Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 15

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. BigDom 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Watson (Scrabble player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Scrabble player who once won a national championship. That one event doesn't work out to notability or deserving of an encyclopedia article in my book. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is not a matter of just deserts or personal opinion — it is instead all about being noticed. The subject's achievement is documented in several real books and so it is notable. There is more to be done here and it is our editing policy to persevere rather than deleting. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems at least marginally notable, as per this] LA times article and the mention in Letterati. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we are clear, it is a passing mention (one sentence) that refers to Robert Watson, with no real detail about the person at all beyond his profession and that he won scrabble tournament once. There is nothing of substance in that article to build a biographical article, do you disagree? I await your response. PlusPlusDave (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - per Colonel Warden.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; seems at a similar level of notability as many other articles about reasonably obscure people have gone unchallenged - I see nothing which makes this different. Krollo (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom 14:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Mullie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) What is this, spam? It sure reads like spam. Or an over-glorified curriculum vitae. I see nothing to suggest that this person is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources to support this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vanity and commercial puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete He does not appear to be notable, and some of the claims in the article are overblown. For example the article claims that he "introduced" Lasik in 1993, but in fact he did not invent the technique, nor was he the first to perform in it Canada. According to this article at canada.com, his clinic's only "first" was to withdraw from the Canadian national health system and operate as a private clinic doing cataract operations. He has some listings at Google Scholar, but their citation levels are modest, nothing to suggest he is a leader in his field as the article claims. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali İhsan Sâbis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not significant coverage. Fleeting reference. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable per this and this. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per basic common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All generals are notable per WP:SOLDIER and common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. True, the article is too short. But it is no reason to delete it. In the future, it can be expanded. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has only proposed a merge, and no other user has argued for deletion. See Help:Merging for info on starting merger discussions. (non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again (Retro Grave album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Merge into artist's article. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please discuss a merge on the articles talk page (non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barilari (English And Spanish Versions) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Album itself does not merit an article of its own. Suggest: merge into the artist's article or make a new discography section. See WP:NALBUM TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep - Nominator is suggesting a merge which does not require a discussion at AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn so there are no arguments for deletion aside from one !voter. Also, this is now a different article from the one nominated. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Guinea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This entry is merely a list of redlinks to non-notable establishments. Runs afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination Since this discussion began, the original article has been obsessively realigned into a very different direction and the original concerns regarding WP:NOTDIRECTORY no longer apply to the replacement article that has since been built. Therefore, the original AfD nomination is no longer applicable and is being withdrawn. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"obsessively realigned into a very different direction". LOL its barely any different to the list it started with!! Exept it now includes other buildings and has some sources to back them up and has more blue links. It is still exactly the same "directory" type of list which was the reason you nominated it for deletion, the only thing is you and others have unsavory views on hotels and see them as travel guide material not encyclopedic. Well Novotel Grand Hotel de L'Independance, Conakry and Hotel Camayene clearly show they are notable buildings. I agree that a list of buildings of all types is more encyclopedic but I think there are thousands of hotels missing from wikipedia which certainly have sources beyond travel guides to make them encyclopedic. I think a truly comprehensive encyclopedia like wikipedia would treat major hotels in any city or town as churches, mosques, palaces and other notable landmarks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, when it started it was a massive directory of redlinks to various African hotels in each country, there was some traction in the argument that not every country automatically deserved a list of its notable hotels. Now it's a set of lists of the most notable buildings in each African country, you would have to be crazy to try and argue that there are NO notable buildings in a paticular African country. The focus is now on content and which buildings deserve to be on the list and therefore not suitable for Afd discussion. Bob House 884 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody seems in a rush to close this discussion, I can't resist a comment. I agree with all the above. WP is not a directory of hotels or travel guide. But Conakry has several notable buildings, as have most cities. The AfD has caused certain obsessive editors to restructure the list and start several new articles - it has been productive. But the redlinks or stubs in the spin-offs badly need fixing - more stubs are not the answer. I blame this mess on whoever started it or got involved later. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't true. most of those hotels have multiple mentioning in google books and this is a poor African country too so books about them are not going to be in the thousands... Red links means nothing in terms of what is notable, and given the extreme lack of coverage for this part of the world I'm working towards building it up. The major landmarks and hotels in every country are notable buildings and people actually visit such pages on a daily basis and find them useful. Buildings in such countries are extremely poorly covered so anything towards working towards building up content in this area is a must. No we are not a directory or a travel guide but this is no different to a list of parks in a city or list of theatres etc and they are useful as resource building material and as a quick reference. Bad faith nom 4 minutes after creation. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "multiple mentions" are just a line or two in three travel books relating to a single hotel. I don't know where it says that "major hotels in every country are notable buildings" - is this Wikipedia policy? Whether people visit these pages and find them useful is irrelevant to this particular article. And calling this a bad faith nomination is, on its own terms, a bad faith statement. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again your comment illustrates you are clueless about this topic. Most of the entries have coverage in major journals and African economics and business papers. Most of them I've selected because of this and I think they are notable buildings and wikipedia is better off having a mention of them. Some of the hotels are discussed in publications about French colonial architecture in the 1950s for instance and things like that..♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should cool off accusing each other of bad faith AfDs and 'cluelessness' Bob House 884 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD just four minutes after creation.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the references to these hotels in multiple publications indicates that they are notable landmarks. Major cities have tens if not hundreds of hotels and small guesthouses, most are likely not notable. Lonely Planet etc generally only restricts what it mentions to the most notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently in favour of a delete, for reasons which ironically Dr. Blofeld has given ("given the extreme lack of coverage","extremely poorly covered") but I'm prepared to give some time to see if anything comes of this. I think the best approach to this is to make articles actually about the notable hotels, rather than just assuming notability for 'List of redlink hotels in country X / Wikipedia's travelguide' Bob House 884 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was the idea... To start the most notable ones at a later date.. Its a gaping hole of wikipedia's knowledge... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is not LonelyPlanet.com and the fact that these hotels exist does not, in any way, make them notable. The name calling by the article's author is not helping his cause. SanchiTachi (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling? What name calling? You claim "per WP:NOTDIRECTORY" but the fact is we have thousands of lists like List of record labels: 0-9 which are nothing more than a directory and could probably all be deleted by this "criteria". If we did not accept any "directory" type information then we would not have any lists on wikipedia at all. The fact is some people find lists like this useful as a starting point. Hotels are extremely poorly covered on wikipedia because there seems to be this "NOT DIRECTORY OR TRAVEL" guide when actually a lot of them have decent coverage in books and architectural/historical books which could make them encyclopedic worthy. Lists of buildings are generally accepted on wikipedia. Maybe if I was to move this to List of buildings and structures in Guinea to include things like mosques, churches, bridges, monuments, universities etc it would be accepted. My work on this list is part of a wider effort I'm putting into developing African buildings on here as they are extremely poorly covered. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference between the article you've cited there and the one you've created is that when List of record labels: 0-9 was created, a good number of the record labels on the list had articles which had existed for 2-3 years, some had been around longer. The starting point needs to be creating articles for the paticular individual hotels, rather than investing effort in making long and useless lists of hotels without articles. Once there are enough articles on hotels in general, it may be appropriate to create a list of hotels, and once that gets unmanagable then start listing by country or continent, (although i notice you seem to have turned List of hotels into a list of countries). Most hotels, I'm sure you'll agree, are by their nature non-notable as they tend to be small privately owned businesses, and the service they offer is inheritly transitory, so they are rarely likely to be the subject of major commentary unless operate some revolutionary business model, are the location of some major event or have some groundbreaking USP. If you want to improve wikipedias coverage of hotels, you should pick out some key hotels which you are knowledgable about and which have a great amount of coverage and write good articles about them, nobody will object to this. If at some point there is enough coverage of hotels then we'll be able to introduce a decent quality list of hotels, but that might take a long time. The starting point needs to be articles not lists imo. Bob House 884 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the list is more encyclopedic as a list of buildings in general. The info on buildings in Guinea is going to be tight anyway in books... But the top hotels in any capital city and any major city in my view are worthy of coverage if the sources exist. I will begin creating some articles on Guinea buildings shortly, as long as they are decent stubs. i believe we should be drawing up lists for each country like this, highlighting which buildings are notable and creating articles on them. I think generating lists like this for each African country would be the best way to start a coordinated approach towards this, the articles can easily be started at a later date. Its all part of the building process.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I see the article is now, very reasonably, expanded into List of buildings and structures in Guinea. (I was asked on my talk p. to come here, btw, and I'm glad to have found out about it. I would not necessarily have said keep here if it were just a list of hotels. ) The criteria for inclusion on a list like this is that the items have Wikipedia articles or are obviously qualified for them. Few of the items now have articles. Almost all are however qualified for them. (we normally do cover major hotels, though possibly some of these may not be major; we consistently do cover major hospitals, and we cover cathedrals, etc.)) Lists like this are a very practical way to get new articles, and Africa is an area where we very much need increased coverage. Strong keep rather than keep, because I consider this an important principle, and one important for the key mission of increasing the geographical areas where we have good coverage. It's not just important for increasing the scope of encyclopedic information--it's even more critically important for the essential mission of encouraging new editors from these areas. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Dr. Blofeld has created a number of 'List of hotels in country X' articles which were similar in content to this one when it was nominated. It is likely that the nomination was a test case for speedy deleting the other articles. Since the nom, the focus of the nominated article and its name have changed completely (although it is still largely a redlink database), however the articles which this AfD may have been a test case for have not been changed in a similar way. It may be appropriate to close or restart this discussion. Anyways its probably best for everyone to notice the major change in focus since the discussion began. Bob House 884 (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Dr. Blofeld has moved all 'List of hotels in country X' articles to 'List of buildings and structures in country X' articles and will continue developing them...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Most of these buildings are presumably notable: multiple sources, plenty to say about them, and of interest to readers who live in the country or are visiting. A list, as in "See also: List of buildings and structures in Guinea", is a good way to encourage browsing. DGG has a good point that the redlinks are useful in encouraging new editors from a country with very poor coverage. These are subjects that are simple and uncontroversial to write about, good for a newbie. When the list grows large enough, perhaps it should be split by city. That is common with the USA and UK, and seems maybe a better split than by type of building, although I do not have strong feelings. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Not much of an article. But have to start somewhere.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are never very exciting, although useful. This list will become more useful as the redlinks turn blue. I may start one or two entries, but the editors who live there will know more, have better access to sources and can do a better job. I hope they will correct my mistakes, add missing information and generally improve any rough attempts I make. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a random sample: Cathedrale Sainte-Marie is the biggest Catholic church in the country, Presidential Palace (Guinea) is the equivalent to 10 Downing Street or the Élysée Palace, Monument du 22 Novembre 1970, Conakry commemorates an interesting historical episode, and Ignace Deen Hospital tells me not to get sick in Conakry. These are crude, poorly written and poorly researched starter articles, but they show notability (apart from the Presidential Palace). Can the nominator identify any buildings in the list that are not notable? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scope has been expanded and some articles started to demonstrate that Conakry does have some notable buildings, even a few notable hotels. Is "obsessive" a bad quality in people building an encyclopedia? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Obsessive" behavior is never a good quality, especially among hobbyists who spend endless hours on this website. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Would somebody please close this AFD??♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Magazine Effects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a repository of school essays. While this piece would make a fine essay for an English or social studies class, it's outside the encyclopedic scope. It's very heavy on synthesis about trends and effects of magazines on teens; Wikipedia is not a repository for such original research. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom, also obviously goes against WP:NPOV Bob House 884 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. These are difficult claims to prove, and most of the arguments presented here seem to rely on post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies. Could some of these arguments be listed as criticisms in the teen magazine article? Sure. But, a criticism and a claim of scientific validity are different things. This page seems to imply the latter. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Teen magazine. Teen magazine could certainly use a section about the social significance of teen magazines, and there appears to be some worthwhile, sourced content here. Right now that content is buried in a pile of conclusory NPOV text that's inappropriate for Wikipedia, but if legitimate information about commentaries and studies of the subject could be ere incorporated into a section of teen magazine, with proper in-text attributions to make it clear that the conclusions are those of the commentators, it could be a positive.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'll quote the rationale I used when I prodded it on March 10: "This is a pursuasive essay; it is meant to make an argument, and as such is inherently non-neutral." LadyofShalott 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even though some of the content might be incorporated into Teen magazine. Personally, I believe teen magazines are very good for teenagers and could write an essay proving that to be the case, but it wouldn't belong here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legio XXIV Caesarian Rapax Victrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Legio XXIV Nikopolic Fortis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Multiple Hoaxes. Sheesh, where do I start? First, I looked at my copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary 2nd edition, & couldn't find either unit mentioned. Just to be sure, I looked at both G.R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (Cornell: University Press, 1969) & A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1986), & nothing in either. (There is a Legio XXI Rapax, but its history doesn't match what is written in the article on that unit; I can find no mention of any Legio with the title "Nikoplic Fortis".) Furthermore, neither article has any decent sources offered. While Legio XXIV Nikopolic Fortis has a couple, a citation consisting of "Tacitus, Annals" doesn't let someone with a copy of Tacitus' work verify anything in this article, & by this point I don't believe his claim that Stephen Dando-Collins's book says anything remotely to what appears in these articles appears -- & in the remote case something does, I'd want to know what sources Dando-Collins cites so I can verify those. Lastly, the style of both articles lead me to think they were written under the influence of excessive stimulants.

