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

The result was delete. No policy based keep votes and the consensus is that this is unsourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Linux Unified Kernel

Linux Unified Kernel (  | 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 depends on majority of sources that lead to the project page. This is a variant of Wine thrown into the Linux kernel pretty much. ☭FryPod 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Nope. LUK is a pretty standard kernel development tree. In fact the longevity of the article suggests as much, and it's hardly a primary source article. Shadowjams ( talk) 09:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Linux kernel which currently does not even mention this version. There's a book about this but the lack of significant references in other sources indicate that this lacks sufficient notability to stand by itself. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Shadowjams above. - Welhaven ( talk) 18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - David Gerard ( talk) 23:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Since when were "a pretty standard kernel development tree" and "the longevity of the article" reasons for having an article? No mainstream reliable sources have been presented, and the book mentioned by Colonel Warden is from VDM Publishing, whose business model is based on not doing any editorial review. It seems that many editors have a much lower standard of notability when it comes to articles about techno-geekery than about subjects that concern the vast majority of our target audience. This may be an encyclopedia mostly written by nerds, but it is not an encyclopedia for nerds. Phil Bridger ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I thought that book looked fishy - thanks for clarifying that point. My impression is that the prejudice being displayed here is to favor open source topics. This is insufficient given the clear lack of independent sources and so I agree that we should Delete this. Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Administrator note The nominator of this AFD has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of banned user Pickbothmanlol. – MuZemike 18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep- LUK is not another Wine or anther Reactos. The technique of LUK is different from the one of Wine although LUK utilize lots codes of Reactos and Wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.65.55.199 ( talk) 01:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources, and IIRC that's the main issue of notability. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete Very hard to add anything beyond what Phil Bridger has said, so I won't. The keep arguments here seem to make a case for inherent notability but I'm far from convinced.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Granted, the article itself needs sources. A quick google search, however, indicated the site had been covered in a number of reputable news sites, so I think it meets the criteria. ffm is now L Faraone 01:53, 11 August 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. No obection to recreating a redirect if anyone really wants to, but nothing in mainspace links to this article. Courcelles 04:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Toad Kart

Toad Kart (  | 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)

poorly referenced. little indication of notability. Marcus Qwertyus 22:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom due to lack of sourcing and lack of notability. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete references are primary or open wikis. Doesn't cut it for notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete I was unable to find references for the subject, fails to meet WP:GNG. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 23:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Mario Kart. It's a well-written article, but for starters, I find no proof that that's even the name of the vehicle (if it has a name at all). And as far as sources, well, Hammer hit the nail on the head (pun intended). Speaking of the kart, I don't even think {{ Mario Kart racing vehicle}} is a notable template, so I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Done. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ( Search video game sources) • Gene93k ( talk) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge this and similar articles to a List of Mario Kart series vehicles. Jclemens ( talk) 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't think any kart in the series would be independently notable. This one certainly isn't. Reach Out to the Truth 16:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - viable search term, but not independently notable. Marasmusine ( talk) 13:03, 7 August 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) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Recurring segments on The Soup

Recurring segments on The Soup (  | 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 notability of the series doesn't confer notability on individual segments. A similar list for Tosh.0 segments was deleted not too long ago and the same deletion reasons apply here as there. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 22:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete – I was unable to find any reliable sources regarding the individual segments. Unless some can be found, the article does not meet the WP:GNG. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 23:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No. I like the show too, but we can't fork off every sub-show of every cable show. Shadowjams ( talk) 08:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:37, 4 August 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 04:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Laurie Wallace

Laurie Wallace (  | 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 notability of the subject, and the verifiability of the sources, has been repeatedly questioned. I am bringing this to AfD with the hope that a consensus will be reached on whether this article should stay or go. Inniverse ( talk) 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep because she's hot Delete The sources are a student newspaper, a primary source, and a site tagged as possibly unreliable. Searches turned up no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment Former porn star turned promoter. Based upon the sources in the article, and the lack of any coverage by non-genre sources, this one will likley be deleted. Does anyhone know whether or not the archived Eros source in the article [1] might be an online version of the Eros magazine published by Ralph Ginzburg? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I agree that coverage by student newspapers are probably not enough to establish notability. Neither is the Eros website, which is a promotional site for escorts. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:14, 6 August 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. finding any clear consensus here is ... well not possible. Suggest that specific sources need to be found in the next month or so as the next nomination will most likely lead to deletion if it still lacks detailed sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Road to... (Family Guy)

Road to... (Family Guy) (  | 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 is premised entirely on original research. The episodes have not been the subject of critical or scholarly attention as a subset of the Family Guy series. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 22:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep and Comment I wrote a very long "Delete" non-vote, but wiped and erased it as I'm now looking at the (featured) article Treehouse of Horror (series), which I would imagine is the template (and possibly precedent) for this Family Guy group of episodes. The citations in the Simpsons article are similar to this AfD's choices (e.g. IGN reviews of episodes). Certainly there are a great many more citations in the Simpson's article, and at least a few of those are from more reputable sources such as the New York Times, but even then the Simpsons' more impressive citations are reviews of individual episodes rather than of the clumped group. If this AfD is original research, then so is that Simpsons one. Irritating, particularly since I originally was writing a long diatribe about why no one would make an article about "Christmas Episodes of M*A*S*H". - Markeer 22:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep, well referenced and not original research, OR requires a new idea not contained in the references, like saying Stewie is a Mormon based on things he says and does. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Take a look at WP:SYN. As the nominator argues, the creation of a set of episodes constitutes the original research. The individual eps have their own page, but there isn't significant coverage out there to show that the set is notable as a set. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 09:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

WP:SYN Reads: "Synthesis of published material that advances a position." If you found something relevant, quote it here, don't send me on a fishing expedition to do your work. As I already said: "[original Research would be] saying Stewie is a Mormon based on things he says and does." Taking 10 facts from 10 sources on Family Guy isn't synthesis, its just ordinary scholarly research. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Taking 10 facts from 10 sources and saying that "Facts one through ten taken together mean that XYZ is true" is original research. This article does advance a position that is not supported by reliable sources. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Except "Facts one through ten taken together mean that XYZ is true" doesn't come from WP:SYN, and I haven't a clue what it means. Wikipedia isn't about truth it is about verifiability. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

It's really not that difficult of a concept. Presenting facts one through ten from reliable sources is not synthesis. Presenting facts one through ten from reliable sources and then asserting a conclusion that an editor derives from those facts that is not found in reliable sources is synthesis. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 10:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

