with some cleanup and expansion.[9] In researching, I was able to verify that it has so far hit Dances With Films festival and Visionfest... and at Visionfest it received three different awards. Oh... it does not quite hit WP:NF (yet), even with the multiple awards, but it is a fairly safe bet to take it out of mainspace and place it in the incubator for a short stay. WHile cooking, let it hit more festivals (or get theatrical or TV release) and then get its award-winning team some decent coverage. If this does not happen... the article will get deleted. If it does happen, the article will be back with a grin. Incubation can be a win-win for the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not oppose icubation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would also support incubation. BOVINEBOY2008 18:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 12:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game Developers Session (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Normally I'd tag something like this for speedy deletion as spam, except that there's a non-promotional revision to revert to. Contested prod. Conference with no indication of notability. Primary sources only. None of the concerns were addressed by the deprodder. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability: as mention in the article, the conference is notable mainly to european game developers. Sources: there are many published articles about the conference, but unfortunately, as the native language of none of the countries participating is english, nor are these sources. Here's a few of them translated by google translator: [10], [11]. Promotion: to quickly expand the article, the last three paragpaphs were copied from the organizers web page - thus the text might be promotional. This can be easily repaired by editing. For the reasons explained above, I suggest that the article should NOT be deleted. Niky cz (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Because the last three paragpaphs were copied from the organizers web page, I have deleted them as a copyright violation. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was no copyright violation, as the original publisher agreed to republishing. Niky cz (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the sources you provided are primary, that is, they are affiliated with participants in the conference. Notability is not shown by 2K Czech's participation. It would be shown by evidence that 2K Czech's participation generated coverage by either media or academia that are affiliated with neither the organizers nor the participants. Like something in a major gaming magazine or webzine, excluding press releases. It doesn't have to be in English, but you do need to show that this kind of coverage exists. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete we don't want an article "copied from the organizers web page" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is not copied, only the paragraphs about the orginizer were. Niky cz (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There was some English language coverage at GameSpy[12] and Gamasutra[13]. Probably lots more coverage in German or Czech sources, such as the two links provided above. SharkD  Talk  21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Gamespy referemce merely states that Game Developers Session was the venue where Klima first said what is stated in this article. It is not about the conference. Therefore it qualifies as trivial. As for the Gamasutra reference, the page is a collection of press releases from various sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the GameSpy article is about a presentation that was held at the conference, I would not call it trivial coverage. And, the second article's content was written by the author at Gamasutra, so no they're not press releases. SharkD  Talk  05:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I removed the contents with copyright concerns and expanded the article + added references. Niky cz (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Here is some more English language coverage:

• Announcement at GameDev.net[14]
• One of many GDS presentations recorded on YouTube with 10000+ views[15]
• and here is an article in a major czech gaming magazine LeveL [16] (czech language)