I'd use PROD or CSD to cleanse these sores from Wikipedia, but other editors have already tried that remedy & the tags were removed. Nor can I use them because they're not obvious hoaxes: the numbering & naming of Roman Legions are hardly common knowledge. I don't know anything about this editor & I should not be such a meanie-butt, but I'm fighting the urge to just indefinitely block this joker for creating -- & protecting -- two hoaxes like these. I hope, if not one other Admin thinks he's unsuitable for Wikipedia, he never tries shit like this again. -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as possible hoaxes. The author of the Legio XXIV Caesarian Rapax Victrix article blanked it in this edit: [1] justifying a speedy deletion per WP:CSD G7: blanked by only author to make substantive contributions. The only edits by other authors were minor technical ones. In the Legio XXIV Nikopolic Fortis article, the author did not blank it, so it needs to continue the AFD. A google book search through the claimed reference found no mention of this legion: [2],[3]. Was there a Legion XXIV? Some Google Book search results (none in English) imply there was, but did it have anything in common with the description in this article? There is a modern Roman Legion reenactor group in the US called "Legion XXIV." Edison (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At one point Rome had as many as 30 legions in the field, but only one were assigned number above XXII. (That exception is Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix.) What happened was when the Emperor (or his flunky assigned to the task) raised a new legion very often the numbering would start over with "Legio I"; this duplication led to a large number of Legions up to about X who had to be distinguished primarily by their surnames, which led to confusing many classical historians. In short, as far as I can determine there are no legions with ordinal numbers from XXIII thru XXIX; but I listed these nominations here in case there is someone better versed in classical history than I. -- llywrch (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, while surfing the Net idly, I came across this translation -- in progress -- of the relevant articles from the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neither unit is mentioned, but I believe the translation is incomplete. In any case, the Realencyclopädie (otherwise known as Pauly's Wissenschaft) is the ultimate authority for many Classical topics so I'm providing this link to everyone else for future use. -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless cast-iron sources can be produced, which seems impossible. I agree entirely about style, this clearly wasn't drawn from the sort of reference sources that we would expect for an article of this sort. The 24th is alleged to have survived as a continuous formation for six centuries. I think not. AJHingston (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per the detailed and convincing argument made by the nominator. As noted by AJHingston, the alleged longevity of Caesarian Rapax Victrix is a good hint that it's a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BigDom 14:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Race to Nowhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. The contester's rationale was good enough so I have undeleted the article and placed it on AfD instead. No vote from me. JIP | Talk 19:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and allow continued work. While the original article was indeed an unsourced stub ( I can suppose the author never heard of working in userspace), a news search finds the film being discussed in depth and detail in multiple reliable sources[4] thus meeting the criteria at WP:NF. It definitely has WP:POTENTIAL, and WP:ATD encourages that it be improved to meet that potential. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources.--BelovedFreak 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; seems notable enough and is referenced in many external sources. InverseHypercube (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article now has several citations of reviews in reliable sources. Indeed I consulted this article after seeing the film referenced in Slate. Easchiff (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The film appears to be culturally significant as part of an overall educational reform movement. Clearly it needs improvements but its continuing touring status makes it worthy of a decent source of reference. MariaMitchell (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Many of the "keep" !votes are dependent on adequate sourcing of the entries in this list. However, given the contentious BLP nature of the material, it cannot remain without sources. I am willing to restore the page if someone is willing to source it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of current United States governors by religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as a necessary article. It is just a copy of the list of current United States Governors re-organized by religion with no references. There is no list of current United States Senators by religion so I don't see how this article is necessary. Aaaccc (talk), 15 March 2011 (UTC)