As I said before, concluding that Stewie is a Mormon based on the references would be banned as OR, since it isn't expressed directly in the references. But now I am just cutting and pasting from earlier arguments. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete – as Are You The Cow Of Pain? said, the episodes as a set have not received attention to warrant an article and most of the article is thus WP:OR. The individual episodes have their own articles, but I do not believe their notability transfers to notability of the set. If the individual episodes did not have their own articles perhaps it could be kept for organization's sake, but that is not the case. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Its completely sourced, no OR making the deletion statement not resonable, also COP your the nominator you cannot really vote. -- Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 07:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:NOHARM. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 09:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• The subject of the article is "Road to... episodes". This subject has not received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, and I have yet to see a single reliable source which groups these episodes together into this "Road to..." subset. It is WP:OR because it is a WP:SYN. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep Per above. Well referenced, and not original research. Gage ( talk) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:PERNOM. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 09:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment I've now further explained my vote. Gage ( talk) 12:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment i worked my comment. -- Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 12:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• WP:VAGUEWAVE -- Odie5533 ( talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Please stop linking to the same ESSAY over and over again. CTJF83 chat 19:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep The association of a "road to..." series is not OR, since the naming and emphasis are provided by the show's creators via their titling and content conventions. Independent RS critical review of these specific episodes appears substantial enough for standalone notability, and the length precludes easily merging this content to anywhere else. Jclemens ( talk) 16:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Where are the reliable sources that address these episodes as a distinct subset of the series? Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - There may be some synthesis in there, although I didn't notice any. This ref seems to tie them together a bit, so I don't think the idea is OR. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• "What's this episode called" and "what's that episode called" is hardly scholarly or critical attention to the episodes as a subset. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep Well sourced, no problems. CTJF83 chat 19:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Again, where are the sources which are significantly about the episodes as an identified subset? The adequate sourcing for the individual episodes does not satisfy the requirements of the general notability guideline. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• They all pass GNG individually, and the Road_to..._(Family_Guy)#Production_and_development section ties them all together, giving general background info. CTJF83 chat 20:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• So then, no third-party sources that offer significant coverage of the episodes as a subset. Got it. Again, passing GNG individually does not mean that the episodes as a subset do. There need to be sources that are about the subset as a concept, not just sources about the individual episodes that Wikipedia editors knit together. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 20:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• "The Road to episodes created by Family Guy are a parody of the seven Road to... comedy films" ties them all together
• "After the episode's success, including its nomination for a Primetime Emmy Award, a second episode in the Road to series was produced" explains why more than one was produced
• ..."entitled "Road to Europe". The episode was inspired by the 1941 film Road to Morocco, including its musical number "(We're off on the) Road to Morocco", which was previously parodied by the two characters, with new lyrics, in "Rhode Island" ties the 2 together by parodying the first Road to. CTJF83 chat 20:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• All three of those are from the same source. Ω pho is 20:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• What's that mean... CTJF83 chat 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Cow of Pain requested sources that group the episodes together. You provided three instances of the grouping, but all three are from the same interview. So basically the concept of the entire article is based on one source? Ω pho is 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• ....I guess so. CTJF83 chat 21:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Even so it counts, its an interview with the creaor of FG if he confiirmed everything in one source it those not matter as long as it dose the job. -- Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I don't think anyone here is denying that the "Road to ..." episodes do form a group of Family Guy episodes, as confirmed by the creator and anyone that notices patterns. The problem is that the group has not received significant critical and scholarly attention. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• There is nothing in the cited source that indicates that all of the episodes whose titles begin with "Road to" are parodies of the Hope/Crosby films. It is a 2003 interview with Seth MacFarlane, at which time only two episodes called "Road to..." had been produced. It cannot serve as a reliable source for the episode set as a whole. Even if it did, MacFarlane merely notes that the first two episodes parodied the films and no subsequent source indicates that the films inspired any later episodes. There is nothing in the cited source that supports the assertion that the second episode was produced as a result of the first one or its success. The cited source does not support the assertion that the second episode parodies the first one. The entire production section is a collection of unrelated information stitched together by the products of unsupported editorial assumptions. "Road to Boo" followed "Road to Foo" therefore Boo must be related to and inspired by Foo. No. That is original research by synthesis. The article is premised on original research and in the complete absence of reliable sources that significantly cover the "Road to..." episodes as a distinct subset it has no place on Wikipedia. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• acually no its not, putting the same director in every one actually makes them a bit realeted plus after provemire left they got colton who has directed every Road to episode, plus if i where to make a series of episodes such as The Way to... and i make ...to the futere and to a Funeral, and after thease two episodes i confirm that that its a series, and then i makes other episodes and no one interviews me again for the subject i think it would count, plus making the plots simaler as they are makes them in each episode(Stewie and Brian in an adventure together) with the title makes it related. -- Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 07:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• You assume that having the same directors makes them related and you assume that MacFarlane considered the first two a series (he did not say so in the interview) and you assume that MacFarlane intended for these to be considered a separate sub-series within the series despite a five-year gap between Morocco and Rupert and you assume that because they have similar plot structures they are part of a series and you assume and assume and assume. Assumptions made by editors are original research. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Not true if i rember in the interview the interviewer asked about the road to series MacFarlane did not correct him, you do not have o be every year god if it would it be like the THH which would get repetitive, plus for the last 3 seasons there have been continus episodes, having the same directors is not asuming nohin specially when Colton asked to make the episode which was gonna be called slyders be called road to the multiverse if you read the production i see your opinion respectibale and you do have some points at your side ut i belive as an editor that it deserves to be here as well as the other editors who voted keep. -- Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Most of the people who voted Keep either worked on the article or are in the Family Guy project... Anyways, the Tree House of Horror is an annual episode and is named as such. It is widely known in popular culture, and is specifically referred to as the Tree House of Horror series. You only have one vague interview that connects the Road to episodes as a group, with the rest of the article based on original research. BTW, in Supernatural (TV series) all the season finales are written by Eric Kripke. Should I make an article listing all the season finales then? Ω pho is 20:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• And I just looked through the interview you referred to. Unless I overlooked it, there is no direct mention of the episodes as a group. Ω pho is 20:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• The writers changed "Road to the Multiverse" into a "Road to" episode after the fact, and the eighth season premiere was supposed to be the "Road to" of the season, but was later renamed to be a normal episode. Treehouse of Horror has a consistent style and unique format. If the "Road to" name can arbitrarily be applied to episodes, then it shows that there is no real connection between these episodes. This plus the fact that you have yet to provide concrete references shows that it's not really a series. Ω pho is 21:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment Two responses in regards to the misinformation Are You the Cow of Pain? and Ophois are trying to inject into this discussion: There is a five year gap between Europe and Rupert because the show was cancelled for nearly three years. The only seasons not to have a Road to episode are the first, which is understandable, the fourth, and the sixth, because it was cut short by the Writers' Strike, and aired in the seventh, which consisted entirely of hold-over episodes from the sixth season anyway. So, effectively, every season since the fifth season, not counting the other two, have featured a "Road" show, with another planned for the upcoming season. It has become a yearly hallmark, just as The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror is a yearly hallmark. And in response to Ophois' comment about the episode being named a "Road to" show after the fact is a completely uninformed argument; the commentary for that episode specifically states that the episode felt like a "Road to" show, and was named such for its resemblance to past episodes in the series of episodes, not because it was arbitrarily applied for no reason whatsoever. Also, in response to Ophois' statement about the Treehouse of Horror episodes consistng of a unique format; all of the episodes in the series follow Brian and Stewie, and exits the show's normal setting. Simply claiming the Treehouse of Horror series is unique because of a consistent style, while ignoring the fact that the "Road to" shows have also followed a consistent style is a blatant and biased attempt to ignore the facts. Gage ( talk) 23:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• First of all, the gap has nothing to do with this. And Spies Reminiscent of Us follows the format, so why is that not a "Road to" episode? If the episodes are a "yearly hallmark", then why have you still not provided any third-party sources that deem them so? You can argue all you want, but Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. You can try to connect these episodes together all you want, but without sources it is merely original research. Ω pho is 23:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment If the gap has nothing to do with this, then why did you not object, or even state such, when Are You the Cow of Pain? used the same terminology as yet another failed rationale for deleting this article? And thank you for the edit conflict. Gage ( talk) 23:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Also, your claim that the only people who have voted keep are either members of WikiProject Family Guy, or users who have worked on the article, is completely false. Gage ( talk) 23:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Uh, I said "most", not all. But you are right, it should have said "half". Ω pho is 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• In response to your first comment, before you edited it and caused another edit conflict: Uh, of the seven, four haven't contributed and aren't memebers. That isn't "most." Gage ( talk) 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Really? Do you think maybe that's why I added to my original comment? Ω pho is 00:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Well, "half" is also a misstatement, so I wanted to respond to your original comment. Gage ( talk) 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• (outdent) And once again, Gage (who wrote the article, BTW), I have to ask, where are the reliable sources that treat these episodes as a distinct subset within the series? You as an editor have, without support from reliable third-party sources, have synthesized a set of circumstances by which you define an episode as being part of a critically attested to subset. Episodes which otherwise fit the pattern but don't happen to be called "Road to..." are not part of this based solely on the fact that the episodes share similar names. The "Treehouse of Horror" model is completely inapplicable because ToH has received critical attention as a distinct unit both through the broadcasts themselves and through critical notice of ToH products. The Road to episodes have not. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Done. Gage ( talk) 00:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• One sentence in a college newspaper review? Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 00:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I added four references, and highlighted two more. I guess those don't count either, just like everything else that connects the episodes together, and work against your unwanted opinion. Gage ( talk) 01:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I misread your additions but in reviewing the other sources they all appear to be passing mentions of the episodes and not critical attention to the concept. I get that you have serious ownership issues when it comes to FG articles but that's no excuse for copping an attitude and calling the legitimate opinion of a fellow editor "unwanted". Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 01:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Why did you not provide these sources the many times we asked before? By opposition has slightly lowered (Cow of Pain is correct that it is just passing mentions), but I agree with Bignole below that the article is basically a rehash of all the individual articles. There is nothing I can find that cohesively covers the series as a whole. Ω pho is 01:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've added yet another quote connecting the episodes. Gage ( talk) 02:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• While you may say what you say ophios whats done is done, he may have added them later but who cares, ophios i now that your a high eficient editor(we have bud heads before) but i see no reason to delete and by my knowing the vote of the nominator those not count so i wish that to be removed, the artical stands on its own the gap between episodes which COP made clear that was a issue and now explained it dose not matter, look lets get something clear and thanks for your sacastic comments about SN season finales q paso una ostia, anyway what happens between the omments above that got personal, is that editors get mad or loose patience, and puting respect for editors was offline and uncalled for. -- Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I don't know where you're coming up with this "the nominator's vote doesn't count" business but it's simply false. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 12:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Well its always like that as i know, the nomitanors vite is already assumed as you nominated but you do not vote your vote is aleady asumed by every one so your wrong. -- Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