Niky cz (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Forums are not reliable sources, since anyone can post in them. They certainly don't establish the notability of anything. The same thing goes for sites such as Youtube, and the number of views is quite simply not looked into here. What we're looking for is more stuff like what you found in LeveL. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is so much coverage in czech and other european languages that thare is just no need to post them here - just use a search engine. Here are the resulsts of searching the name of the conference on Seznam.cz (most commonly used czech search engine)[17]. I went quickly over the first 50 search resulst and EVERY single one of them is an article about this conference. Also, there is some coverage on czech public television. Niky cz (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussions was a bit hard to follow due to formatting glitches. I tried to refactor it a little so that it's more readable. Also, it would be helpful if you could mention the German and Czech translations of the conference's name, if they exist, so that we could search under those alternate headings. SharkD  Talk  04:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The czech subtitle of the conference is "Setkání nezávislých herních vývojářů" (meaning Meeting of independent game developers), but the title Game Developers Session (or simply GDS) is more commonly used in both Czech and Slovak countries. Not sure about the German translation as I dont speek german. Niky cz (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it would be nice if a Czech media source could be posted - if something from the most reputable Czech newspaper could be posted that would be perfect (being English language is nice but not required). I'd take this as a reliable source - though I think another third party source is needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I performed a search on the website of the LeveL magazine (arguably the most reputable czech gamming magazine) and found 26 articles either about the conference or refering to it in some other way. Here's the list of results[18]. And as an example here's one of the articles about the GDS conference year 2006[19] (this article discusses the day 2 of the conference and the lectures on math, graphics and game design given on that day). Niky cz (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag with maintenance tags per updates made during AfD. --Teancum (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete !votes make more sense, and are better grounded in our policies. Courcelles 17:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional locations in Family Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Completey unsourced, this article has no references and citations. I doubt that this article is notable enough, it currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 09:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nested fictional locations within a fictional location? Snowball. Hell. Chance.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This could only have value on a Wiki devoted exclusively to Family Guy. Strictly fancruft. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Burn with fire - a reliably sourced article on the town of Quahog is probably notable. A list of every location within the town? God no. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck !vote of indef-blocked sockpuppet of indef-blocked abusive puppetmaster User:Otto4711. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG. The fictional universe of Family Guy has no coverage in third-party sources. Maybe some of the characters, but not the inanimate world itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancruft obviously—Chris!_c/t 19:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Was never really a fan of the article. Gage (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- it's all been said. Poor sourcing, and excessive fan trivia. Reyk _YO! 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reasonable spin-out of locations in a major fictional franchise. Most delete !votes fail WP:ATA, none indicate efforts to source locations per WP:BEFORE, and none have addressed the possibility of merging the content to other article(s) about the show. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Who the hell are you to declare that the people !voting to delete haven't done due diligence before forming their opinion? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you could also ask who the hell am I to remind you that civility also extends to AfDs?--Shirt58 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "No sources" is an argument to avoid now? WP:BEFORE is just advice and not policy, but WP:BURDEN is policy and can't be dodged merely by attacking the votes of others. Nor can you somehow turn it inside out to place the burden of proof on the people challenging the unsourced material. Reyk _YO! 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BEFORE is advice about how to apply deletion policy, which says that "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" can be deleted, not articles that don't currently have such sources. A valid argument for deletion should detail the thorough attempts that have been made to find such sources. And the requirement to consider alternatives to deletion, such as merging, is also policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have been unable to find reliable sources for this article. Because there does not appear to be significant coverage in independent sources of this topic, then I feel this does not meet the WP:GNG. This is essentially trivia, and WP is neither a directory nor an indiscriminate source of information. Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Background is a significant part of a show, and for a major show it's reasonable to break it out if there is enough material. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why keep? This article has no citations and sources. JJ98 (Talk) 05:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The GNG shows notability of the series itself, and fictional elements of a notable series may be sourced back to the series itself. As DGG shares, when significant elements of a notable series would overburden the main article, it's reasonable (and guideline encouraged) to break them out if there is enough material.

• Keep Notability of these elements is sourced to the notable series itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete fails WP:BAND. Lack of notability established through significant coverage through reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Indie Swedish rock band that released a couple of albums on local independent labels. Did not chart; no hits. No references provided outside of social networking sites (FB and MS). Ran a search for references and was not able to find any that were not self-published or independent of the subject. Also nominating two albums, Cut City (EP) and Exit Decades, due to lack of notability. Did not chart; no hits. (No idea why this is categorized as Games and Sports. Twinkle is being weird.) Cindamuse (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 1). Fixed now. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete as Cut City fails notability criteria for bands and the other two fail notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DONT DELETE as Cut City is a current swedish rock band, just because there albums havent charted doesnt mean they dont need a wikipedia page, whats the point of wikipedia if you can't add to it with established signed acts. I have found references from the Deleted Art label which are not self published and are from the label itself. further more, Cut City are mentioned on the page for Interpol's third album, which does show that Cut City are being mentioned at a reputable source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJ89 (talk • contribs)

• See: WP:MERCY and just because this band exists, it does not mean they should have an article on Wikipedia. if they can pass Wikipedias notability criteria for inclusion. This is not reliable and the other two are not independet from the band. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above; this band fails our WP:BAND criteria—Chris!_c/t 21:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT DELETE. What's the point of the wiki, if not providing information? Why should you delete this entry, just because it doesn't match your criteria, maybe you should rewrite your BAND criteria. Without this wikipedia article, people's knowledge of this band would be even smaller, this being an independient band. I got to know this great band just because it was listed under "Swedish rock bands" or a similar article. You shouldn't delete it. --Fedeg13 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC) — Fedeg13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Delete all, evidence of meeting WP:BAND does not appear to be demonstrated. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Merely being published is not enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Steinke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Self-published author. One source found in a town newspaper, but certainly not enough to meet WP:N. tedder (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems borderline to me, but not quite enough coverage in third party published source material to meet the guidelines of WP:BIO. Steven Walling 17:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacking coverage, self-published VASterling (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.133.6 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC) — 75.83.133.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.57.83 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC) — 76.115.57.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP 68.101.216.38 (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC) — 68.101.216.38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP Qender (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC) — Qender (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Is an up and coming author with two published books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.74.81 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC) — 71.214.74.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep, obviously. I seem to have confused matters by using verb publish to have referred to getting a book published with someone. Last year Tugboat Press [20] see also: Ignatz_Awards and Sparkplug Comic Books[21] published his first graphic novel, Neptune ISBN 9780979746529. This year, a children's book, The Super Crazy Cat Dance, was published by Blue Apple Books, as is now sourced and referenced on Aron's article. Publishing one's work independently and then signing on with increasingly larger publishing houses is a standard practice for cartoonists, comix artists and other purveyors of sequential art. I am making an effort to fill in some seriously large blank places here on this encyclopaedia, but from my previous experience I'm not even slightly surprised that someone wants to verify what goes up here... or indeed, sit over my virtual shoulder and question my every assertion. Brodo (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep66.75.17.147 (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with a previous commenter- an up and coming author. — 66.75.17.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete For notability it is necessary to do more than publish books--it is necessary to publish important books. There is no indication whatsoever that any of the work is important, Almost no library holdings, only one very local review. "up-and-coming", which is basically the justification here, is a synonym for not yet notable. Judging the notability of underground literature is essentially impossible until someone writes about it--the devotion of fans is by itself not enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost all the sources cited are blogs (including Steinke's own blog), facebook pages, publishers' websites, and sites selling Steinke's work. There is no evidence of significant independent coverage. The only attempt at producing a serious argument for keeping is from Brodo (the author of the article), but that argument really amounts only to assuring us that Steinke's work has been published, and says nothing to indicate the existence of independent notice of him or his work. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sources/citations fail WP:RS and as such the subject is not notable. "Up and Coming" and WP:ILIKEIT are not arguments for inclusion. Pmedema (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:RS because sources are blogs and commercial websites—Chris!_c/t 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Blue Beam (NASA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Very poorly referenced conspiracy theory. Typical of the species, it contains a lot of dubious sources, sources unrelated to the point the're supposed to support, and random attempts to link unrelated issues together with no support. It's not even very coherent. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Created for an IP ~~ GB fan ~~ 10:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bună ziua domnișoarelor (si domnilor) (nu mă interesează că nu știți română la fel cum nu vă interesează pe voi munca individuală a fiecărei persoane).. Mai pe scurt v-am salutat pe buletin și luați și ștergeți faceți ce vreți, că atât știți, dar dacă ar fi nevoie sa contribuiți, sa ajutați, ferească sfântu... în fine... asta la vista ... Dogaru Florin (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate provides the following:

"Hello ladies (and gentlemen) (I do not care that you're not Romanian as you do not care how you work the individual person) .. In short we have welcomed the report and take and remove what you do that so you know, but if they want to contribute, to help, beware Saint ... Finally ... asta la vista ..." 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. There is no significant coverage of this conspiracy theory in reliable sources. Note that the coverage doesn't need to support the truth of the theory (it can be skeptical), but the theory is not well enough known to justify this article. Pburka (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, an improper synthesis of mostly unreliable sources. The book, Project Blue Beam (NASA), Presse libre nord-américaine [1994], does not appear in any book directories. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the whole thing reads like original research—Chris!_c/t 21:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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