FTR, see Religious affiliations of current United States Senators. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I understand the concern about these sorts of lists. We certainly don't want a proliferation of lists made simply on the basis of some arbitrary criteria. I worry about how frequent such a list would be updated, if it'd be kept accurate with others, and just the general use of time spent on maintenance of hundreds of nearly identical lists. One simple list that's sortable is much easier to manage, keep upto date, and read. Note too that this article's an orphan, which only highlights why concise, encompassing lists are ideal. All of that said... this list is well put together and the topic is certainly one that's discussed--it's not OR. I would prefer some consolidation of personal characteristics of governors, etc., but absent that, this list makes the cut. I do think we should be careful about how wildly we let this kind of list-criteria grow, for the above reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Religion is not a sufficiently notable feature of Governorship for it to merit a separate article. MLA (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A textbook case of unencyclopedic cross-categorization WP:NOTDIR.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't have an issue with the topic — I think it's encyclopedia-worthy. What I find objectionable is the lack of sourcing. Carrite (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An irrelevant list that has no value to an encyclopedia. SanchiTachi (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a bit of hyperbole don't you think? I'm one to argue against gratuitous lists (see above) but let's make actual arguments. Shadowjams (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if sourced - interesting and useful to our core constituency, students. Religion in politics is a relevant public policy issue in the United States. However, I agree with Carrite that sourcing is a BLP issue here. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no references what so ever, and from looking at the articles on these Governors most of the claimed religious affiliations cannot be proven by sources. Aaaccc (talk), 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of current United States governors. List of current United States governors by age also should be merged there. Both religion and age are encyclopedic facts about these people, but that does not make these facts an appropriate basis for stand-alone lists. More significantly, given the volatility of religion as a topic (and basis for personal attacks) in American politics, categorizing politicians by religion gives me the heebie-jeebies (i.e., it's a BLP issue). --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of current United States governors per Orlady. Per same arguements, merge List of current United States governors by age to that page as well. Neither is suitable to be stand-alone list.--JayJasper (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and strongly so. Scholars of American politics are increasingly paying attention to religious dynamics. This is an article that needs to be IMPROVED, not deleted. Tchicken7 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. My concerns are expressed above. This is a serious matter of concern both to political scientists and to members of the general public. I'd like to see sourcing, obviously, but the article is fully encyclopedia worth, particularly given its status as a list rather than an article. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete leave it to the individual pages for each governor. Mtking (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Shadowjams. Gage (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rickshaw (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable fictional band, mentioned in a "cult book by unknown author" (see talk page). Obvious hoax, but speedy declined WuhWuzDat 18:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious delete, invented. Hairhorn (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for something someone made up one day. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - oh dear, if there is any notability for the book,^{[dubious – discuss]} someone can write an article about the actual book. A fake band biography article is not the proper way to discuss the book in any case. LadyofShalott 23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus to delete. BigDom 14:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Tobey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems like a clear WP:BLP1E to me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Seems non-notable even when renamed --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• concur, Elen of the Roads, therefore am changing the title of the article to "Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest" so its notable content describes a nationally (and possibly internationally) significant event rather than being a BLP. Certainly the protester's name is being widely listed outside Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandelver (talk • contribs)

• Please note - renaming the article during an AfD should not have been done, also it will not prevent the AfD for running for seven days. Please do not move the article again. Please discuss notability here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, you are totally wrong there. Read the instructions on WP:AFD: "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, and can make the discussion difficult to track." --this change at the beginning of the discussion neither confuses the discussion, nor preempts any possible closing decision, nor makes the item hard to track. We frequently make name changes at AfD when it clear that the situation or the article would be clarified by one. (e.g. from John Smith to Murder of John Smith) You're an arb, so your opinion carries extra weight especially when BLP is concerned, and you should therefore be more careful about the way you cite policy. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly the AfD should run for seven days or according to accumulated input from users who post to it, as should all AfDs. Which is why related discussions have been made sure to be included here. The initial titling of the article should not have been done. Thank you for the note on procedural conventions, Elen of the Roads. - Pandelver (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is still a BLP about a person who is not notable; name change doesn't change this fact. SMP0328. (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Living people are described in the course of all human events included in Wikipedia articles; the article is not fundamentally a BLP, and the short details describing the protestor's general role in society is not complete enough to warrant being considered a biography; just as it might be said US Deputy Secretary of State "James Steinberg is the son of a jeweler" (New York Times article) and his academic degrees, positions, home town and current location are commonly cited incidentally in all kinds of literature.

  This article is a notable protest event and national phenomenonological history including on-going consequent actions of national attention in national news beyond the citations used within the article, and much of its content to date was written with attention to this editorial perspective after the name change was made early in the content placement timeline of the article when it was realized that the initial title was incorrectly named.

  However, here's another option, which you can use as comprehensively or partially as you like: from your own POV, you might delete personal references of particular names of people involved if you find that leaves the protest event and legal, social, communications, body art, and other aspects clearer in bas relief.

  You are also invited to propose better article title emendations in light of its focus on the protest; the current title is rather long though accurate while capturing the key features which are sought in Wikipedia article ordinary search by typing into the article title box at the top of Wikipedia pages. Pandelver (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• SMP0328., I view Wikipedia as an active collaboration, and after all, despite the terms 'users' and 'editors' used for what we do in common parlance, after all we are in fact rather much writers, avoiding copyright rote duplication of extant published items, and being careful to cite sources for all we write and rewrite and revise in each other's writings. So I quite sincerely invite you again to collaborate on a larger article which you may consider not only notable in the instance of a particular event, but in the context of a series of events, a movement, or a set of legal issues. The article can certainly, and I expect will, with other writer/editors over time, treat not only legality but perhaps more importantly the sociology and also communications phenomenology which are notable in whatever topics you and I and others in the chain compilation precedents of the best of Wikipedia can produce. Writer/editor users in each of these and probably other fields would likely end up contributing over the lifetime of such a larger-scope article. Your judgment in defining its initial or prospective scope would be valuable. If you are punctilious about the contents, all the better for Wikipedians, writers and readers and users of its content, keeping the article, or portions of it to which you attend, to a high standard of veracity, neutral position, and worthiness in some of the criteria of the several fields of knowledge to which it may speak. I am thus more eager to hear how you would like to expand material, especially items you consider (whatever others may opine) as smaller nuggets of larger topics. Please do tell, as is asked earlier below, and further asked with respectful collegiality here, what you feel makes a good article on this topic, not the individual, and how you would like to collaborate. Since this may be your greater contribution in these regards. With warmest fellowship, particularly on St. Patrick's Day, regardless of religious, mythological or humanistic stances, Pandelver (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge if SMP0328. and others (I am also willing to participate) create an even more robust, more general topical article, including in structures in which the current article becomes a subsection, or if a more cogent extant Wikipedia article is recommended

  otherwise Keep - Pandelver (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• see new section below, "Add Japan Radiation Detected at O'Hare Airport Chicago customs" to potential expanded article" for continuation of this part of the discussion - Pandelver (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article now moved to Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest with Aaron Tobey now become a redirect to Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest Pandelver (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Correct term for use in title: 'Naked Protest' is being used in national news; should it be the biocultural term 'Dermographic' instead?