That's for FAC, something completely different than this. The nominator's vote and opinion on the matter definitely counts for deletion reviews. Ω pho is 16:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This appears to be a single page that basically copy and pastes the same information from the articles for each individual episode. If this article is to stand alone, it must show that it itself is notable. Being a compilation of notable topics doesn't necessarily make the compilation as a whole notable. What I see here is someone who has inserted their own dialogue (the episodes have been generally praised....) and then included reception for each individual episode, which...shockingly (sarcasm)...is already on the episode pages. What this really seems to need to be is a section (with actual commentary on the idea of "Road to..." episodes, not just restating the same thing that appears on each individual page) on the main page. The individual episodes do a fine job of stating their own production, and their own reception, and their own awards won. They don't need a second page that says exactly the same thing, just stuck together. There's nothing actually new on this page, because it's a copy past job of each episode page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per Cow of Pain and my previous comments. Ω pho is 00:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep, it is not original research if there are sources that back up the information. -- Matthew R Dunn ( talk) 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• And if there aren't sources then it is. So where are the sources? A couple of random mentions of the supposed "series" is not the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 19:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

What is a "random mention"? Something is mentioned or it isn't. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Not necessary to attack everyone who votes keep. Especially since you have been provided source after source, and choose to ignore them and pass them off as nothing. Gage ( talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• No need to level false accusations that my responses constitute "attacks" but then I'm hardly surprised by your lack of good faith. You have not provided sources which offer significant coverage of these episodes as a distinct subset. Adding links to every Google result that you get for "road to episodes" or whatever doesn't constitute referencing to reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the concept. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yes, IGN and The Sydney Morning Herald are notoriously unreliable. You've made your opinion clear, no need for the condescending responses, when I'm sure they took your points into consideration already. Gage ( talk) 00:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Please stop distorting my statements to further your agenda. I did not say that any source was or was not reliable. I am saying that while there are a handful of sources that in the course of discussing one episode or another use a phrase like "Road to series" there are not sources that are significantly about "The Family Guy Road to... episodes". The most reliable source on the planet can mention something in a single sentence or a single phrase and that does not constitute significant coverage of the concept. Your interpretation of my comments as "condescending" is entirely on you and not my responsibility. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 02:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• "Where are the sources?" You see those numbers, like [1] and [2] etc, they guide down to the references section. There's your sources. -- Matthew R Dunn ( talk) 02:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• And having reviewed those sources, it is obvious that none of them offer significant coverage of the concept. One-sentence mentions are trivial per WP:GNG and no proffered source has anything other than trivial mentions. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 03:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Can you provide a direct quote that "One-sentence mentions are trivial". "He was born in 1912" and "Casablanca is the most important movie in cinema history" are single sentences, and would be fine as a reference. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Per WP:Notability, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Nobody is debating that the sources used are reliable or can be used in an article. But the sources give one-off mentions of the episodes as a series, and does not go into detail. This is one of the primary factors of establishing notability for an article. Ω pho is 05:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Also per the same guideline: "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. ) is plainly trivial." Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 11:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Except we have 7 sources each providing one or two sentences. That is one sentence times 7, and has the same depth of coverage as being mentioned seven times in one article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Not according to WP:Notability. A topic has notability if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It says sources, meaning "one article" alone would not establish notability. Ω pho is 18:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I am no mathematical genius, but from what I remember from grade school is that 7 is greater than 1. You can correct me is I am wrong. We have seven sources, and the above argument was based on the number 7. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Yet you just stated that the seven trivial sources are the equivalent of one significant mention. Ω pho is 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

No, I never used the word trivial. Trivial is a subjective word not defined by Wikipedia. I used "one sentence" reference. "Trivial" is your personal bias. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

No, "trivial" would be the bias of WP:Notability, which clearly categorizes the mentions for this article as such. Regardless of the appropriate term, you yourself stated that the one-sentence mentions used are the equivalent of merely one article of significant coverage. Ω pho is 20:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

With all the sources provided, I now agree that the series has enough coverage. However, my main concern now is that it appears to just be a slight hodgepodge of all the episodes. It doesn't really cover the development of the series, but rather the production info for each individual episode that is already on the respective article pages. For example, a large chunk of the reception section is brief reviews of each episode. This article is supposed to be about the series itself, not the episodes, so the reception section should mainly cover the series as a whole. Ω pho is 00:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually, Cow of Pain's latest point is very true. None of the sources cover the series as a whole, and give trivial references to the episodes as a series. Ω pho is 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

May that be true, when it is not as dirctor colton himself and macfarlane admited that it is a series, plus as Jaymax the media thinks of them as a series, so in souurces, and reliable IGN, etc, make COP´s point being solved. -- Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 06:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, they stated it was a series as a trivial reference. None of the sources in this article provide significant coverage of the subject as a whole to establish any notability. Ω pho is 11:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Merge to a section within the main Family Guy article. The problem is lack of independent secondary coverage of the informal grouping of the episodes on their own. There is some identification of a series of episodes in the style of the old Road to ones as identified by Seth McF,, but there's no special meaning to the grouping by independent sources. Most of what's there - the production section - can be included in the main show article without a problem. -- MASEM ( t) 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Took me two minutes to find publications referring to "now-classic “Road to …" series" and SMH with "his is one of Family Guy's "Road To" episodes that borrow ...". The allegation of OR does not stack up, since the set of episodes is already perceived as a series in the media. There might be a case that additional cites addressing this are needed (sources are sufficient), but no case for deletion. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• "Referring to" is not the standard for inclusion. "Significant coverage" is the standard. There remains no evidence that these episodes as a unit have received significant coverage in reliable sources. "Somebody said 'Road to series' in a magazine" does not satisfy WP:GNG. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep (invited from notability talk page) This discussion has gone off on a lot of tangents. The core question is whether the subject of this article by itself (i.e. this subset of the Family Guy series, rather than the overall series) has received the required coverage by other sources. IMHO the answer is yes, such is shown in the reference list, and is also evident elsewhere. North8000 ( talk) 12:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC) North8000 ( talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• • You guys must be hiding these gold mine sources. Please share them! All I see is at best trivial mentioning as a passing thought in an interview. Where are the articles discussing the "Road to ..." subset? -- Odie5533 ( talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

10 facts from 10 sources have the same depth of coverage as 10 facts from one source, they are identical. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

And per WP:Notability, one source does not establish notability for a topic. Ω pho is 02:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This isn't "ten facts from ten sources". It's ten recurrences of the same supposed "fact" (and it's not a fact in the first place). Regardless, ten trivial mentions don't equal one substantive source anyway. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 03:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Instead of us both cutting and pasting previous arguments, just wait for the AFD to be closed. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:19, 11 August 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) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Waffle card game

Waffle card game (  | 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)

Made up game Marcus Qwertyus 21:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Dang, first time I've conflicted creating an AFD! Anyway, whoever created this made this up during a bus trip someplace. Not for here. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 21:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I was trying to prod this as a textbook example of Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, bullet point 2; I missed the essay. Bk314159 ( talk) 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete as the article is clearly made up. Google search reveals only non-related results. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Article about a made-up game, with bad grammar and written in the second person. Tell the kids to stay in bed; it's a snow day. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. per nom. Fails WP:GNG - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:45, 7 August 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. Well done to Uncle G for a stellar job on the article. Mkativerata ( talk) 07:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Westminster motorcycle parking charge (née No to bike parking tax)

Westminster motorcycle parking charge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Or would db-a7 apply here? Marcus Qwertyus 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I don't understand why this is being considered for deletion, It's just popped up and like many other pages will require time to grow a little, cite the sources and balance out to a neutral viewpoint. - Nitro1592 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitro1592 ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Send Back to the Sandbox Best practice is to work on a theoretical article in the Sandbox, not in the mainspace, if the article completely lacks citations. - Markeer 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Move to "Bike Parking Tax controversy". There seems to be a lot of news about the bike parking tax in Westminster. Might have skidded through A7 CSD too. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Surely the simple and straightforward Westminster motorcycle parking charge would be a better title, less likely to become a magnet for misplaced soapboxing? Uncle G ( talk) 04:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Very impressive rewrite, Uncle G! -- Odie5533 ( talk) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Might be a case for an article about this topic, but this article is such as WP:SOAPBOX you might as well start all over again. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 06:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment Regarding Nitro1592's comment, I have started an SPI case that can be viewed here Acather96 ( talk) 11:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Send back to the sandbox: I personally agree with Markeer, if it's put back there then it can be worked on out of the way, and then released later on. "Acather96" I appreciate your concern regarding this and have replied accordingly, I hope it provides insight. Nitro1592 ( talk) 12:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep now rewritten with sources by Uncle G. The protests were a highly visible (and audible) recurrent event, within sight of Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament, as the sources amply demonstrate. All it needs now is some pictures. Guy ( Help!) 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I'll declare an interest here, because my daughter travels to her workplace in the City of Westminster by motorbike, so is hit by this charge, but putting personal knowledge aside I can see that this has had ample coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger ( talk) 23:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Revisions and sources with significant coverage have shown this to pass our standards.-- Oakshade ( talk) 00:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep as revised/renamed. Chris Neville-Smith ( talk) 08:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio, etc. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 08:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comedic writing

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

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

Essay as spotted on New Pages Patrol. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 21:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• G12 most text was lifted wholesale from here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per TenPoundHammer. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 22:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete. The rest of the text was lifted from here. Deor ( talk) 01:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Snow. Carrite ( talk) 02:49, 4 August 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) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Cesar Macedo

Cesar Macedo (  | 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 financial advisor. The only marginal claim of notability in the article is that he was listed among "America's Top Financial Advisors" by the Consumers Research Council of America, whose criteria for inclusion appear to be somewhat questionable. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 21:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article is a recreation of one that had been speedily deleted under G11 less than two hours earlier. While the tone is no longer "unambiguous advertising", it still reads like a CV and there is nothing to reliably demonstrate notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete, subject is apparently not notable, article has no reliable sources. Nuujinn ( talk) 01:42, 10 August 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) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Ecocache

Ecocache (  | 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)

An EcoCache is not a widely recognized type of geocache. The article has no reliable sources verifying that EcoCaches are notable. The EcoCaches that are listed do not appear to be linked together, rather they all use the same name. §hep ^Talk 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete – I could not find any reliable sources on the subject and thus the article fails to meet the WP:GNG. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 23:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 4 August 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 and stubify. — fetch · comms 01:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Edifício São Vito

Edifício São Vito (  | 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)

Per Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate and a contested PROD. This article appears to be a machine translation from the Português Wikipedia with no included references and no notability established within the contents of the English article. After waiting close to a week, it appears no effort has been made to clean up the translation by hand and, per the above policy, consensus on Wikipedia is that machine translations are worse than nothing. ialsoagree ( talk) 20:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• REGULAR DELETE. Lacks proper sources. Could care less about the rest. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No sources. IamtheLOL ( talk) 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep and reduce to stub until in can be properly translated. It has received very significant coverage from reliable sources like Época [2] [3], O Globo [4] [5] and Agora São Paulo. [6]-- Oakshade ( talk) 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: I would actually agree with you if it weren't for the link I cited in the AFD nomination regarding translations, and a lack of sourced notability for the English Wikipedia. It's already consensus that a machine translation is worse than nothing, and after a week the article has seen no one willing to contribute useful edits to the translation. In addition, how can notability be derived from the sources you claim for an article on the English Wikipedia, when the sources are not in English and no one is translating them? If someone was willing to go through the translation or even cut parts out that did not translate well, as well as establish and source the notability of the article's subject in English, I'd be willing to support a keep. Until then, I think the article really is worse than nothing. ialsoagree ( talk) 03:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

(And just to add, having the article deleted isn't really a loss. It appears to be nothing more than a machine translation of the article on the Português Wikipedia, everything there could easily be machine translated again if someone was willing to put in the above work). ialsoagree ( talk) 03:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers to the language in which articles are written, not th elanguage of the sources on which articles are based. There is no requirement in either the verifiability policy or notability guideline for sources to be in English. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No reliable sources exist to establish notability of this building. SnottyWong ^prattle 22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you not read my vote? What about the reliable sources I cited? If you feel this should be deleted for the reasons Ialosagree states, fine. But don't state "No reliable sources exist" when links to reliable sources have been provided.-- Oakshade ( talk) 02:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep and stubify per Oakshade. While a machine translation of the full article may be undesirable, I think it's equally undesirable (and perhaps smacks of systemic bias) to eliminate this article entirely when there are so many reliable sources in Portuguese (and maybe a few in English [7] [8]). Having an English stub would accomplish at least three things: it provides English readers with at least a minimal amount of information about this very interesting subject, along with some photos from Commons [9] and an interwiki link to the full article in Portuguese; it gives editors an incentive to dig up more sources in English; and it alerts Portuguese-capable editors to the need to expand the article. The fact that this hasn't happened in a week is no reason to assume it won't happen; there's no deadline for this sort of stuff.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep and stubify per above. The sources provided should resolve the notability issues, and there are better ways to address the machine translation issues than outright deletion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 03:59, 7 August 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. merge isnt appropriate as this appears to be a content fork. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding

Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Page is an almost exact duplicate of the same material on the Chelsea Clinton page, and this article appears to have been created because the Marc Mezvinsky page is on the threshold of deletion. Everything that needs to be said about the wedding has been said on the Chelsea Clinton page. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Chelsea Clinton is a valid article, Marc Mezvinsky and Mark Mezvinsky are valid redirects (one as a misspelling). This article is not valid. — Timneu22 · talk 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• delete Agree with the nom, WP:CONTENTFORK classic WP:NOTNEWS Weaponbb7 ( talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • comment Wikinews adequately covers the topic and is the only thing outside of a sentence or paragaph in Chealsea Clinton's article or Mezvinsky's if he ever runs for senate or something. 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep A notable event with nationwide media coverage; this AfD is premature for an article that was stubbed out a mere 18hrs ago. The article could conceivably grow to contain details which would be WP:UNDUE within the biography of the bride. I'd be happy to revisit a merge, say, six months down the road, and if it's still a short stub, a merge would probably be fine. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. I cannot envision this article growing. There's nothing further to report about the wedding except unencyclopedic details such as the color of Hillary Cinton's gown or the brand of champagne served. These details belong in a gossip magazine not an encyclopedia. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 06:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete agree completely with the nomination - regardless of the result of the Mezvinsky article this is redundant to the Chelsea article and integrated there with no problem. Hekerui ( talk) 21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Newsworthy doesn't equal notable. Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - wedding of the century, right? I would merge Marc Mezvinsky into this one until he gains his own notability, which may never come.