  Opinions, please? The article will now use both terms in its body copy to clarify that 'naked,' which is variously interpreted by different people, does not mean full-body 'naked.' Pandelver (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note: further discussion can be found in the article's Regular talk page for Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest where discussions began before the posting of this AfD entry Pandelver (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC), including on how notability relates to article titling and information appearance in other Wikipedia articles.[reply]
• CommentTalk:Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest Moved this AfD proposal from the later duplicate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest to this pre-existing proposal under the article's original name. A redirect from the earlier title ensures that all users will find the same article even after its name has been updated..Pandelver (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if this event is notable, it certainly does not deserve to be a separate article. It is only a single protest at a single airport by a single person. SMP0328. (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there a better, more comprehensive extant article on this topic, SMP0328., or would you like to write one in which this article would be included as a case, as there are other similar protests, though perhaps few enough for you to survey in a categorical topic of its own? Which other airport/ dermographic/ civil rights/ Fourth Amendment/ or particularly TSA policy cases would you have in mind? Pandelver : Discussion  Pandelver (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Add Japan Radiation Detected at O'Hare Airport Chicago customs" to potential expanded article or additional article to which this one will be linked at the detail on one of the say dozen most notable cases? There's great material in this article today, breaking 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima I nuclear accidents news to be included if the Aaron Tobey event article becomes expanded, or is kept as a separate article but linked to a new broader topical article on US airport passenger search and scanning regulations and practice and public responses:

• Comment Potential merger or keeping as detailed case along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't touch my junk and/or addition of general topic article? As current news reports on these 2 events already often mention each other? - Pandelver (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly not even a notable single event. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. OlYeller^Talktome 21:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Plainly not notable --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just a news story. If desired, a few sentences at Richmond International Airport or somewhere would be OK I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the fact that the title is "Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest" makes me think that this event is so insignificant (note, bizarre does not signify notability) that no one has bothered to give it a proper title yet. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major news coverage, involvement major long standing issue, no BLP concerns because he most certainly was not trying to be private. I see the objections as "i don't think it should be notable". DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My reasoning takes a slightly different route to that presented by Elen of the Roads, with whom I nevertheless do not disagree. I would say that the 'event' (I would have characterized it as a 'stunt') wasn't notable at all given that no legal precedent has been established as a consequence. Ergo, not even WP:BLP1E, but rather WP:NRVE for promotional activity, WP:NTEMP for the relevant activities being entirely temporary, and WP:SPIP for self-promotion, given that a person's name, not an issue category, is the title of the article. Finally, there is the matter of WP:ADVOCACY, with the entire article giving a disproportionate prominence to an inconsequential activity or set of activities when editors and contributors are specifically enjoined to consider 'proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge', particularly since 'Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations campaigns, even for worthy causes'.

  The activities that are the subject of the article could be characterized as political activism, but are not presented as such; the article is named after a single individual, not after a category of activism. Moreover, the article does not mention an outcome, such as a legal precedent, so the activity described has no status beyond being a stunt to draw attention to an individual (self-promotion) or a favoured interpretation of the law (advocacy). That a law suit or series of them have followed is a matter of routine, not notability. As such, the activities described have no bearing even on legitimate Wikipedia articles about categories of law.

  In terms of self-promotion, I see no reason why the particular individual whose name is included in the title, should be given any coverage in Wikipedia. A single act of defiance is not notability, otherwise anyone who ever defied the law anywhere in the world would be entitled to a personal entry; that's plainly ludicrous.

  Without wishing to impugn the motivations or unnecessarily probe the identity of the article's originator, I must nevertheless pose the question: how far removed from any pecuniary or personal interest in this matter is the originator? This goes to self-promotion.

  When I say 'pecuniary', I mean particularly in terms of the legal outcome of cited law suits, and therefore fees, charges, settlements or possible damages awards. The question must be asked because the article itself might be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome(s) of what appear to be ongoing law suits. Wikipedia cannot be drawn into legal controversy on anyone's behalf.

  When I say 'personal' I mean family or relationship ties to the named individual, association with any relative or organisation representing that individual, involvement in any contest, paid promotional activity, or private prank (standing to gain, for example, from 'bragging rights': 'most outrageous article on Wikipedia ...' or 'made Aaron cringe ...', etc). This is a difficult topic since anonymity seems to be a byword at Wikimedia. However, assurances or even some forms of proof can be offered privately (by email, for example), and might go some way towards removing doubt about this series of questions.

  Finally, a note on the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a social forum, it is not a vehicle for interesting discussions or preoccupations. It is not subject to individual whim and sentiment. It is not a news outlet. It is an encyclopaedia. It deals with knowledge, of which certain events and individuals form a part, but only as they relate directly and significantly to a branch of human knowledge. Personal wishes on what should constitute notability are not considerations that can or should alter the meaning of that mission. The article in question refers to a name and incident(s) that have no significant impact on any branch of human knowledge, with the exception, perhaps, of 'pranksterism'. It is an article mentioning trivia that may be considered newsworthy by news media on the basis of a temporary controversy, but that does not make it worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. The encyclopaedic mission is not subject to consensus or democracy, otherwise the People's Republic of China, by the sheer weight of numbers it could bring to a vote, could censor every article, alter any topic, and subject the entire Wikipedia to party doctrine. That would then be the end of this grand endeavour. So let's be sensible about what we are here to do, and let's not engage in contrarian behaviour for the sake of it.

  It is for all of these reasons that I politely but firmly reject the arguments so far presented here by Pandelver and some others in support of keeping or expanding the article, even under another name.

  Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  04:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Peter S Strempel asks: "how far removed from any pecuniary or personal interest in this matter is the originator? [presumably of the article, not of the act of the protestor or the designing of that act or succeeding acts]"

  Answer: entirely removed. no pecuniary or personal interest. Do not even express any opinions concerning: (beyond Wikipedia) validity in law, philosophy, policy, or assessment of airport security fact of the protestor, the news media, or any critics; whether the protest is admirable, damnable, or interpretable in any other way; TSA, US, community, technical, or international policies regarding the issue of passenger search. So neutral POV not only in the text of the article, but regarding the article, assessing only notability of the phenomenon, particularly by virtue of: sociology, law, culture, media (not just news reports, the layers of the media involved, from dermographics to the use of media, including the intent and subsequent public media expressions and uptake of the protestor, generational history (significant here, but not opined as good, bad, long-term random or stochastic).

  Note that in the "text from other articles" is suggested a first major potential contrary view to the apparent view of the protestor: that the safety issues which prompted the form of current passenger search policy adopted in the US outweigh the claims of this protestor. Without comment on either's relative persuasiveness in its advocacy. A good treatment of the topic would disinterestedly survey all significantly relevant opposing and complementary views and aspects of a social phenomenon.

  Other aspects which we might examine in the event (not in Wikipedia editors discussion it), especially as you raise the question of promotion by the subjects, include among others the promotion achieved by the Rutherford people, the counterweight attention on the various airport authorities which their publicists as well as core policy strategic planners (not for purposes of promotion, but as policy) could use, because of public attention, in asserting the prudence of their procedures; the unincluded input of pilots (such as the one who delayed a recent flight to allow a grandfather to get through to the plane after arriving 2 hours (beyond recommendation) early but got stuck in line while on his way to see his grandchild a last time before the grandchild's life support was turned off -- in that case the grandfather was a Northrup Grumman employee who desperately sought help with the line from various agencies at the airport, so self-promotion of employment affiliation (not considered flagrant) was part of his appeal for help in speed or delay, and he was not told until he got to the gate that the pilot had taken matters into hand); of mechanics, security staff whose lives are also risked in close encounters with passengers who have/ have not been searched in various ways.

  Thanks to Peter S Strempel for raising an important editorial issue. I trust all our colleagues discussion this article and any related to it will sustain pursuit of neutrality in their work as well. One thing that's important, as articles on events at Wikipedia are fundamentally choices in phenomenology, is to include in their discussion the multiple POVs of users in the particular span of fields involved, such as, in this case, from legalists to visualists to moralists to political observers to engineers, semioticians, social investigators, anthropologists, the concerns of at least, so far, Japanese and Americans. - Pandelver (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Peter S Strempel continues:

  When I say 'pecuniary', I mean particularly in terms of the legal outcome of cited law suits, and therefore fees, charges, settlements or possible damages awards. The question must be asked because the article itself might be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome(s) of what appear to be ongoing law suits. Wikipedia cannot be drawn into legal controversy on anyone's behalf.

  When I say 'personal' I mean family or relationship ties to the named individual, association with any relative or organisation representing that individual, involvement in any contest, paid promotional activity, or private prank (standing to gain, for example, from 'bragging rights': 'most outrageous article on Wikipedia ...' or 'made Aaron cringe ...', etc). This is a difficult topic since anonymity seems to be a byword at Wikimedia. However, assurances or even some forms of proof can be offered privately (by email, for example), and might go some way towards removing doubt about this series of questions.

  Finally, a note on the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a social forum, it is not a vehicle for interesting discussions or preoccupations. It is not subject to individual whim and sentiment.

  Wikipedia is not in its denotative articles a social forum, though social fora are often themselves the topics of Wikipedia articles, as the names of WikiProject task forces themselves attest regarding social fora topics. Many Wikipedia articles discuss a great deal of connotative, contextual, and interdisciplinary aspects of their topics. Which reminds us that 'discuss' is a verb for what even one author does in the course of statements with herself, not only in multiperson dialogue with other authors and with readers.

  Wikipedia IS a vehicle not for discussing (as in a forum) but (choose your preferred verb) reporting/ noting/ publishing/ describing/ examining/ relaying/ paraphrase reprinting interesting subjects, and as a general encyclopedia, it might be said of all kinds.