Bearian ( talk) 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please, the century is only a decade old. Let's wait another 90 years before we rush to judgement. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Actually Keep The wedding itself was a notable event judging from the media coverage already. As more details are known more information will be added to the article. The event has an importance beyond its effect on the two people. Wolfview ( talk) 23:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Media coverage, John Stewart spent last night lampooning the lack of information they were covering nothing. I hate to use the John Stewart as the basis for an argument here but we are arguing to keep this Article. there is no reason to keep it when it is already covered in the Chealsea Clinton's article. This is'nt something that blewup so big it needs is own article. Paragraph or phrase in her article would more then suffice. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 00:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying we need the article. But it was more than just an event in two people's lives. Wolfview ( talk) 00:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

What was it then? It had absolutely no effect on the world that has been recorded. People are hungry for gossip about the rich and the media delivers. These sorts of news stories are not encyclopedic but simply pander to our desire to snoop into the lives of the others. I have yet to read any news story that indicates this wedding was an event of great moment. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Even if the effect is to make the Clinton family look stupid and to show how shallow and celebrity obbsessed the American people are that would merit an article. Many much smaller events, like one episode of a TV show, have articles. Wolfview ( talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a society page. Deor ( talk) 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Eh, that's true, but we've got a handful of articles in Category:Royal weddings. It's odd for such a free-wheeling project to take the stance that only the royals are notable. In the U.S. this is about as close as we get. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 02:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

There's a big difference. The marriage of Charles and Diana, for example, was an event of great moment because Diana would assuredly become the mother of a future monarch that would likely influence the lives of millions. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I think another difference between this wedding and the royal ones is that the royal ones are televised, making them public events. (At least, I'm under the impression they were all televised. If any of them were private affairs equivalent to Chelsea's except that one or more of the participants were royalty, I don't think they should have articles, either.) Propaniac ( talk) 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Merge. This article obviously has valuable information, but I don't think it has enough to justify it being a separate article. Eyu100^{( t| fr| Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 05:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep if it grows, but as a stub it can be added to their individual biographies. To be own article it has to concentrate on details of wedding and the invitation list. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: WP:EVENT is the relevant policy. There's lots of coverage of the subject; not sure of the other criteria. — Ashley Y 10:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete I just don't think there's much of importance to say about it. Yes, there's a ton of media coverage, but it seems primarily to be reporting details for the sake of reporting details, not because it actually matters in any way what color the centerpieces were or somesuch. It might somehow turn out to be a historically significant event, but right now it just looks like something that happened. Propaniac ( talk) 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Smerge into Chelsea Clinton's page. I'm old enough to remember Tricia Nixon Cox's wedding, which happened while her dad was still President. AFAIK we don't have a separate article on that wedding, which was subject to a flurry of coverage on a slow news day as well. I'm as much in favor of the conversion of the U.S. government to a hereditary monarchy as anyone else, but until that happens, royal weddings are going to be state occasions tied to real, recognized dynasties, and Chelsea Clinton's wedding is not. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • We could join the Commonwealth of Nations. Wolfview ( talk) 16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - all the content of any value is already in the BLP. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• delete* Anything useful can be described in two lines on the CC article. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I agree with Propaniac that a major difference between the Charles-Diana wedding and this wedding is that the Charles-Diana wedding was broadcast to millions of viewers throughout the world, while this wedding wasn't broadcast to anyone anywhere. Yes, some media did report on this wedding, but whatever there was for them to report (and there wasn't that much) can be covered in the Chelsea Clinton article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete Who cares. This is an event in the life of a first daughter; not a notable historical event Bwmoll3 ( talk) 04:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Chelsea Clinton article. — fetch · comms 17:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Chelsea Clinton article. There is little here to justify a seperate page. 65.35.147.38 ( talk) 03:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note, the Marc Mezvinsky article was deleted/redirected to Chelsea Clinton#Engagement and marriage; that's where any relevant content should be merged. — Timneu22 · talk 15:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge into the Chelsea Clinton article. There is some good information, but this event doesn't warrant its own article. Airplaneman ✈ 19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Why the word "banal" exists. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there is no new information. this is a pretty pathetic article with a single paragraph. she is not royalty. 184.96.118.189 ( talk) 22:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep, notable event, lots of media attention. Everyking ( talk) 05:19, 11 August 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Kings Park Baseball Complex

Kings Park Baseball Complex (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Minor neighborhood park not notable Weaponbb7 ( talk) 20:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Non-Notable and no sources. IamtheLOL ( talk) 21:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• comment this does not seem to be an official name, that is why no search hits. But I would disagree that the park is a minor neighbourhood park, more like a major neighbourhood park. But it is mentioned [10] [11]. There would be at least 4 possible backlinks to this article from Wikipedia if they were put in. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

LOL wonderful we have confirmed they have toilet... congrats you made me smile Weaponbb7 ( talk) 01:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Upper Ferntree Gully, Victoria#Natural features, where the park is already described in sufficient detail. Most of the material in this article is trivial (and unsourced). Deor ( talk) 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - there are no indications of notability Nick-D ( talk) 08:59, 5 August 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) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

OnePlace

OnePlace (  | 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)

Promotion for non-notable software product. The only coverage that seems to exist is the one given in the article ( [12]), and it's just a brief summary of a press release. Haakon ( talk) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon ( talk) 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete Lack of sources to establish notability. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 23:52, 5 August 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 Wrong forum Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Franklin coverup hoax

Franklin coverup hoax (  | 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 title is not NPOV. Even though it is merely a REDIRECT to the actual article, there is a problem: when you type 'franklin coverup' in the Wikipedia search box, the suggested phrase 'Franklin coverup hoax' appears, making it seem as though Wikipedia's position on the topic is that it's conclusively a hoax. Jeremy stalked _{(law 296)} 19:50, 3 August 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 with leave to speedy renominate if someone has a deletion rationale based on one of our policies/guidelines. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Yuwen Zhang

Yuwen Zhang (  | 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 visits to page, no notoriety. Move to the university page Diman011 ( talk) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep. "No visits to page" would not be a valid reason to delete a Wikipedia article, even if it were true. The subject of this article appears to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion as outlined at WP:PROF. Peacock ( talk) 20:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep as no valid reason for deletion has been presented. Phil Bridger ( talk) 00:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. Fellow of ASME may meet WP:PROF #3. -- Radagast 3 ( talk) 08:28, 6 August 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

List of flight schools

List of flight schools (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is a list of flight schools. There are many thousands of flight schools worldwide, the vast majority of which are non-notable. If the article were expanded to nearer its goal it would therefore end up as a list of non-notable subjects and therefore an indiscriminate list of information and an inherently non-encyclopedic topic. Furthermore because nearly all flight schools are commercial enterprises this list has become a spam magnet attracting COI editors to add their schools to the list. Ahunt ( talk) 19:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nominator. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete aPer nominator. - BilCat ( talk) 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator, can't really add to the rationale. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Crum375 ( talk) 04:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Roger ( talk) 07:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k ( talk) 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep The nomination (and therefore any "per nom" delete opinions) is flawed in that it is based on what the nominator fears what might happen to this list rather than what it actually is, which is a work-in-progress (as are all of our articles) list of notable flight schools, which clearly serves a navigational purpose, per WP:LIST#Navigation. Many of our articles are spam magnets, but we have ways of dealing with that problem such as watchlisting, blocking and (semi-)protection, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater by deleting articles. Phil Bridger ( talk) 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. This argument is flawed because there is nothing in the article to substantiate the allegation of notability of any of the entities listed. The fact remains that the list is simply a random collection of flight schools and thus violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article has existed for 2 years (almost to the day) yet it doesn't contain a single reference. Roger ( talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment - I believe that Category:Aviation schools actually fulfills that function much more effectively than this list does. It avoids the problem of non-notable schools being added as redlinks, since the article must exist to be in the category and it avoids the relentless link-spamming by flight school owners for the same reason, they must have an article to be included. This list article is redundant to the more effective use of a category instead. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please read the WP:CLN guideline for an explanation of why categories and lists are not redundant to each other. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

That still does not solve the problems the list has: It remains a random collection of non notable entities without any refs. Roger ( talk) 07:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - an alternative approach to deletion is to only allow blue-linked entries: - Something similar to List of aircraft by tail number, which only list articles where a specific aircraft is substantailly covered in that article. Mjroots ( talk) 21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment - That would make it an exact copy of the category, thus pointless. Roger ( talk) 07:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There are notable flight schools. It makes sense to have a list of them for navigational purposes. Get rid of the non-notable entries and the problem is solved.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. I'm not convinced there is any point in having an article/list that is an exact duplicate of an already existing category - we may then just as well abolish the entire category system as a waste of bytes. See also the previous comments. Roger ( talk) 07:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

But our guidelines are quite clear that categories and lists serve different purposes and are not mutually exclusive. For instance, lists give more freedom to the writer in respect of prose and structure. Phil Bridger has linked the relevant guideline - which is quite clear - so I need not do so again. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

What in fact is the different purpose served by this list? It contains no significant prose, there is nothing special about its structure, its just a plain list. A category is a much more sophisticated "list" in that is is subdivided/sortable in any number of ways. What does this list do that the category doesn't/can't do? "Just because we can" is not a sufficient reason to do something. Roger ( talk) 09:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Our whole project is a work in progress. We don't delete things before they have the chance.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Its been two years since the page was first created - even elephants are not pregnant that long! It has no references, contains a random mix of flight schools including non-notable ones, has no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. If you can't get it into any sort of reasonable shape in all this time its never going to happen. Pull the plug - there is no baby in this bathwater. BTW Not one of the issues raised by the Nominator have been addressed yet. Roger ( talk) 10:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Regarding the argument that this is an indiscriminate collection of information: in essence it is not; it is a list of notable flight schools. We can discriminate on the basis of notability. Regarding the argument of how long this list has been around: there is no merit to the argument to delete. From WP:CLN: "building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list—deleting link lists wastes these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive". This list has achieved that first step, and is just waiting for someone to clean it up, add references, and add prose. There is no time limit for this to happen. Jujutacular  ^talk 17:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As above, WP:CLN only really applies as an argument if there is any reasonable hope that the list might someday become more usefull than a plain category, otherwise, consensus is free to declare the maintaining of it is a waste of time. And I can't see any usefull embellishment ever happening with this list. What could possibly be done to it that cannot be done by categorisation? And currently, the list is even worse than a category organisation, as it contains entries that are not articles about flight schools, just places that have flight schools, which would be of no use to the theoretical person who just one day wanted to look thru a list of notable flight schools (if that mythical person even exists, I rather think he is made of straw). MickMacNee ( talk) 22:03, 10 August 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 redirect to Michelle Obama. I understand the nominator's point, but it doesn't appear that s/he noticed that a merge was alreadysuggested not only here, but on the article page itself (and no one opposed it). There shouldn't be a problem if a section about this topic is added to the main article, however. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Racial attacks on Michelle Obama

Racial attacks on Michelle Obama (  | 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 suppose to be an encyclopedia, not a place for random news articles for trivial non-sense. Yephedid ( talk) 19:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• merge Content fork, lotta of Allegations seem cherry picked and questionable sources at best. Merge to Ms. Obama's page Weaponbb7 ( talk) 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Merge - Pretty clear content fork, this material should be encompassed in a subsection of the M.O. biography, if it's not already. Carrite ( talk) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Merge - As the article's creator, I say merge. This article was already nominated to be merged, actually, which makes this AFD somewhat odd. Stonemason89 ( talk) 22:18, 3 August 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. — fetch · comms 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients

Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients (  | 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. This is a renomination from nine months ago. I've monitored this article since then, and it remains to be a long, comparative list of non-notable products all of which are red links or circular redirects. In the previous discussion WP:USEFUL was cited, but there is lots of useful information on the internet of questionable reliability. The difference is that we are not a product guide, we do not advertise for non-notable software products, we are not a software directory, and we do not publish original research or otherwise redistribute information that has not been first cited by a reliable third party publication. Thank you for your time. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not a software catalog. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Wikipedia is not a comparison service. Standalone lists should have "membership criteria based on reliable sources." No sources here except maybe some self-published ones. Much of data on this list is original research. These problems with article are systemic and cannot be fixed. If sources appeared article would not look like it does now. New author should start it completely over based on the sources. Deletion of this OR material would not be useful to a new author. Miami33139 ( talk) 05:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Category:Software comparisons. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy based argument. Miami33139 ( talk) 06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • "In an article's deletion debate, an editor unfamiliar with guidelines may vote to keep an article solely because articles similar to it exist. Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article. In such a case, both arguments should likely be discounted by the closing administrator." Silver seren ^C 06:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
      • The second user has provided a reason to delete the article. Please note my delete rationale. Miami33139 ( talk) 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:OSE. As clearly shown by Richard Arthur Norton, consensus by existence of the category clearly seems to show that comparisons of different types of software are, in general, accepted on Wikipedia. For this reason, it can be said that such comparison lists are an exception to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as the information contained within is encyclopedic-ally relevant and convenient for understanding the differences between brands of a specific type of software. Silver seren ^C 06:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • There are exceptions to exceptions even. Not one single subject listed on this comparison page is notable. All links are red links or are circular redirects. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • That's because they are IRC clients. Not very many of them are going to be notable enough for their own article. For the best effect, the links should probably be directed to the mobile device that they are for, since that is what this page is about, a comparison between IRC clients for mobile devices. For example, AndroidChat should direct the reader to the article for the Android. But, regardless, the fact that there are red links doesn't make the page non-notable, since the purpose of the page is to give comparisons, not to necessarily direct the reader elsewhere (though they should have the option to look at the devices for the clients, per my suggestion). Silver seren ^C 06:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Regardless of the individual notability of the clients, where does the comparison information come from? It has to come from reliable sources. Do you see any in this article? Miami33139 ( talk) 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
        • That is true. But has any effort been made whatsoever to see if sources can be added? From what I can see, the answer to that is no. Silver seren ^C 07:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Burden to add source for a fact is on those who add the fact. Since no source exist for any fact, all fact can be deleted. That is what my rationale says. Maybe this is valid topic, but this version is not it and this version can not be fix without starting from zero. So delete it, let someone else start from zero and build up using sourced material. This unreference material actually hinder attempt to make a valid one because unreference material in the way. Miami33139 ( talk) 08:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Actually, don't the websites for the clients, listed on the far right column, contain the information? At first glance, it looks like they do. Silver seren ^C 07:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Can you cite any random fact given about CoolIRC based on website given? Don't trust first glance. This is why lists must have objective inclusion criteria which this completely fails. Miami33139 ( talk) 08:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
            • Hah hah, picking the one that has a broken link. However, take Mobile Colloquy. The website attached has all of the information provided. Silver seren ^C 08:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
            • Does Mobile Colloqquy support IPv6 or TLS? Miami33139 ( talk) 08:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment Voters should make sure to look at the arguments put forth in the previous AfD for this article and also this AfD (as was pointed out in the previous AfD). Silver seren ^C 07:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

...I just realized that both of those AfDs were also nominated by JBsupreme. Silver seren ^C 07:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep Nominator is the same nominator of the last AfD, which had no other !votes to delete. Nominator raises no new reasons for deletion. Perhaps if the OP disagreed with the consensus, he could have taken it to deletion discussion (though I suspect there would be few there who would agree with him). WP:BEFORE could be followed & our deletion policy notes that "it can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." -- Karnesky ( talk) 16:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep no new arguments for deletion since previous keep. Jclemens ( talk) 16:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • That is blatantly false. I will reiterate now, as I did at the start of this nomination that this list has not improved since the original nomination and defies our standards both for notability and attribution to reliable third party sources. There is not some sort of magical loophole for comparison lists that I'm aware of, and shouting WP:USEFUL doesn't make these problems go away either. In the end the closing administrator can weigh the arguments from all parties as he or she wishes. In Wikipedia I trust. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Obvious Keep. Wikipedia is not about creating and enforcing rules, it is creating and improving articles. (Hence WP:IAR.) We have lots of unsung but extremely good Comparison-of-<products> articles. Such articles consist of tables, meaning that some of the rules for normal (prose-format) articles cannot be applied without compromising them. So there does have to be some loosening of some of our rules for comparison articles (unless you want to argue for banning all comparison articles, in which case I say you have no idea what Wikipedia is about and should cease editing immediately.)
  This article could use some improvement, but that is no reason to delete it. Indeed, the chances of someone working on improving it would be improved if people would stop trying to get it deleted on the basis of excessively creative wikilawyering. CWC 15:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Since (in your eyes) it's such an obvious keep, even while acknowledging this list is flawed, what do you propose can be done to improve it? JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • That question is irrelevant here. Cheers, CWC 03:04, 10 August 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) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Xcel Petroleum

Xcel Petroleum (  | 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 per WP:CORP. Taroaldo ( talk) 18:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per nom. Dewritech ( talk) 19:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete: agreed, not notable + completely unreferenced. Shearonink ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC). reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dewritech ( talk) 19:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-Notable. IamtheLOL ( talk) 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete, weakly. They operate gas stations. No claim of historical or technical significance, and the article makes no convincing case for cultural significance as a landmark or household name in its territory. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 16:00, 4 August 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) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Nemesis (heavy metal band)

Nemesis (heavy metal band) (  | 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 a notable band. No albums on reputable labels, no charts, no coverage (except for one single article). They do have a MySpace page, however. Drmies ( talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• The bass player is at AfD as well: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loshaarn Bastian. Drmies ( talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.-- Canniba loki 18:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete: One of the two provided references is to a UK-download website. Also band does not seem to have enough notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Shearonink ( talk) 19:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-Notable. IamtheLOL ( talk) 21:19, 3 August 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) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Loshaarn Bastian