  Wikipedia, as its discussion pages show at very first glance, and much which is vetted and revetted in articles including their existence and winking in and out over very long time periods (think 100 years, not a month) like the choice of what's included in previous encyclopedias, is rather highly subject to individual whim and sentiment.

  That the negation of some of these practices is a highly valuable ideal, among many competing ideals in a popular encyclopedia popularly edited is also true. We are, of course, in our current historical period, different regarding opinion from works such as Britannica, particularly critically acclaimed for its 1911 edition in which the opinionated, notably well-written abundance of articles by named individual authors who were prized or famed at the time or subsequently is part of a more self-conscious encyclopedia editorial tradition in England and in that publishing house which even in etymology recognizes several layers of the nature of opinion, particularly about facts. - Pandelver (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Peter S Strempel says: It is not a news outlet. It is an encyclopaedia. It deals with knowledge, of which certain events and individuals form a part, but only as they relate directly and significantly to a branch of human knowledge.

  Wikipedia is a pan-historical news selection engine. In articles on events (like yesterday's FR-UK-US war on Libya), newly discovered species, recently deceased biographies, and other categories, there are even templated notices used to alert readers to the fact that the quick stream of on-going news is affecting content in the Wikipedia article, in some cases on a minute to minute basis. Of course, all knowledge relates to branches of human knowledge, more significantly than others. Current and live perception is part of the memory and cognition package which is human knowledge. We may be in this pan-historical sense one of the superlative news conveyors, outlet if you like, not ultimately a free for all if sometimes apparently one along the way, but inclusive of the latest verifiable discovery as well as many many claims of discovery (especially when we report them as such) on presumed prior knowledge, such as archaeological digs and theories on the origin of the universe. - Pandelver (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Peter S Strempel says: Personal wishes on what should constitute notability are not considerations that can or should alter the meaning of that mission. The article in question refers to a name and incident(s) that have no significant impact on any branch of human knowledge, with the exception, perhaps, of 'pranksterism'. It is an article mentioning trivia that may be considered newsworthy by news media on the basis of a temporary controversy, but that does not make it worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. The encyclopaedic mission is not subject to consensus or democracy, otherwise the People's Republic of China, by the sheer weight of numbers it could bring to a vote, could censor every article, alter any topic, and subject the entire Wikipedia to party doctrine. That would then be the end of this grand endeavour.

  What a wonderful statistical observation on the People's Republic of China, in several ways, including the implication that one place in which its citizens might participate in world reportage alongside the Great Firewall would be to all register as Wikipedia user-editors, Peter S Strempel!

  Is voting, while taking account of statements/ arguments/ judgment not what we do in parts of Wikipedia such as here in AfD, most users imprimateuring the discussion with a verdict such as Keep, Merge, Delete or in other fora Yes, No, Unsure? Have there not been some strenuous and valuable discussions of censorship, official, effective, or user cross-deletion here at Wikipedia in the last few years? Are our articles not constantly altered according to the literary and subject-related meta-doctrines of each editor? Is consensus not cited within Wikipedia policies and guidelines as one of the criteria for decision? - Pandelver (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Peter S Strempel says: So let's be sensible about what we are here to do, and let's not engage in contrarian behaviour for the sake of it.

  It is for all of these reasons that I politely but firmly reject the arguments so far presented here by Pandelver and some others in support of keeping or expanding the article, even under another name.

  An excellent post, thank you for raising so many cogent questions for us all, Peter S Strempel! - Pandelver (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Run-of-the-mill non-event, this is what WP:NOTNEWS or even the dreaded WP:BLP1E are designed to prevent; crap that causes a minor stir in the news for a short time, then fades to obscurity. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not the newspaper. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as much as I deeply value the fourth amendment I don't think that Mr. Tobey (or his recent libertarian-striptease performance) is quite notable enough for an article. No prejudice towards recreation if he does something to rescue himself from the dreaded BLP1E category. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP1E, and a pretty minor event at that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment & continuing keep I was asked at my talk page to change my !vote, but, looking at the discussion, my opinion remains that this is a significant event and well documented. We have sometimes applied oneevent in a way that makes us look ridiculous, this is one of them. It was intended to keep out the sort of purely local or momentary trivia that gets reported anyway, and material about people who happen to be victims of crimes or accidents.I do wish Pandelver had given a somewhat less elaborate defense--in my experience such defenses going make to general principles of public policy and equity and potential worldwide influence tend not to be helpful. We are only Wikipedia. And therefore Strempel's arguments about monetary gain from the article being here seem very farfetched--it is this sort of attack on an article from speculative grounds that looks excessive and tends not be be very helpful either. . DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just to make sure it is noted when this is closed...closing admin, do not count "continuing keep" as another vote, as this person has already weighed in with a keep earlier. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep/renamed as event BLP1E/ONEEVENT are not by themselves (as the nominator nods to) reasons to delete. With respect to WP:EVENT,

  Lasting Effects? I give this a firm maybe, depending on what happens with the lawsuit. Not clearly "yes", not clearly "no."

  Depth of coverage? A little non-news coverage, not much: [5]

  Lasting Coverage? as per Lasting Effects.

  Diversity of Coverage is weak but not entirely single-threaded. (There's a lot of the AP report, but a few sources are independent.)

...none of which is pushing me hard in either direction. This strikes me as borderline. In judging borderline cases, I look to balance two factors: the potential harm done by keeping the article vs. the potential for the subject of the article to further demonstrate notability through lasting coverage and/or effect. As I see no verifiability or privacy issues in play, and as I see the lawsuit as a plausible potential catalyst for the demonstration of greater notability. Thus, weak keep. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- textbook one-event nonsense. Wikipedia is not a tabloid news service. Reyk _YO! 07:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total non-event (dude searched at airport, charges dropped, didn't even miss his flight). Fails WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. I suppose if this ever becomes a catalyst for major legal reform or something, we can always revisit the issue, but that seems pretty unlikely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Windom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No major/notable awards or notable positions; only IMDB listing is "music supervisor" for one short. Article appears to be written by subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is mostly important-sounding text that doesn't really bestow notability on Amir Windom. One example is right there in the beginning: he went to the same school with two famous people. Then he worked with two famous labels. He's friends with Kevin Liles... seems to me that this guy's got good connections but no notability. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete old-style vanity article for a person whose career, to put it as kindly as possible, has been less than spectacular (the IMDB link being especially telling) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see nothing here that meets WP:GNG criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Omkarananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject is not notable; has been deleted before Jweiss11 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- none notable swami with very few news hits pointing to completely different individuals with the same name. Article seems to read a little like an ad or a resume for a number of nn individuals. It is also a re-creation of deleted article, so please Speedy delete and protect page. Wikid^as© 02:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Recreation of a non-notable article that was previously deleted. Proper avenue is deletion review, although the article is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deletion declined. I have declined the speedy deletion nomination of this page under criterion WP:CSD#G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion", because the current version is significantly different to the version that was previously deleted. This is not a comment either for or against deletion of the current version, about which I have no opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cant speak to how different this is from the previous version but this version makes little claim of notabilty and is severly lacking in references. Not finding significant coverage in independent sources myself. RadioFan (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Junior's unofficial mascot owl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The player himself is of course notable, and so is the incident, as it has much news coverage. However the owl itself does not have secondary source coverage established. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 17:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 19:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 19:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the incident is much better covered (and well referenced) in Luis Moreno (footballer), while this hopeless substub can't even get the basic facts right: "Junior's unofficial mascot owl is an owl which was the official mascot..." Huh? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but who are you calling "hopeless"? You are Deliberately misquoting the title - It reads "Junior's unofficial mascot owl is an owl which is...". This seems to be the standard format for articles on here - eg, "The Great Grey Owl or Lapland Owl, Strix nebulosa, is a very large owl, distributed...". As for the argument that it is the owls in general which are the unofficial mascots rather than this specific owl - clearly this owl is one of these mascots, thus is a mascot. The owls are not what they seem! Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Owl was not listed on the team card, therefore cannot be said to have played in this game, therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL subject specific criteria. Owl has not received in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG requirements, in fact does not seem to have received any coverage at all outside this WP:ONEEVENT. Wikipedia is not WP:MEMORIAL, Owl's involvement is more than adequately covered at Luis Moreno (footballer) and the current title is an unlikely redirect so delete rather than merge.--ClubOranje^T 19:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no evidence that the dead owl meets any of our notability requirements. Also, the article is misleading when it states that the dead owl was the unofficial mascot of the club - other sources report that all of the owls living in the stadium are unofficial mascots of the club. Jogurney (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable owl which fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The subject receives sufficient coverage at Luis Moreno (footballer). Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - owl is not notable in its own right and the incident is suitably covered in the player's article. For the record, "owl-kicking incident" must be one of the best subheadings ever on a WP article :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This owl is more notable than a small entry on the footballer who kicked it! Jill Dando is more notable than whoever killed her! John Lennon is more notable than Mark Chapman! SAVE THE OWL. Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - woah. Reminds me of the time when I was sixteen or seventeen, and had been to a friend's party. I'd got quite drunk, and so me & another friend decided to walk the eight miles home, rather than crash on the floor. About halfway home, my friend found a dead owl in a layby, and stupidly kicked it. Does that poor owl deserve an article? We could call it something like The dead owl that GiantSnowman's friend once kicked while drunk...GiantSnowman 12:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me that your friend kicking a dead owl was not reported in any news sources. So no, it doesn't. As regards Junior's unofficial mascot owl, that is an entirely different affair, and there are hundreds of news articles about this poor owl. Your argument is full of mess-ups. Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have not been any news articles about the owl. There have been hundreds of news articles about an incident involving the owl, which is quite different -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to team or individual player article. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - delete, although I guess a merge to the team would be fine as long as it isn't given undue weight in the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, redirect or delete. Whatever the case this does not merit a standalone article, and it would be unprofessional to have this standing alone. It's not notable in itself and the incident is covered well in the article about the football player, where it rightly belongs.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is an un-named owl, one of many at the stadium, and therefore cannot be considered notable. Scarecrow47 (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, but the facts could go in team or player article, but briefly. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Russolillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Football player who has not played at a fully professional level, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The other two articles for their current squad don't appear notable either and the club article could do with a serious overhaul. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He fails WP:GNG, and the Italian fifth division, the only league in which he's played, is not fully pro, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT also.

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. I can't seem to find any good references about this subject. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability and doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 19:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As this is a "soft" delete due to insufficient participation, anyone may request restoration of this article at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zaboor-e-Sukhan(the Psalms of Poetry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

the references provided are blogs, self publishing sites, pakistani pages more appropriate for a different WP, or dead links. the author doesnt yet have a link to an urdu WP article. so this book has no references showing notability. I have notified the creator of the need for more accurate material, and the response on his user page was cordial but didnt make sense. This article would need to be massively rewritten, and trimmed (unless he actually is a highly well known and critically respected poet in Pakistan, which i doubt) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not positive what you mean by "pakistani pages more appropriate for a different WP," but it's perfectly acceptable to use pages written in a foreign language or hosted in a foreign country as long as those sources meet WP:RS. None of the sources appear to meet WP:RS though. I don't see anything on a quick google to indicate that this book is notable and it probably should be deleted, I just wanted to point out that there's nothing inherently wrong with foreign language sources. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, i was frustrated that since these sources didnt appear reliable, i had no way of knowing for sure (im pretty sure though). as long as someone with knowledge of the language can confirm such a source is reliable it can stay. I can sort of tell, if its from, say , an official govt site. As a 95% monolingual american (some ability to read spanish, german and similar languages), i have a highly unprofessional bias towards english only sourcing (I try to edit a bit on some european language wp's to overcome this bias). i fully acknowledge that its not required here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As this is a "soft" delete due to insufficient participation, anyone may request restoration of this article at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arham-ur-Raahimeen (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another book by this author where none of the past or current external links show notability. author does not even have a listing on the Urdu WP (at least one that is linked to from here). I have notified the creator of the need for providing better refs, and the same sort of refs keep getting added (blog, generic library listings, etc). we know the book exists, all 28 pages, but no one has shown notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anwaar-e-Hira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As with 2 other books from this author ive listed today, this articles references are not reliable sources, and do not show notability outside, perhaps, a small fan base. There is some indication of notability for the author in Pakistan, but i have my doubts about that, as no one has linked an article on the Urdu WP to here. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but its still a problem. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the citation and references about this book and give some time for searching about other 2 books.Thanks a lot.(Husainzaheer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husainzaheer (talk • contribs) 06:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked all the references and citations, and while i fully acknowledge that this book exists, and that it may very well have some notability in Pakistan, I could not see any clear evidence of its notability from the english language references. All we would need is a review in a english language journal or newspaper that reports on Pakistani culture or Urdu language issues, a mention by a professor of the works notability (in english), or some equivalent. I would suggest that if there are no references in english, that someone create an article for the poet and his works on the urdu wikipedia first.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know that Mercurywoodrose is commenting in good faith, but with all due respect, that editor misunderstands our notability standards when it comes to foreign language sources. This is the English language Wikipedia of the entire world, not the (much more limited) Wikipedia of just the English language speaking world. If a topic is notable in Pakistan, then it is notable everywhere. Notability can be established by reliable sources published in any language. If sources are available in both English and in other languages, then those in English are preferable for use in an article here. If reliable sources are only available in Urdu or any other language, then they are perfectly acceptable to establish notability here. Whether or not an article on a given topic exists in the Urdu Wikipedia is not relevant to whether that article should exist on the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think i wrote something above that i now see is incorrect. I meant to say that i dont see any sign of notability of this book in pakistan, or among urdu speakers, based on links provided, AND that i cant find reliable english language references either. I suspect the work has a very low level of notability in pakistan, but i cant tell if it really makes the threshhold for a separate article here. I respectfully disagree that i dont understand for lang notability standards. while i dont regularly try to edit articles where the references are primarily foreign language, i can recognize blogs, wikis, and self publishing sites in most languages. all the references provided for this article are from such sites. If one of the references looked even remotely like a website for a newspaper, or a respected journal of the arts, i would probably have simply tagged it as needing more refs, and acknowledged that since i cant read urdu, i shouldnt worry too much. I have been checking all the references for all the articles connected to this poet, and all i know for sure is that he seems to have gotten an prize from the pakistani govt for at least one of his works, (or maybe for his body of work). that may make that work notable (assuming that the award is given to a select few, and isnt itself a trivial award, designed to make people feel good), but not necessarily the others. and, if someone editing this article can read urdu, why cant they simply find a good urdu language reference, instead of wiki/blog/social network sites instead? we dont need to have an article at the urdu wp, i know. so, i guess, ill say it this way: no reliable sources provided, or found, to assert notability of this book.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Learning Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

not notable, see WP:BAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanoceadd (talk • contribs) 23:11, February 28, 2011

• Fixed malformed nomination. lifebaka++ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Billboard has covered this children's music group calling them noteworthy, some PBS thing, and one of their videos. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Just add more external verifiable sources, but notability sustained. Smithsonian (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see any indication that this band passes the criteria in WP:BAND. Not signed in a major label, no third-party references, etc. Ingadres (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – meets WP:BAND criterion #1, per the coverage found by Whpq, as well as this in the Hartford Courant, this in the The Times (Shreveport), this in The Bradenton Herald, this in Uppermichiganssource.com, as well as several articles in School Library Journal. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why these sources are not included in the article? And, if the band is notable, why is there almost no information about it? It could be written from the sources you mentioned. Ingadres (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Razor (live) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is not of notable subject enough to be included on Wikipedia. It is for a limited edition song that was only released for download on iTunes, and was not actually included on any of the artist's official albums.mjgm84 (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom. Please close seven days after 13:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found nothing in reliable sources regarding the live single. I was curious if the song itself might meet WP:NSONG, as the studio version is the closing track on the band's In Your Honor album. While brief mentions exist in album reviews (e.g., [6]) and live performance recaps (e.g., [7]), I can find no significant coverage.  Gongshow ^Talk 00:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per the above. Do it. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants this userfying, leave a message on my talk page. BigDom 13:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Sheringham & Cromer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Topic fails to meet WP:GNG and no amount of time to fix the article will change that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and probably should have been PRODed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. This should be moved to userspace as an early draft as it currently has no useful content. Lists of bus routes can be encyclopaedic, although expanding the area to cover the North Norfolk local authority area would probably be better. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's no content here. I would support an article about bus routes in the area and even more strongly support a bus routes article for the region per Thryduulf's comment above. MLA (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lists of bus routes are of no enclyclopedic value. WP is not a directory or guide.--Charles (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists of bus routes can be encyclopaedic, and when well done are neither directories nor guides. See List of bus routes in London for an example of what is possible. Note I'm not saying this list is of that standard, but that it is possible for lists of bus routes to be be valuable encyclopaedic lists. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Finish on a user page I am the creator and I will finish this page on my user pages so I support deletion. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Both the nomination and the lone delete !vote are based on WP:USELESS. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in East Anglia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete This page has no use at all!!!!!!!! Highhousefarm1 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom. Please close seven days after 12:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep or at worse merge into Transport in England which strangely does not mention buses at all. -84user (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete we don't need this directory. Better for it to be a category. 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator has failed to cite any policy as to why this should be deleted. The arguement of "make it a category" is redundant, per WP:CLN. A perfectly valid top-level page that links to the other articles. Lugnuts (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It could do with some prose, but I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't have an article with this title. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This pages has lots of links to it. It is not a directory so why should it be deleted? Wilbysuffolk (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WE ARE LOSSING THE REGIONS WORTH OF GOOD PAGES ABOUT TRANSPORT. WE NEED TO SAVE IT NOW!! Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This page should really be a prose article covering all forms of transport in the region with relevant links embedded in sections, something like Transport in Buckinghamshire only less skewed towards railways. Keep anyway, since no policy-based reason for deletion has been given and there's potential for improvement. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; certainly an encyclopædic subject, I think - covering transport for a whole region. The current article content is poor, but can be rescued - that's best fixed with normal editing rather than deletion. As others have said, it needs prose. bobrayner (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The nominator of the AFD and the screamer near the bottom of the page are one in the same; that is, they are both  Confirmed socks of Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs). Taking those socks away, there leave no consensus for deletion. There is no prejudice from renomination by a good faith user, however. –MuZemike 02:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Stowmarket & Needham Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete This pages has is a type of directory and other pages such as List of bus routes in Sudbury, List of bus routes in Haverhill and List of bus routes in Downham Market which are of the same type have been deleted. Highhousefarm1 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom. Close seven days after 12:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR We're not a list KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 17:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually if you read WP:NOTDIR and Wikipedia:Featured lists you'll see that your comment is entirely wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete we don't need this directory. A category would be more appropriate. 22:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC). I actually want to vote !keep on this article. Bus routes are notable in their collective format. No objection to a merged article referring to the region - which in this case is central Suffolk. 22:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep or merge/expand scope to cover the region. Lists of bus routes are encyclopaedic in their collective form, and this list has the scope to cover the history of the routes and public transport provision that directories and travel guides do not. If those wishing to delete this article actually cared to read WP:NOTDIR they will clearly see that this does not match any of the types listed there. That other articles have been deleted (some of them dubiously) does not mean this one should be - see WP:WAX. Lists such as List of bus routes in London and List of bus routes in Greater Manchester show that these types of lists can be encyclopaedic, so it needs to be explained why this list is not. While it is clearly not yet of that standard, this list (or an expanded one) clearly has the scope to be, and we don't delete pages because they're not as good as they could be. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep THIS IS NOT A DIRECTORY. You don't delete stuff because it should be better. All of the routes I have listed are well served by notable companies. This could also be merged into a bigger page about bus routes in Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. All the list of bus routes I have made and that have been deleted I have saved the code for re-use on that page. I want to make sure it will not be deleted though. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WE ARE LOSSING THE REGIONS WORTH OF GOOD BUS ROUTE PAGES. WE NEED TO SAVE IT NOW!! Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no evidence of notability. Just because wikipedia is an encyclopædia doesn't mean it should list every trivial detail. I would also point out that these lists can be quite difficult to maintain. bobrayner (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bus route lists are no more or less difficult to maintain than many other types of list, so that shouldn't be a consideration. I don't know what you would consider to be evidence of notability or non-triviality for bus routes, other than they are the only public transport for most of the area, and have significant history. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability guideline explains notability. The bus lines have a shorter history than my house, but that doesn't make my house notable. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is what makes something notable. I will happily switch from delete to keep if somebody can show substantial coverage of Stowmarket's bus routes, collectively, in independent reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The nominator of the AFD and the screamer at the bottom of the page are one in the same; that is, they are both  Confirmed socks of Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs). Taking those socks away, there leave no consensus for deletion. There is no prejudice from renomination by a good faith user, however. –MuZemike 02:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Ely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete This pages has only 12 routes and other pages such as List of bus routes in Sudbury, List of bus routes in Haverhill and List of bus routes in Downham Market which are of the same type but longer have been deleted. Highhousefarm1 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed nom. Please close seven days after 12:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete per WP:DIR We're not a list. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep bus routes in east anglia. One delete on bus routes in a history of keeps and we're losing an entire region's worth of articles. MLA (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lists of bus routes are of no enclyclopedic value. WP is not a directory or guide.--Charles (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge/expand scope to a list covering a larger area, List of bus routes in London, List of bus routes in Greater Manchester, List of bus routes in Derbyshire, etc all show that lists of bus routes are of encyclopaedic value. Ely is a small settlement with few bus routes, so ideally the list should encompass a wider area. However it is well established that while individual bus routes are rarely notable, collective lists of bus routes do have a place in a comprehensive encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia. Travel guides and directories do not format their lists of bus routes like this, nor do they have the scope to detail changes or history (this doesn't yet, but could easily do so - there is no deadline), so this page is not a directory. Indeed if the delete voters actually cared to read WP:NOTDIR they would see that it does not match any of the types listed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep THIS IS NOT A DIRECTORY. You don't delete stuff because it should be better. All of the routes I have listed are well served by Stagecoach. This could also be merged into a bigger page about bus routes in Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. All the list of bus routes I have made and that have been deleted I have saved the code for re-use on that page. I want to make sure it will not be deleted though. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WE ARE LOSSING THE REGIONS WORTH OF GOOD BUS ROUTE PAGES. WE NEED TO SAVE IT NOW!! Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BigDom 13:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Homeopathic Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Written as an advertisement. Notability of organisation is at best very low, and reliable sources sufficient to write a balanced, neutral article are likely insufficient in number. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it reads like an advert at all, but even if it did, that would be an argument for editing, not deletion. This body is notable, unfortunately. It campaigns, as the article says, to have quack medicine accepted and paid for by the National Health Service. News coverage is extensive, for example [8], [9], [10] and the organisation has given evidence to Parliament [11]. Keep Emeraude (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unfortunately. Huge number of results in Google news and web, despite existing solely to peddle quack remedies and misinformation. Douglasi (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the leading UK body promoting the practise of homeopathy and long established. Notability cannot be in doubt. The absence of neutral articles on campaiging bodies is hardly surprising, and remember that most of what has been written about this body will not be on the web. Whether we agree with the BHA is not the point. AJHingston (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep - An organization that has been around for more than a century is notable, plain and simple. How's that for an easy, shut-yer-brain-off sort of generalization? Inclusion does not constitution of endorsement of a group or its views. Carrite (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Please no horrible dilution/deletion puns. cab (call) 07:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. National, historic, relatively well-known organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per above Keep comments.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Historical notability of homeopathic approaches to health/medicine would be hard to dispute. Would add that whether or not one likes a person, organization, practice, policy, religion etc is not especially relevant. Tchicken7 (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BigDom 13:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot particle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced and unreliable physics article. Has had reference request tag for more than 3 years. Information at plutonium suggests this topic is being presented with an erroneous conclusion. meco (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems, at best, a neologism for some form of radiation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither a neologism nor a form of radiation. Please read the article again. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I added references to two peer-reviewed papers on the topic of the danger of hot particles. That should satisfy the sourcing requirement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, expand and improve. Google Books and Scholar searches for "hot particle"+plutonium show plenty of evidence that this is a notable topic and not a neologism, unless you consider a term introduced 37 years ago (Tamplin & Cochran 1974) to still be a neologism. Qwfp (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Qwfp - sources exist. A lot of sources say somethign about a "hot particle hypothesis" or a "hot particle problem", so it would be nice if the article had some mention of this. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is much improved, with numerous sources. The content as well has been expanded and clarified, and hopefully misunderstandings of the text such as made by the delete voter above should be less frequent. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was hoping that this nomination would engender what three years of maintenance tags couldn't, and it did. __meco (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nadar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saanar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reason Lindamd90 (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC) The article for the caste Shanar or Nadar already exists(Nadar). The Nadar article is more appropriate and properly referenced. I kindly ask the wikipedia editors to remove this article which contains no references at all. It is also redundant to have two articles on wikipedia about the same caste. Thank you.Lindamd90 (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge any useful content to Nadar, per nom. Casual Googling suggests that this article's title is another word for the aforementioned article, and the aforementioned article is in vastly better shape. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to remind the admins that the Saanar article is fraught with original research and looks more like a blog. It is not at all encyclopedic. The article doesnt contain anything useful or true. Thank you.Lindamd90 (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect' to Nadar - no need to delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is pronounced 'Shanar'. Not 'Saanar'. The title itself is wrong.Lindamd90 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect' to Nadar - "Saanar" is the valid pronunciation (There is no "Sha" in original Tamil, it is written using a grantha character) Sanaar is written as ”சாணார்” and pronounced as such by a lot of people--Sodabottle (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - per CSD G12. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Non-admin closure.[reply]

Douglas D. Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Copy-pasted from the Utah St. website. Depends solely on one source, and does not indicate notability. Suggest a redirect to Utah State University. MobileSnail 05:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is a resume. It even cites a PDF of Mr. Anderson's resume as a reference. No. I suppose I'm okay with a redirect, if only because I don't see any harm in that, but my bias is toward deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete The page is an unambiguous copyvio of this. A few sentences have been moved around, but not reworded, which still makes it a copyvio. Tagged as such. Ravendrop 08:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom 13:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie the sequal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, the article is completely unreferenced so even if it was noteworthy of an article at this time it fails Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. elektrikSHOOS 05:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article was also previously PRODded by me, for more or less the above reasons, but was contested by an IP. This isn't really a reason for or against deletion, but it felt notable enough to mention. elektrikSHOOS 05:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Misspelled and very unlikely title for future movie which remains unannounced for now. How many times do we have to say it; wait until the network actually issues a press release before creating an article. Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to first film's article (after renaming to Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie Sequel). IMDb recognizes it as a project in development. Last real news seems to be this, mentioning the intent to start filming this summer. Per the notability guidelines for future films, it is too soon to have an article. The early details can be included at the first film's "Sequel" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Problem is, anyone with the right amount of convincing can add an entry to IMDb, so I'm inclined not to believe it as there is nothing besides a title in the entry. I prefer that actual PR from the studio confirms it before we get anywhere near developing an article. Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects are cheap, and if it is on IMDb (a pretty popular website), it may be searched for. We can move the page history later to whatever the official title turns out to be, if filming does begin. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. There is no major official news yet. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator JDDJS (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CloudBuddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Ad. Moby-Dicktatorship (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This software product apparently relates to Amazon.com's web data storage service. Unambiguous advertising: comes with a rich set of features making it an easy to use client. No showing of any significant impact on history, technology, or culture for this product. Should have been speedied. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was speedied. --Moby-Dicktatorship (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clear advertising, no evidence of notability. Personally I would have speedied it under WP:CSD#G11. Hut 8.5 16:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G11. Ingadres (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to South Side High School (Rockville Centre, New York). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red&Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable school contest. Strikerforce (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge verifiable statements to Southside High School and redirect. The list of events is completely unneeded. LadyofShalott 03:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Shalott. Only about three sentences are necessary. tedder (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge much of this information would be more appropriate on the school's site -- not an encyclopedia. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 11:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notabilty. The merge target suggested above would presumably be South Side High School (Rockville Centre, New York) which I would have no objection to. MLA (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Good work by JHunterJ. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Dupuis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no sign of notability. ceo of a company does not make you automatically notable. article does not say much else.. Tracer9999 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It didn't say much else, but you didn't give me much of a chance to work on it. I have expanded it, and will try to look for more sources. BOZ (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Preliminary merge to Grey Ghost Press--her notability appears to be mostly linked to that company, and I can't find anything to support her independent notability so far. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Fudge (role-playing game system), which is the only article with substantial information. Borock (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as award-nomination and regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors (WP:AUTHOR). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JHunterJ - thanks for finding another source. BOZ (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Fudge (role-playing game system). The only independent source cited is a blog, which in general are not considered reliable sources, thus insufficient to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a personal blog. It's a professional blog by a peer organization, which works per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. Also, the Origins award nomination source is a reliable source, even though it's not independent, per WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is still being constructed, so I would like the rescuers a few more days to find better sources. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unstated in my last comment is my thought that it should be merged if the sourcing not improved. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY due to improvements by JHunterJ et al. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madeira regional football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD removed, described as 'a bit iffy'. Team is not notable, article is unreferenced. Contains speculation about what would happen if a proper Madeira team existed. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claim of notability. 4 games in over 50 years doesn't suggest this is a notable team. MLA (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable team that represents a minor region. GiantSnowman 13:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A representative team which has done nothing of note. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yap football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD removed. Reason for removal was 'this one seems a little iffy for a prod and should go to AFD, if desired'. As I stated in the PROD, the team is not notable. They are a state level side who may have competed at the Micronesian Games as the individual states of Micronesia do enter separate teams. The editions that I can find any information on make no mention of football being one of the sports played, and the only working link relating to games played - the rsssf link - says at the top that the tournament was called the 'WCTC Shell Soccer Exhibition' suggesting it was maybe an 'exhibition' sport rather than anything official. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claim of notability. A sub-division of Micronesia is a remarkably small part of the world. This team doesn't compete at any level. MLA (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable team that represents a minor region. GiantSnowman 13:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A representative team for a small region which has done nothing of note. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that the body selecting this team has any widespread authority, and so the team has no grounds to claim that it is representative. Kevin McE (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails on notability criteria. Zanoni (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to B.T.R. (album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Count on You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONGS - can't see any evidence it was released as a single etc -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NSONGS. I originally thought that this was a single but this is not the case. Should be redirected. MobileSnail 00:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable song fails WP:NSONGS. Redirect to B.T.R._(album). Incidentally, being a single would not make the song notable (see WP:NSONGS). - SummerPhD (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually should be redirected - I'll do it, and request closing of this AfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love_Grown_Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

WP: PROMOTION WP: NOTSOAPBOX WP: LINKFARM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillianmassa (talk • contribs) 2011/03/01 19:55:58

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While the article was poorly written, It is salvageable. I have done some serious editing, paring out a bunch of cruft concerning the owner's bios, fixing up the refs (which are mostly from reliable sources, The Aspen Times mainly) and generally removing the promotional tone. In regards to the claim of a link farm, I do not see what you are referring to as the only external link is to the company web site, which is a standard thing in articles about companies. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep they seem to have enough local/regional attention. i agree the article is crufty and promotional, but that can be fixed, as jerem43 says (havent checked his work yet, ill assume good faith until tomorrow when i check). added a ref myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. There are enough third party sources that give significant coverage about this company. Ingadres (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz Wingert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced BLP, notability unapparent. No German article for this German philosopher. Don't see how he meets WP:ACADEMIC. bender235 (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lutz Wingert No longer a {{BLP unsourced}}, should now meet WP:ACADEMIC

As someone working with Wikipedia:WPURBLP, I just put in eleven citations for the Lutz Wingert artcle, several of which were for books that he wrote. I also rewrote the lead section

He is a Professor of Philosophy at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, is considered a "Third Generation" member of the Frankfurt School, & is a former chair of practical philosophy at the University of Dortmund. I think Die Zeit considers him one of their "go-to" philosophers. Peaceray (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentThank you for adding this material. However, I don't think this shows that Wingert meets WP:PROF. Sure he has published books and even two newspaper articles and he has debated Wolf Singer (which does seem to indicate some notability, Singer wouldn't debate just with anybody). However, all academics publish, that's what they do. The important point is whether their writings have any impact. This is not evident here. The references that you added are to his university pages and to one single article that just mentions him in-passing as one of the third generation of the Frankfurt School. So while I appreciate your efforts, I feel they fall short of showing notability here. --Crusio (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep. Has a GS h index of 7. Might just be acceptable for a low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep The cited information seems sufficient to me to establish notability. His winning the Karl-Jaspers-Förderpreises der Stiftung Niedersachsen (Karl Jasper prize(??), the article in Le Monde Diplomatique and the zeit online refs all seem to help. I have also added a ref to the 5 page review by Gunnarsson of Wingert's Gemeinsinn und Moral in Philosophy & Social Criticism - (Logi Gunnarsson Review essay : Dimensions of morality: Lutz Wingert, Gemeinsinn und Moral: Grundzüge einer intersubjektivistischen Moralkonzeption (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1993) Philosophy & Social Criticism January 1997 23: 125-130) (Msrasnw (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment Keep Added a number of citations, so please re-examine if you have not read it recently. Besides being a co-author with Jürgen Habermas (who also cites Wingert in his own work), Wingert also edits the Ideen & Argumente series for Walter de Gruyter, helped chair the Political Theory - Habermas and Rawls in 2009 & is co-chairing the Rhetorics and Therapy conference this March. P.S. Google Scholar lists his Gemeinsinn und Moral as being cited by 54 other articles. Peaceray (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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