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

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

Non-notable musician. No sources provided, none can be found. His band, Nemesis (heavy metal band), is headed for AfD as well. Drmies ( talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Drmies comments.-- Canniba loki 18:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no assertion of notablity, no sources found to show that. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 8 August 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) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Ismail Nami

Muhammad Ismail Nami (  | 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 looked through these Google hits and could find nothing. Google Books likewise offers nothing. The article, of course, offers even less. Delete: notability not established. Drmies ( talk) 18:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete, non-notable. No information available more than what's on this page, which is lifted from [13]. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Deepak D'Souza ( talk) 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No sources. IamtheLOL ( talk) 21:21, 3 August 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. A redirect will be created to Foreign exchange market. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Forex news

Forex news (  | 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 neologism. This concept is not yet notable enough for it's own article. Should be a mention under Foreign exchange market article. Padillah ( talk) 17:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Foreign exchange market as a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect - this could easily be covered in half a sentence, or maybe even half a paragraph, in Foreign exchange market - in fact I think it is already. There is a fairly significant problem with foreign exchange market article spinoffs - they tend to be very commercial - encouraging folks to bet the house on very poor gambles. Smallbones ( talk) 02:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Charly's School

Charly's School (  | 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)

With under 300 people in the school, this looks non-notable to me. Article only has 2 sentences and few refs. Pilif12p :  Yo  17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep I know WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I also know WP:BIAS. The "problem" with this school seems to be that it's located in South America, and not the United States... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article is about a not-so-well-known school outside Chile, but well, I thought secondary schools are notable. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment:Diego has explained to me why it's notable on IRC. If possible, i'd like to withdraw this AfD if it could be expanded. Pilif12p :  Yo  18:00, 3 August 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. — fetch · comms 01:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Timothy Christian School (Barrie)

Timothy Christian School (Barrie) (  | 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 Junior high school per WP:GNG Mo ainm ~Talk 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Strong delete as per nomination. Even considering to reinstate the speedy. ☭FryPod 17:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Frypod ( talk · contribs) has been blocked and has admitted to being a sock of a banned user. — Soap — 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The speedy deletion tag on the article was the A3 tag, which goes to articles with no content. The editor added the infobox and some information about the subject, which meant that there was now content and the speedy deletion (under that criteria) wasn't warranted - and I did not see another criteria that applied. So, I declined the speedy, while cautioning the editor to expand the article and add sources and document the notability. I also noted that K-8 schools are rarely found to be notable under our policies, and I don't see any evidence to suggest that there is anything unusual about this school that makes it any different. For my part, Userfication might be an option, to give the author a reasonable amount of time to work on a good attempt at an article - but, as I said, I don't think the subject is notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 ( talk) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I fail to understand how secondary schools are assumed to be notable, while lower schools are not. But those are the guidelines and I see no point in expanding them. No speedy creteria apply. Hairhorn ( talk) 01:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment To be accurate, as far as I know there is no guideline that says that secondary schools are assumed to be notable, and not lower schools, but that has become an accepted convention by consensus. I used to think that this was stupid until, in another AfD, a user gave me a link to an earlier discussion on the subject. Once I had read that discussion I decided that there were tolerably good reasons behind the convention. Unfortunately I can no longer remember either what the reasons were nor where the discussion was, which is not much help, but I thought it worth mentioning. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep as there should be room in WP for an article on any school, even the most miserable little madrassa. Needs rewriting to be more informative. - Welhaven ( talk) 18:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Google News Archive search comes up with nothing useful. ^[14] -- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs)} 19:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Barrie per usual practice. This is one of several schools named Timothy Christian School, and a couple of them have pages here on Wikipedia. However, the others include a high school, whereas this school is K-8. Under the usual consensus that means it is not automatically considered notable, it needs to meet the WP:GNG rule - and this school doesn't. Question: why is the infobox titled "Monsignor Clair School"? -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:57, 10 August 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 I withdraw. This is going nowhere. Maashatra11 ( talk) 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Ioan Dem. Dimăncescu

Ioan Dem. Dimăncescu (  | 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 well-formatted article, with plenty of sources (though they are offline and cannot be verified) and a lot of information. However I doubt very much that this person meets our notability criteria so it fails WP:N. Secondly the sources are unverifiable so it fails WP:V as well. My main concerns are that when I tried to find some sources in Google nothing substantial came up. More importantly, I have a strong suspicion that the article's author has a WP:COI with the article's subject and is seemingly related to him (as can be inferred from his username). If someone can provide or quote reliable sources indicating why he is notable I'd be happy to withdraw. Maashatra11 ( talk) 16:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Not doubting any of the above, but it' a good bio worth keeping. There's plenty of crap to be weeded without attacking well-done bios of characters of marginal notability. I know that's not regarded as a legitimate defense in these debates, but it's a fact. Use the notability challenges wisely, friends... Carrite ( talk) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • That's not really a reason to keep. It's just an inclusionist point of view. You're simply using the WP:NOHARM argument without addressing the concerns. Maashatra11 ( talk) 17:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I freely admit this. Given the rules of Wikipedia, once this article hits this page, it's probably going to be destroyed. Why? For what positive end? Use the chainsaw wisely... Carrite ( talk) 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The positive end of this discussion is that wikipedia will hopefully fulfill its purpose of being an encyclopedia. There's no need for unencyclopedic content here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - nothing else to add here. Maashatra11 ( talk) 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Y'know, it's frustrating that "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia" is regarded as a good argument, while "Wikipedia is full of crap 50x worse than this and we should concentrate on that" is regarded as an invalid argument. But, for the sake of argument, I'll pick up the gauntlet... Carrite ( talk) 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's a good idea to over-use arguments to avoid in deletion discussions such as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and others. Anyway, if it's your wish, so be it. Maashatra11 ( talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

These notability debates each have an underlying theme: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must not pollute the encyclopedia." That's the ultimate over-used argument, actually. That's fine, I agree with the premise, as long as we're actually attacking the pollution, rather than well-done decent bios of borderline individuals like this one. The chances of a non-Romanian speaker defending this challenge are near nil. I accept that. The point is, this challenge was a waste of time from the get-go. The inclusion hurts nothing, the deletion subtracts from our knowledge base. And there are tons and tons and tons of articles out there which ARE bringing the Wikipedia project down, let there be no mistake. Carrite ( talk) 18:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Let's see if we can get this fellow over the notability bar, shall we? Here's something: Ioan Dimancescu was featured as a character in The War in Romania series. Carrite ( talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Here's Dimancescu again, but my Romanian is rusty and it's a blog, and god knows the world will end if we use an extensive blog article as evidence of notability in one of these Takes Self Too Serioiusly notability challenges... Carrite ( talk) 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Our comrades at Romanian Wikipedia believe Demancescu to be notable... See? Carrite ( talk) 18:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

It seems like the English WP article is a straight translation of the Romanian WP article, I note... Carrite ( talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, Carrite, but the blog is Mr. Alin Dimancescu's work, the same author of our pretty article. And the Romanian article too. And given the film credits names, it seems the Dimancescu's family as a whole and not only Alin are very much involved in keeping memory of their lovely ancestor... Maashatra11 ( talk) 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Being a family member is no bar to writing a WP article on a topic, only that one needs to look closely for POV writing... Anyway... Here is evidence that Dimancescu qualifies under Sports notability rules: He was part of the Romanian delegation at the Inter-Allied Games (Paris, 1919)[2], being a component of the rugby team at the first matches registered in the official record of the national team. (Source: Nicu Alexe și colectiv, Enciclopedia Educației Fizice și Sportului din România, Editura Aramis, București, 2002). That's independent evidence that he was a member of a National Team which participated in international competition... Carrite ( talk) 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Still non-notable per WP:NSPORT. Maashatra11 ( talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah, here we go, significance of Inter-Allied Games: The inter-allied games, Paris, 22nd June to 6th July, 1919; (1919)... But, like I say, this article was a goner as soon as it made this page, because too many people consider Notability some sort of Talmudic sacred doctrine, rather than a somewhat flexible guideline for appropriateness of inclusions... Whatever... Carrite ( talk) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per Carrite. Otherstuffexists is not a sufficient argument, but it should not be dismissed when it supports a cogent argument, as here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I can't see how being a participant of the Inter-Allied Games is enough to be considered notable. However I can't argue if you like to think so. Maashatra11 ( talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The coverage is sufficient to reflect notability, and that argument is bolstered by otherstuffexists, which is appropriate to consider as part of an argument in favor of keeping (though not as the only reason). IDONTLIKEIT of course goes both ways, and isn't a reason to delete in the face of sufficient RS coverage and similar articles.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I never said that I didn't like it. You better read my deletion rationale. Maashatra11 ( talk) 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I "better"? Or what? You "better" find a more civil way to make a suggestion.

I read what you wrote. You indicated that there are plenty of sources. Great. That they are offline and cannot be verified -- though you fail to mention the importance/relevance of this. You say there is a lot of information. Great. You say you "doubt very much that this person meets our notability criteria so it fails WP:N." Why do you doubt it? And why does it fail WP:N on the basis of you having a "doubt"? You say that the sources are unverifiable so it fails WP:V as well. That's wrong. Why are the sources unverifiable? There is no requirement that they be on-line. Or in your library in Kalamazoo, or wherever you are. You write "My main concerns are that when I tried to find some sources in Google nothing substantial came up." It doesn't have to. Verifiability is not contingent upon google search results (though that would simplify these discussions). You also write "More importantly, I have a strong suspicion that the article's author has a WP:COI". You "better" read WP:COI -- that's reason to look carefully at the matter, but bears not a bit in the notability consideration.

"You better" read up on AGF and on not biting the newbies ... Before you get smacked across the face with a very large TROUT.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Maashatra11 ( talk) 06:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm open to all trout suggestions. You already suggested me (or threatened) one if I recall, so no problem. You can give me one. Thanks. Maashatra11 ( talk) 07:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Hello everybody! I am o rookie on wiki and I am also the grandson of Ioan Dem Dimancescu. I have nothing to cover, this is why I signed with my real name. I know wiki policies about the notability. Please take into account for your judgment the following: 1. Romanian sources on Internet are very poor, even recent events are not so well covered 2. my off-line sources are credible, part of them (press clipping) are scanned and grouped on Dimancescu's Collection external link; rest of sources represent a Sports Enciclopedia, a National Radio Archieve review, an on-line edition of the Interallied Games - Paris etc. 3. I think that the simple fact that the biggest Scouts Center in Romania (please check on scout.ro) took his name is a clear recognition of his constant contribution to the Romanian Scouts development from the first moment up before WW2 when the the movement was banned; 4. I am trying to close the gap about the wiki info, this is why I put some links to unexisting pages (if I have the chance, I can came up later with info), but is somehow natural to start with my grandfather's profile (even if wiki has no "emotions"). Please take into account that in Romania (after '89) we are trying to rediscover our history (facts & people) through personal efforts (mainly).

Thank you for reading the above and hope that is enough for my cause! Alin Dimancescu ( talk) 06:40, 4 August 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) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Civilian Demo

Civilian Demo (  | 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)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and I can find no significant third-party coverage of this release. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not notable and created by a sock. Nowyouseeme talk2me 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:33, 3 August 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 indef blocked, no other delete votes NW ( Talk) 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Pedobear

Pedobear (  | 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)

Just another 4chan meme, not worthy of a seperate article and is just forumcruft. ☭FryPod 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Incredibly Weak Keep – Seems to have a bit of coverage. Refs: [15] [16] [17] [18] "Pedobear, a pop-culture symbol denoting pedophilia" -- Odie5533 ( talk) 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the sources Odie5533 found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep, not just another 4chan meme. Memes don't normally have that many 3rd party sources or reach outside of 4chan intself. Then again, not the most notable of subjects for an article. Jolly Ω Janner 18:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. - Interesting article and notability seems well documented. Carrite ( talk) 21:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Btw, I've added the references indicated by Odie above, as well as some content from them. -- Waldir ^talk 02:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep In current form has sufficient sources to merit own page or at the very least a merge. CooperDB ( talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep, eminently notable (not to mention irresistibly adorably cute and cuddly). Tisane ^talk/ _stalk 05:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as per Tisane. 62.255.248.225 ( talk) 09:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Enough coverage to pass notability. Christopher Connor ( talk) 00:38, 7 August 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. —  The Earwig  ^(talk) 18:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Rose Colored Glasses (album)

Rose Colored Glasses (album) (  | 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)

It is not clear why this album is notable per WP:NALBUMS. Thought it claims several chart achievements its not sourced. It also claims three singles were released but again this is not sourced. In fact the article provides zero sources all together. WP:NALBUMS clearly states that where the information about an album is mainly just a tracklisting such pages should not be independently created. I see no reason why this shouldn't be redirected to artist's page John Conlee. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep and trout nominator. Clearly didn't do a WP:BEFORE here; I found four sources and added them without really trying. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep per TenPoundHammer. Nowyouseeme talk2me 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I dont understand why people don't address these issues when they see the tags. If an admin is available and if it is possible I'd like to ask the AfD to be closed because someone has made the article more noteable. -- Lil-unique1 ( talk) 18:31, 3 August 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) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Mahinda Pathegama

Mahinda Pathegama (  | 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)

Scientist who appears not to pass WP:PROF. Additionally, there are no reliable third-party sources and Google news archive provides only two trivial mentions of him. This article was prodded in May but the prod was disputed. The article appears to be under dispute; along with the sub-stub nominated version [19] there is also a much longer version preferred by one editor [20] but it is no better at providing a convincing claim of notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian ( talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete — Google Scholar gives very few hits, and it doesn't look like there is evidence of meeting any of the other criteria of WP:PROF. There are some hits on Google Web search, but apart from the self-published stuff, it's mostly peripheral, like this one. Favonian ( talk) 17:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Web of Science list 1 (one) article, never cited. Google Scholar lists 6 publications, cited a grand total of 2 (two) times. Obviously does not meet WP:PROF. Perhaps that some of the newspaper sources may pass WP:BIO, but as they all seem to be about his scientific accomplishments (which basically seem to have gone unnoticed up till now), I strongly doubt that. -- Crusio ( talk) 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete; no sources, no notability. End of. Ironholds ( talk) 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The edit warring in this article has started around July 14. I found out that the emergence of the reports claiming he has committed intellectual property thefts coincide with this. Here is a Sinhala language report dated July 16. The heading reads New inventions commissioner maraud intellectual properties. Seems like this incident has ensued the edit warring. I think this edit sums it up. I will investigate further on this. But I am optimistic that we can salvage the article.-- Chanaka L ( talk) 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Very little citability of his academic work, does not pass WP:PROF. GoogleNews also turns up very little, so it looks unlikely that the subject passes WP:BIO. The edit war mentioned above indicates potential BLP issues; in cases of marginal notability this gives an extra impetus towards deletion. Nsk92 ( talk) 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per BLP issues. I've had had enough of these POV pushing. From the beginning I assumed GF and believe we can bring it within NPOV by writing it with RS. I tried to the resolve the dispute, but the edit-warring kept going. Then I tried to keep it as it is, by reverting vandals, requesting page protection and reporting one POV pusher. Then one peanut-brained resort to ROFLable PA against me. But I still persist with AGF and I improved the article from Ironholds' version to a level at least it might have a chance. But again another POV pusher have come along and copy/pasted a section from Muttiah Muralitharan#University of South Australia study. I believe this will exhaust any good Wikipedian's patience when one worked amidst of personnel attacks. I doubt even the article survived the AfD, we won't be able to keep them at bay. At minimum pending changes have to be implemented.-- Chanaka L ( talk) 04:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The "copy/paste" from Muttiah Muralitharan#University of South Australia study is in fact the same information from the same source, written in a more detailed form. I don't believe it can be classified as "POV Pushing". The page's current state contains all-referenced material and confines to WP:NPOV. It should simply be protected from vandalism and the addition of unverified/false/irrelevant information. Referring to a previous comment, this "edit warring" appears to have started with the release of one newspaper article with allegations against him, but there happens to be a newer one which shows a number of allegations in the previous were incorrect ( Here). From this evidence, this "edit warring" seems to have started on the basis of poorly presented views and accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.95.181 ( talk) 21:27, 6 August 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. Mkativerata ( talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply