< 4 August	6 August >

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Psycho (Dr. Dre song)[edit]

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

The song has not even been released yet, meaning there is no chart information. Most of the sources are very unreliable (Blogspot, Twitter, Wikipedia, YouTube.) The article contains info that one can easily merge to Detox. Article also contains potential fancruft. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Concur with the above. Also, the small amount of material that has been cited with reliable sources would be better suited in the article on the song's album, Detox (Dr. Dre album). Dan56 (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reminds me of the creation of Under Pressure (Dr. Dre song). So many sources claiming its released but it never happened. Therefore, it was redirected to the album article. No use having an article created for a song that has yet to be released (ot possibly never been released at all). --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Detox (Dr. Dre album) — Seeing as it could still be released, I think the best thing to do is redirect it to Detox. ℥^nding·start 23:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Detox (Dr. Dre album). If song achieves notability for own article, it should be created at The Psycho, which already redirect to the album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with above. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a single. 50 Cent is notable. So his singles, too. It talks about 50 Cent's verified twitter account. It's notable source. Mtv.com is an notable source, too. Also, hiphopdx.com too.--Duke^{ϡ»» ileti ^^} 05:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's one thing that they say that the song will come out, only to keep themselves relevant. However, when the song is never released, then there is no point in having the article. Like I mentioned, the same went for the article Under Pressure (Dr. Dre song). Many tried to make the song "notable" when it was never officially released. At this point, there doesn't seem in having the article for a song that never got released. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 06:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duke, are you even familiar with Wikipedia:Notability (music) or even Wikipedia:Crystal ball? An artist's notability has no effect on the notability of his/her song articles. Esanchez is right; unreleased songs should not have their own articles, because then you are making a bunch of speculations, which is where the crystal ball comes in. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:46, 18 August 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. causa sui (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There Is Some Fun Going Forward[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. 10 pages of Google results shows only this third-party source, which is trivial coverage. PROD was denied because apparently someone has paid a lot of money for this and the owner of the record label is himself notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable record release (the label's only sampler) on a notable (and incidentally very collectable) record label, established by an extremely notable and influential person. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Notability isn't inherited. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Ghmyrtle. As the only sampler on this label it's worth noting. Dandelion was one of the most esoteric UK labels of the period, and anyone reading up on it would have an interest in knowing what tracks were selected for the comp. As evidenced by Gary Lucas's comments the sampler had much wider distribution than most Dandelion releases, reaching the USA. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:06, 5 September 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) 00:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HarryPotterFanFiction.com[edit]

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

I cleaned this page up and added an image but there only really seemed to be one actual reference on it. It doesn't seem like it is notable enough to be a page on it's own and it should either be deleted or merged into Harry Potter fandom. DisneyFriends (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There may indeed be notable HP fanfiction sites, but this is not one of them. Coverage of one fanfic author in an article that never mentions the site is not coverage of the site, and the book that the site "spawned" is a pay-to-publish book from Lulu, so totally worthless for notability. No coverage, and Alexa rankings are not a measure of web notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable media mentions. If we started accepting Harry Potter fansites entries, Wikipedia's numbers of articles would sky-rocket. There doesn't seem to be anything specifically special about this one fansite.

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Noble Cortes[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. There are a few trivial mentions in Billboard here but nothing confirming that he won their AOR Major Market Air Personality of the Year. J04n(talk page) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm frustrated by the snippet view in Google Books (but not quite enough to plunk down the cash for a used copy at Amazon) but there is a published book from 1982 that lists "Ken Noble (KLOL, Houston) Air Personality of the Year-Album Rock (Major Markets)" in a list of Billboard winners. (I've added the reference to the article.) - Dravecky (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Walter, Claire (1982). Winners: The Blue Ribbon Encyclopedia of Awards. Facts on File. p. 142. ISBN 978-9-997-52251-1. Retrieved August 6, 2011.
Withdrawing nomination, I believe the award is sufficient for notability and now that it's verified...good work Dravecky. J04n(talk page) 10:07, 6 August 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. @pple complain 21:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Rescue HQ[edit]

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

This application is non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. The only reference is the website of the company who made this product. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:INDY, and WP:GNG. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:25, 7 August 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) 00:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar, Dunn & Company[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, re-created article previously deleted as both a copyvio and and prod. Note restored copyright material has been deleted again MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Another global management consulting company advertising on Wikipedia. Their actual expertise is apparently in credit card payment processing. You won't get that clearly from any of the older versions with the copyright violation left in, either. Possibly an interesting business, if they'd share with us something they actually know we might find a place to at least mention them; but this always has been a vaguely written PR puff piece that manages to ignore their actual strength, and as such doesn't leave many constructive options. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Possibly might meet it, but the article has no enclyclopedic content that would be lost if deleted instead of waiting for the possibility of awaiting a real article and evidence of notability. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The closest and only thing I found notable was this mention here, but that's simply announcing that they have a new CEO. I didn't see anything else on both Yahoo! and and Google. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the author of the article. I realize that the current form isn't so great, but I'm trying to actually edit the thing so that it's not a copyright violation. If I can't get the article in line with the other management consulting related articles within the next week, then I'll nominate it for deletion myself. In the meantime, I'd like to point out that enforcement of Wikipedia rules regarding notability and advertising are pretty inconsistent for the management consulting articles. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 13:24, 8 August 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. per consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Sinagra[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:POLITICIAN: he was never elected to the House of Reps, and being one of six people on the council of a borough with a population of under 2,000 certainly does not satisfy criterion #2. Nearly all GNews hits are extremely trivial - most of them aren't even about him but rather about various other people with the same name, and many of the others are his own letters to the editor. JerZee, who is almost entirely responsible for this article, appears to be the subject, making this a vanity page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the Google Books hits are only about two other Joe Sinagras: a patrolman and a fisherman. One opinion article in the Burlington Free Press mentions the politician Sinagra in passing—no focus on him. Self-published sources do not help at all. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Joe Sinagra is listed as a politician.
Who is to decide that population alone is to determine whether a person is a politician or not. (The population is over 2600 currently) The fact is they have held office, and holding that office for 10 years more than qualifies that individual as a politician.
This candidate has been listed on wikipedia since 2005 and hasn't been an issue.
The Sinagra mentioned in the Burlington Press was not mentioned on Wikipedia because he did not meet the criteria for Wikipedia and they would not accept his listing when it was posted.
At the time Joseph Sinagra was listed in Wikipedia all rules and qualifications for the criteria at that time were met to be listed in Wikipedia. If any criteria at that time was not met, there would not be a listing of Joseph Sinagra to start with. How is it after all these years the listing is now being contested?
Is it because this is an election year and an opponent or party is now looking to eliminate any opposition?
Anyone who runs for office on the local, state, or federal level is considered a politician, regardless of whether they were elected or not.
The fact that the Burlington Press acknowledges Joe Sinagra in passing as mentioned, is he is recognized as a politician.
The Sinagra in the Burlington press was the politican's brother who passed away and the other is a fisherman has no bearing on the wikipedia listing of the politican Joseph Sinagra. JerZee (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Sinagra is a politician. There is no question of that. However, he does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability. Being mentioned in passing is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your statement "being one of six people on the council of a borough with a population of under 2,000 certainly does not satisfy criterion." If being elected to a council in a town of 20,000 people would it then be considered to meet the criteria? Regardless of population, the fact a person is nominated to run and then elected to office should be more than enough to qualify them as a politician regardless of what office they have held. As Council President for 7 out of the 10 years, it is similar to acting Mayor. There are many listings on Wikipedia listing Mayors of various towns along with separate listings of individual Council people who have never run for any other office. Does that mean they are scheduled for deletion? JerZee (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any links on Google and Yahoo that could help the article biographically. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, needs independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN guidelines for notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 11 August 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. @pple complain 21:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Island[edit]

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

Educational company with no evidence of notability, border-line spam. Albacore (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, may qualify under CSD G11. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, seems to be the leftover from the elimination of a copyvio from 2010. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless problems are fixed promptly. It wouldn't qualify for G11, because there's clean in the history ([1]; it was pretty much speediable as an A7 at that time, but A7 has traditionally not been applied to schools), but there has been no effort to add any sourcing to establish that this school is notable and it seems quite likely that the series of single purpose accounts who continually copy content from official pages are using it to advertise. Given the fact that advertising copy from the school has been added to this article twice since the article was last cleaned and that the article had 101 spam & copyvio filled edits before that, I suspect that if the article is deleted salting may be necessary to get the various SPAs to listen. Otherwise, they are simply likely to continue recreating the article as primary-sourced spam. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tomas e (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as no actual content: General Company Overview Here.... History and Growth Information on Company History/Growth... Market Market size/share or any pertinent information. &c. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Executive English Solutions[edit]

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

I would doubt this company is notable. –BuickCentury Driver 21:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 6 August 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) 00:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anosh Annu[edit]

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

This musician is non-notable. I can't find anything that shows notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article has no sources and does not establish notability. Warfieldian ^(talk) 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of

Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any good sources on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like self promotion look at the user name of who created it DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 02:58, 10 August 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) 00:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by spoken languages[edit]

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

I have been observing this for a while now and have come to the conclusion that the scope of this list is simply breathtaking. Considering that there are around 6,000 languages on this planet (many of which will have to listed multiple time given the current format), the box at the top asking for a "worldwide view" will have to stay there in perpetuity lest the whole page becomes unmanageable. I therefore think it should be deleted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely encyclopedic and a valuable source of in-links. The tag at the top is ill considered and could easily be removed, in my estimation — this is certainly not an Anglocentric list. A strong need to keep this one for the good of the encyclopedia, in my view. Carrite (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Five pillars says Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Denoting what language is spoken in which country certainly falls within the functions of almanacs and gazetteers. One complaint:It is ill referenced and full of original research and opinion. There are too many world languages listed as "minority" in the US, for instance. Is it based on there being one family, or a tiny community in a couple of cities? Some of these are unlikely to have even .001% of the US population who speak the language. For any language presently spoken in the world, there are likely dozens or hundreds of persons who have come to the US who have some knowledge of it, so it is meaningless to selectively list it for some of these languages which are very rare in the US. There should be some rational cutoff, such as 1%, or even .1% to include any language as a "minority language" of a country. Some countries have "officially recognized minority languages," but that does not seem to be a meaningful criterion in the US. References should be required for every entry to satisfy WP:V and to avoid original research ("My Gramps and Gramma came from Oogerland and speak Oogrish, so I'll put in in Wikipedia as a "minority language.") Edison (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a suggestion to be considered; maybe you could go ahead and write a lede/intro establishing this (admittedly arbitrary) cut-off; it will then have to be enforced, together with the need for sources. By the way, as of now, this is not a "List of countries by spoken languages" — it is a "List of languages by countries where they are spoken". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WOW!?! Good idea, but What is the inclusion critera, and where is its Cite's. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This one demanded time to think about...but... Admittedly, it is WP:UGLY, and currently has very few Cites, but I do believe the citations are out there, and it is not as if there is WP:NOEFFORT going into finding and adding them. There will always be some Templates on this one, but it is encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that there needs to be inclusion criteria and visible sourcing — if not for every line, at least for the main sources consulted. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic and useful; the guideline Edison cites about gazetteer-type info would definitely seem to apply. Any problems with the article (such as the lack of referencing and of a clear cutoff for minority languages) can be solved by cleanup, not deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went to work adding references for the US, and found a 1999 table of the 25 most common languages other than English in the US (Spanish #1 with 17 million speakers, Mon-Khmer number 25 with 127 thousand speakers. But Vietnamese is 9th, and is NOT EVEN LISTED IN THE ARTICLE!. I would add it, but I have no idea how it would fit into the classification scheme. Some variant of Chinese? And why is Amharic omitted? Many cities have Ethiopian communities. Many omissions and a general lack of balance. In a large US city, various people commonly speak a couple of dozen languages, not to mention dialects, within their neighborhoods and among themselves. Edison (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some sort of guideline needs to be established for minority languages. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please keep. It's obviously notable. If it's a logistics problem we could always use a sky lobby deal. like an A-Z links thing with categories of geography or somehing like that. -- 6 7 23:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By rule of common sense alone. If its hard to navigate, then list the languages, and clicking on them link to sub-articles or open up things compressed like this:

English language

America
England
A bunch of nations you never heard of, etc.

Dream Focus 05:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup and reorganize if necessary. Encyclopedic list. Verifiable. A little overwhelming and needs a better presentation. Dzlife (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An exceptional outline with relevant information. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every cosmopolitan country with a sane immigration policy (think all of western europe and the british commonwealth) is going to have hundreds if not thousands of languages spoken, because as soon as you have a single immigrant family moving to the country, you have their language added to this list. A list of countries by the languages they legally recognise might be doable, but that's a completely different list and would require referencing for each of the language-country combinations. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:07, 10 August 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) 00:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eaton & Berube Insurance Agency, Inc.[edit]

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

I don't dare to say it is plain advertising, but it is a clear list of products on offer. About 5000 hits does not give the idea of an insurance company but more of an insurance broker. Severe doubt about notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spamvertisement. I'm willing to throw out that they did win a award, but I personally think its given to *so* many people and companies, that it does not count towards WP:N. Prove me incorrect and I'd be willing to reconsider. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. The only reference is their own web site. Nothing in the text to guess at notability from because it looks like vague self-written PR type material, albeit with an attempt at encyclopedic wording. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All insurance sections could be removed leaving only a history section? Also, an awards section could be added - the company has received many in its community. Sorry - this was my first page submission. Adellacamera (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Alyssa[reply]
- Essential in this case is that the company has significant third party coverage, meaning that others should have written about the company. An awards section can certainly help to proof notability, as long as it states important awards (preferably with national impact). Are you in any way related to the company? Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, if the award is notable then that's all it would be standing on because I didn't find any other sources on Google and Yahoo suggestings other notable mentions. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-You can just delete it. Sorry Adellacamera —Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Too promotional for an encyclopedia.--EdwardZhao (talk) 16:23, 12 August 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. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association François-Xavier Bagnoud[edit]

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

It is relevant? Has promo tone since 4 years ago. Also I think the organization no longer exists. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] \\ 5 August, 2011 [21:11] 21:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News Archive search shows plenty of worldwide coverage in reliable sources. Promotional tone should be corrected through normal editing rather than deletion. Website is active - why does nominator think the charity no longer exists? Even if it has closed, that is not an argument for deletion as notability is not temporary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of real references, lots of content, and content also indicates notability. Don't see why this was nominated. North8000 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Gaming Mafia[edit]

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

No reliable sources for this alleged term. The one citation is from the website of a company on this list. Has been tagged with 'refimprove' since 2008. Googling "dallas gaming mafia" -wikipedia yields ~2200 results, suggesting this is a self-congratulatory in-joke, or neologism if you will, posted on Wikipedia to try to popularize the term. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-dubbed term that, judging by the zero hits at Google Books or the VG/RS search, has not been adpoted by anyone else. Marasmusine (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At first I though it was the name of a clan or something, seems not. Not notable... Skullbird11 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Only hits are unreliable, blogs, forums, etc. The term has not received any notable media attention. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only "source" for this appears to be the one barely-attributable quote given as a reference (The "Dallas gaming mafia," as the group's been dubbed... dubbed by whom?!). Appears to be a hapax legomenon that lacks encyclopedic value. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:41, 7 August 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. Courcelles 01:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RV Braveheart[edit]

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

Seems rather promotional with little coverage on internet and no coverage on News and Scholar. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems unencyclopedic and does have some bias in it. There are also no in-line citations for the article. Also, there are notability concerns. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable vessel operated by a non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep From the content I'm guessing that it could meet notability. Article looks self-written but is interesting. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 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 speedily deleted per G5 by Explicit (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky (album)[edit]

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

Initially tagged a G3 Hoax, but I've declined that as plausible enough for a not-so-speedy deletion. However, the entire article is unreferenced even though the band allegedly making this album is Metallica. Furthermore, the creator is currently investigated as a sockpuppet in a case that looks like an open-and-shut WP:DUCK to me. That means the article may become eligible for a G5 speedy before this AfD is closed. In the mean time, Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:45, 5 August 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Cerruti[edit]

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

Unsourced biography about a DJ/producer who does not seem to meet our inclusion criteria. I deleted an article on this subject in early July as the result of a WP:BLPPROD. It was recreated in late July and BLP-prodded again, and I happened to find it the second time around as well when it expired. Sending to AFD to get a clear consensus so the article can either be improved or future unimproved recreations can be speedy deleted. RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I placed a normal Prod on an article about this person in June on grounds "Unreferenced biography with no evidence that the subject meets the Notability guidelines." - I'm not sure if this is the first that RL0919 mentions or if there have been more re-creations in between? At any rate, User talk:Demonio79 indicated that there had been previous articles about the subject and his ventures, also deleted, so there is a certain persistance. But I again support deletion this time around, on the same grounds as before. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet our rules on musicians at best, and unverifiable at worst. The d/o/b makes me suspicious. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 9 August 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) 00:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ID3 (2009 film)[edit]

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

Originally tagged for speedy A7, but there's a discussion on the talk page about whether or not it is eligible: could be either a movie or a video game. To settle the matter, I brought the article directly to AfD where it could be snowball-deleted regardless. Movie and/or video game available as Web content and whose only reference is IMDB. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, non-notable film/game/transmedia project/advertising tool(?). No sources for it other than IMDB, and a Google search didn't turn anything useful. For what it's worth, the official website listed at IMDB, id3.doritos.co.uk, is dead. —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable film. What also points to non-notability is the dead official website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per C.Fred. Note that this is one of a string of promo articles for Upsetmedia and Brian W. Cook: see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/1234momdad and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/1234momdad/Archive. Gurt Posh (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable.--EdwardZhao (talk) 16:26, 12 August 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clown Nose Club[edit]

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

No significant coverage. According to Google there are only 69 unique hits on a total of more then 45.000 hits, in all languages. And those 69 hits include facebook, twitter youtube and several sites from the involved university. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I added a CSD-G7 tag prior to this AfD. This might be a bit of overkill? Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 as already tagged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD-nomination was in fact a tiny bit quicker then my very cautious AfD. I have no problem with a speedy close to facilitate the CSD. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, the nom does have a point. If some reviews of his works don't turn up I suspect we will be back here again in a few months. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Martin[edit]

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

BLP with no reliable sources. I was unable to locate any significant coverage in reliable sources. Michig (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The titles this author has written can be verified easily enough by visiting Amazon.com, or the Simon and Schuster web site. --Originalmichaelamartin (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's possible for an author to have no coverage yet still be notable by virtue of having created notable works. The WP:GNG doesn't explicitly say so, but Wikipedia:Notability (people) does suggest that this author passes the criteria by having "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he could be deemed notable by having written notable works, but I couldn't find any coverage of his works to show that they are 'notable' by Wikipedia standards.--Michig (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I couldn't either after going through 5 pages of Google hits. Maybe the author himself could provide some sources for reliable reviews. He does have an active Wikipedia account; see User talk:Originalmichaelamartin. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, do you guys read the line above?? 22 books on Amazon.com, bio and books on Simon and Schuster Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of books on Amazon com, and primary sources like the publisher, don't meet WP:BLP notability criteria. Amazon sells a lot of self-published books from vanity presses, too. I'm not saying that's the case here, but the point is that counting Amazon hits isn't a gauge of notability. And a review from the publisher is irrelevant it because isn't an independent source. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considering that this article has dozens of incoming links from other Wikipedia articles, this author is clearly relevant to quite a bit of other Wikipedia content. Peacock (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak weep per Amatulić, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:BARE - he's notable based on his works, like most authors. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If individual works of his are notable enough for articles, and there are a substantial number of them, it's reasonable to assume that he is notable. The article clearly needs improvement to document that, however. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reliable sources in any of the articles about his works. If they were demonstrably notable rather than just currently having articles here (a big difference), there may be a case for keeping.--Michig (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an odd situation. The author states on his talk page that "all of my post-television-series ENTERPRISE novels are notable in that they are the only official, CBS-authorized accounts of events in the Star Trek universe that chronologically follow the fourth and final season of STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE." This is certainly a valid claim of notability, although finding an independent source to verify such a statement would be difficult (beyond the obvious fact that CBS authorized publication of the books). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 10 August 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) 01:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humx electronics[edit]

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

Prod was removed. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very little coverage to be found about this, seems to fail WP:CORP, author appears to have a COI, given their use of the first person in this edit. Quasi human | Talk 19:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 3 year old company with no refs. Didn't look for any refs to be fair, but I doubt there are any. Szzuk (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Neutral Gleanable stuff from their web site indicates that they could probably meet notability.North8000 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC) notability. North8000 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of third-party sources. I didn't see any third-party sources aside from the Humx website on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we should have an article on everything. I say we should keep it just because we need articles on every company, don't we? Oh, we don't? Sorry -- delete Jsharpminor (talk) 23:04, 10 August 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) 01:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Leipzig[edit]

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

Not notable, only coverage is blogs and a local press mention. Appears to be an autobiography (main editor's username matches a url owned by this person). Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
__________________________________

Relevance as noted by critic Jean-Pierre Dubois: http://jpdubs.hautetfort.com/archive/2009/07/06/le-baiser-dans-l-art.html and comparative such as http://jpdubs.hautetfort.com/archive/2009/07/06/le-baiser-dans-l-art.html show significance through inclusion in historical artworks. additional articles not mentioned in NY examiner and artworks and articles in London Street Art Design issues 3 and 7 http://www.londonstreetartdesign.com.

Original post was not by Mr. Leipzig only corrections to biographical references and additions of examples were provided through his studio http://planetzig.com which is not mentioned as to not be an advert. Include.Twistedchrome (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2011 — Twistedchrome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per per WP:BIO. Beagel (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources on Google and Yahoo that could help a biography. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST and needs more sources to pass WP:GNG. Local press can help establish notability, but there's not enough in this case. Lagrange613 (talk) 04:15, 10 August 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) 01:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thai people[edit]

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

Since this list is neither annotated nor sorted and without inclusion criteria, it seems pretty much useless as it stands. There is a category which does this better. Paul_012 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unnecessary list. Joe Chill (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of the wider scheme Category:Lists of people by nationality. What policy does the nominator think this violates? As this nomination stands, it should be closed as no real reason has been given for deletion. "without inclusion criteria" - the title of the list gives the clear inclusion criteria! And the arguement "a category which does this better" fails WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a List of English people so why not Thais? Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Really does need some work, before it get too big to be an easy job, but its allowed via WP:CLN Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am gonna start putting descriptions to names tonight~~.Done. ~~Sorting can come after that~~.Done but needs improvement. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm satisfied that this list is appropriate per WP:CLN, as long as the entries are annotated (and preferably sorted by category), and as long as the entries correspond to existing articles (not redlinks). I trust Exit2DOS will keep up with the improvements. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per all the above keeps. (And the test is never whether an article is "necessary").--Epeefleche (talk) 02:15, 8 August 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) 01:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Dome Productions[edit]

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

The prod was removed. This company fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, apparent self promotion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Didn't find any secondary sources in a quick search. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources found on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 9 August 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) 01:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Da Show[edit]

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

Non-notable local TV show. No significant claims of notability, no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Google search on "Da Show" Louisville shows mainly primary sources, trivial mentions, and social media links. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Niche local program which has to use paid programming time to actually get on the air, and likely is not a ratings smash by any means. Nate • (chatter) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources and no indication of notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I tried a Google search and couldn't find any independent reliable coverage. Even assuming the facts as stated in the article, there is no basis for notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:18, 9 August 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. (non-admin closure) Bejinhan talks 04:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mangels[edit]

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

Unsourced self-bio for non-notable author. Some (unsourced) claims about some works, but not enough to establish notability. Too low profile to be covered by reliable sources. damiens.rf 14:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. He is the author of a substantial number of books and graphic novels. There is also some quality, non-trivial coverage in this New York Times story about gay parties where people dress as superheroes. (No matter how kinky you think you are, could be worse.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow missed the super-transvestite thing... maybe my church's webproxy filtering. --damiens.rf 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dressing up as superheroes is cosplay, not cross-dressing. Don't assume they're transvestites just because they're gay. -22:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The article is lacking in third-party sources, but shows no evidence of being self-written, and the subject's notability can be confirmed (well enough for the purposes of AfD) by his bio at Prism Comics and this interview on the official Star Trek site. The article does need to be tagged for improvement to include proper citations, but does not warrant deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it for rescue. --damiens.rf 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as proven above. Joe Chill (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and please read WP:BEFORE. He is a bestselling writer, you able to easily confirm that. I just added a link to a news article that said that. He gets coverage for being a founding moderator of Gays in Comics panel. Click on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD to find ample coverage about that. Dream Focus 21:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this - the article should have been tagged for notability or proposed for deletion before being nominated, to allow editors the chance to improve it without rushing. Diego (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus. –BuickCentury Driver 21:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing evidence of satisfying the general notability guideline, despite the claims above. The single source actually in the article is to a press release style announcement in an on-line magazine. "For more information, visit www.comic-con.org." There are multiple hits in google news, but all appear to be related to panels, none that are actually about this author? These don't amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. There is this interview, but it's a single piece in a niche publication. (He looks awesome though!) Can we bring some actual sources to the discussion, please, instead of just asserting them? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And the bio doesn't go to notability, as it'd fall under a common-sense interpretation of a self-published source/press release. It's directly associated with sales. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing "significant coverage" -- merely quite a bit of passing mention (generally in the context of Comic Con panels) and a couple of paragraphs (on his views, not him) in the NYT piece. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any "significant coverage" either. Has a bio at Prism Comics? Head on over and click "Submit your profile!" and you can have one, too. Just like Twolfing: "Hey, nice to meet you,I'm Thomas Wolfing from Jordan: a freelance comic writer/artist. ... I hope that I go pro one day, so here I am. XD" Listing yourself in this type of directory is not significant coverage in a independent source, so this does not help meet WP:GNG. Was quoted in one paragraph of a New York Times article? That's not significant coverage. We don't write an encyclopedia article every time a newspaper reporter quotes somebody. We need multiple examples of in depth coverage of this topic for this to meet WP:GNG, we need far better than that to start writing a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons -- we can't just write that somebody is a participant in various gay sex subcultures with no sources whatsoever. Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mere existence of a bio at Prism Comics was not presented as proof of notability, but as a source of information which someone of good faith could read, and use as a starting point for confirming the list of credits. That other guy's Prism bio demonstrates that he's not notable; but Mangels' points at evidence that he is, and that properly documenting that fact in the article would be time better spent than trying to delete it. -Jason A. Quest (talk)

Further comment: I believe the subject's documented self-identification as "a participant in various gay sex subcultures" should be adequate to cover any Biographies of living persons liability. :) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these 2 comments address the need for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does address the spurious accusation of BLP issues, however. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable and noteworthy author.Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment addressing some of the above concerns. An author who works in a niche genre and an activist who works for niche causes is going to be covered almost exclusively in "niche" publications (such as the official Star Trek web site). (The New York Times Book Review doesn't include a lot of sci-fi paperbacks.) The reason he gets that superficial coverage you see in mainstream media is because of his notability within those fields (e.g. If you're a NYT reporter doing an article about gay superhero parties, you call "that gay superheroes guy" in Oregon for quotes). If he were only the moderator of an long-running series of convention panels, or if he were only the writer of a couple dozen franchise novels and a pile of comics, or if he were only the organizer of several fund-raising events, or if he were only the editor of culturally important comics anthology, he might arguably be non-notable, but when you stack all of that up (and document that all of these things are true, as has now been done), it adds up to demonstrated notability. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But still, we can't reliably write bios for people not covered by reliable sources. He belongs the niches. --damiens.rf 13:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Niche" publications can be reliable sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Demonstrated Wikipedia:Notability is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We do not have that here. Instead we have trivial coverage on Wikipedia mirrors, self-published sources, misleading press release claims and what look to be pretty big factual errors. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the cited sources are Wikipedia mirrors or sourced from Wikipedia. The only self-published source is there to satisfy the BLP issue you raised regarding Mangels' self-identity. Please document your accusations about "misleading claims" and "factual errors"; are you alleging that the sources are incorrect or that they have been incorrectly cited? (This is starting to sound more like a criticism of the content of the article rather than whether it should exist.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are wrong on every count here, and exhausting patience. The very first reference currently in the article[2] contains material directly lifted from Wikipedia. Non-independent sources used in this article include the topic's personal website[3] and "Official Press Release"[4]. Misleading press release claims include "He edited the award-winning anthology Gay Comix from 1991-1998" which doesn't say what award (major? minor?) or whether the anthology won the award while Mangels edited it, and is attributed to a website[5] that never mentions "Gay Comix" or any award. Another, which looks like a factual error, is whether "Iron Man: Beneath The Armor" was ever a USA Today best seller; if it was, use USA Today as a source and provide the date and position on their list. The problem here is that you have rather carelessly thrown together every trivial mention in an unreliable and/or non-independent source you could find, when in fact meeting the Wikipedia:Notability standard requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that you not be so careless. If no one can provide evidence of significant coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then, no, an article on this topic should not exist. That is the established consensus and accepted standard here on Wikipedia. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Amazon citation was put there to confirm that: yes, the subject is a professional novelist. The bibliographic information Amazon provides is entirely independent of Wikipedia. (The inclusion of some text from WP does not "poison" it as a source for other facts.) See WP:ABOUTSELF for a guide to when it is appropriate to cite the subject's own bio. (It is in fact preferable for statements about self-identification, as here.) I apologize that I apparently pasted a citation meant for elsewhere in the article on the fact that he edited Gay Comix/Gay Comics; I have replaced that citation with a bibliographic one, and left that cite on the fact which it correctly supports (third-party recognition as an influential individual). I cannot confirm the unnamed award referred to by an earlier editor, so I have removed that phrase. The identification of the Iron Man book as a bestseller appears to be from the unclear phrasing used in the source (loosely: "author of bestselling Xs and Y", but only the Xs were on the bestseller list); also fixed. Contrary to your accusation, I am trying in good faith to improve this article to the standard that Wikipedia requires. I am doing so because I am confident that with some time and the further help of access to offline sources, the subject's notability can be established. It's unfortunate that these issues were not first discussed on Talk for the article, and that it went directly to AfD, escalating it unnecessarily. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage in multiple sources. Smattering of mentions in primary & self-published sources does not count toward notability. Completely fails WP:AUTHOR. Maybe he can be included when he further develops his body of work, but not now. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is significant reliable coverage, and several other independent sources describe the man. Diego (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Blogs and press releases cannot be counted toward notability. And trivial mentions, i.e. a couple sentences, are not substantial coverage. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a commonly stated Wikipedia myth, but truth is that the blog format says nothing against the sources reliability; it's the reviewing process that counts, and AfterElton has an editorial board. And the amount of text is not what makes a mention trivial, but the quantity of information given. A trivial mention is one that doesn't convey direct information, but this manages to include in one paragraph the verifiable facts that 1) Mr. Andy Mangels participated in a ComicCon, 2) has published at Amazing Heroes and 3) a direct quote from him. Diego (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. When we see "Official Press Release"[6] at the top of a source, that means it is to be taken as a self-published source, so it is immediately useless for Wikipedia:Notability purposes because it is not independent. When a source[7] only has a few sentences, and it's attributed to an organization where the topic sits on the advisory board, then it's neither significant (it's not in depth) nor is it totally independent. Lionel is correct that all of these "a couple sentences" mentions are not significant coverage. "Andy Mangels is a ComicCon panelist who has published stories in Amazing Heroes" is not in depth information. It is as plainly trivial as "Three Blind Mice is a jazz band that Bill Clinton played saxophone in while in high school." The "Three Blind Mice" standard of what is obviously trivial coverage has been the consensus view and accepted standard since at least November 2006,[8] so we'll either need to go change that long-standing consensus or find some in depth sources here. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're raising the bar for notability requirements; in depth coverage is not required for notability, only sources that "address the subject directly in detail", that is, enough to get facts that can be included in the article. I agree that it would be better to have more solid sources (and that the press release is not independent), but I and at least four other editors find the available references (Star Trek interview, NY Times, After Elton, and USA Today best selling list) to establish notability according to WP:GNG with enough facts for a short article. NY Times is above the "Three Blind Mice" test - it containts at least three specific facts directly about the guy, and the interview and the professional blog do provide more detailed coverage with more than "a couple sentences". I don't think this discussion will achieve consensus to delete the article. Diego (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though weak) - he has lots of published books, including a few non-fiction, he is a renowned features producer (on numerous high-profile DVD collections) and at the forefront of comic-book and animation commentary (on a similar number of high-profile DVD collections). This review [9] of Time-Life's The Real Ghostbusters: The Complete Collection sort of sums it up, "Time Life has engaged the services of Special Features producers Andy Mangels and Reed Kaplan. Mangels is a best-selling novelist, author of Animation on DVD: The Ultimate Guide, and the producer whom TVShowsonDVD.com called "legendary."". If someone has that many books published, how can they not be notable? I think that, putting ones personal tastes aside, someone this renowned and published in the comic-book field is certainy notable enough. Unfortunately many of the refs are from internet magazine sites, so are being viewed as non-reliable, I cannot believe that we would that obtuse as a community. Many of those websites that he is featured in, quoted on, or even interviewed on, are surely giving a general air of notability - just because they are not the NYT or similar does not mean that they are not reliable. Here I think a WP:IAR may be in order, there is not really a notability established in each individual field, but for someone who falls slightly short of notability under each of the creative aspects of "Writer" + "Producer" + "Commentator" = notable. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG analysis, roughly paralleling Diego's analysis in the reply at 16:36. There's some precedent backing for AfterElton as a RS, the NYT is, the USA best seller is, and IMHO the official ST page is. Now, of those, AE clearly provides in-depth coverage, I think one can argue whether the NYT is but in my experience that piece is above how "in-depth" is usually judged here. To any extent that it is lacking (and I don't think it is, I think a NYT mention is pretty relevant), the best-seller list/ST interview provide an indication of notability. OTOH, I agree with Rangoondispenser that the ComicBookResources piece appears to be a press release. Many of the other sources here presented seem weak or problematic to me, but I think there's enough. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:56, 12 August 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) 01:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Von Lahmm[edit]

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

Unsourced and of dubious notability if correct. Zero sources provided, no reliable sources found. Only wikilinkable targets are geographical articles. Prod removed without comment. Family member articles are part of the walled garden. The have been tagged for speedy deletion as unremarkable. (Created by a new SPA, subarticles (family members) created and recreated by the SPA, a blocked sock and a newly suspected sock. Seems to be one editor who feels their family tree should be on Wikipedia.) SummerPhD (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Unsourced and of dubious notability if correct.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's nothing we can base a policy-based article on. No such user (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no any source --Јованвб (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. Does not appear to be notable. Google search only turns up Wikipedia and mirror sites.--EdwardZhao (talk) 16:33, 12 August 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. Sandstein 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest airports in the Former Yugoslavia[edit]

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

Article is placing modern-day information onto an obsolete historical framework. Articles like List of airports in Croatia and List of airports in Serbia already exist, which present the same data in the right context. Bazonka (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have similar regional articles, ex: List of the busiest airports in the Nordic countries or List of largest airports in the Baltic states, so there is no reason for this one not to exist. There has been much regional cooperation on several levels between counties of former Yugoslavia, so it is not so "obsolete" as you say. I beleave there should be a consistent deleting policy towards all these regional lists, otherwise I see no reason to delete this specific one. FkpCascais (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For the same reasons as above.
Keep as per FkpCascais and for keeping a historic record of these airports. Of Serbia and Croatia ceased to exist tomorrow, should we delete their lists? The correct answer is no. Lugnuts (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well actually, yes we should delete those articles. In your hypothetical situation, Serbia and Croatia would be replaced by different political entities, and these would have their own Airports in articles. Unless they are retained as historical records of the airports that existed during their existence - but this article isn't like that, as it lists new airports that have been built since the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Bazonka (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "the Former Yugoslavia" is here being used as a geographical area (similar to, but not quite the same as "the Balkans") rather than a political entity. A historical article would be titled List of largest airports in Yugoslavia, since calling it "former" would be an anachronism. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the issue is that Balkans would have been to large, and former Yugoslavia is used in this article because all countries share a commun aviation history including the fact that all the territory was part of the same country until 1991 and that most of the important carriers already existed back then (JAT, Adria, Aviogenex, etc.), while that link is innexistent with other Balkan countries. Similarly, Scandinavian list has the fact that the most important carrier SAS is common to all countries (just like JAT was back then), and the Baltic list has the fact that they were part of the same country, URSS, just as former Yugoslav republics were of Yugoslavia. Basically, all former Yugoslav countries share a common aviation history, beside many cooperation being still active nowadays. I don´t really oppose deleting this list if we have a common policy to all other regional lists, but deleting this one alone wouldn´t make sense. FkpCascais (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it stays in its current form. After all, we don't have a List of airports in the German Empire that includes airports in territories that were German until 1918 with passenger figures from last year! However, the list would make a lot of sense if it was a snapsot of the airport situation in Yugoslavia in 1991, or before, with passenger figures from then. Then it would be a definete Keep. Calistemon (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're analogy is incorrect, suggesting you've misunderstood this list - "former Yugoslavia" is purely a geographical reference. It would be equally accurate to name this as "List of the largest airports in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia" (if somewhat more cumbersome). If the area of the former German Empire was a commonly used supranational geographic region today then an article with present day figures for that area would be just as accurate as this and the List of largest airports in the Baltic states are. This is not a historical list, so using figures from other than the present day would be incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible I have misunderstood the purpose, but to me to have a current list of airports in a country that ceased to exist 20 years ago seems to invite misunderstanding or confusion. To come up with a really silly and exagerated example, what about List of airports in the former Roman Empire or, almost as silly, List of airports in the former Austrian-Hungarian Empire? Just sounds a bit wrong to me. Calistemon (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Calistemon. It is hardly surprising that he/she has not grasped your understanding of the article because its scope is confused and confusing. The inclusion of the word "former" in the title doesn't really help - I think most readers are going to interpret it in the way that Calistemon and I have.

I know what you're trying to achieve with this article, Thryduulf, but I don't see the point. The only real argument given in its defence is that the former Yugolav countries work in cooperation. Well lots of countries work in cooperation, particularly in aviation matters - is there a need for a List of airports in Australia and New Zealand article for example? No. And in any case, cooperation in former Yugoslavia on many matters is not always that strong... Kosovo cooperates with Serbia does it?

If anyone needs to know about the information in this article, then it is hardly difficult to look at the separate airports articles for each of the constituent countries, which are presented in a much more logical manner. Bazonka (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why force people to look at several lists to find the information they need when we can logically present it as one list? Formatting issues are not a reason to delete anything, and I have no stake with this page (which I've never edited) other than to stop the deletion of an article I don't think should be deleted. I don't know why you think this is trying to be a list of airports in a country that ceased to exist 20 years ago, because it isn't. It's a list of airports in a supranational region that is a logical unit for air travel purposes. I doubt that Australia and New Zealand are a similarly useful unit, but I don't know enough to say categorically. The Benelux might (I've not looked) be a similar supra-national area; the Mid-western United Sates would be a subnational list of comparable scale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I just don't get it. Why would anyone need an article like this? The former Yugoslavia isn't a consistent and fully cooperative entity. Bazonka (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at it from a different view: Is there still an authority or source out there that refers to the region in question as Yugoslavia for the purpos of air traffic, like, lets say, a Yugoslav air traffic control or a Yugoslav air safety authority? If there is still something official out there that uses the old countries name and supervises the area of the old country then the article has a right to exist, if not, delete. Calistemon (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually I can't see the point in any of the lists mentioned in this discussion, it all seems way to arbitrary to me - WP:NOT states "Wikipedia should not be excessive listings of statistics". What is the purpose of comparing pasenger statistics for airports in two different countries? Why not have List of the busiest airports in Germanophone Europe, so we can compare Hamburg Airport with Graz Airport and St. Gallen-Altenrhein Airport? If I want to visit Sarajevo, I'd fly to Sarajevo, my choice of airport is not going to be influenced by how many other people are flying to Belgrade. Why is it limited to the former Yugoslavia; why not the whole Balkans? Maybe it's more convenient for someone who wants to visit Serbia to fly in to Sofia. Dragging in the other examples used as justification for keeping this one; why compare passenger traffic at an airport in Iceland to one in Finland? That makes as much sense as grouping Australian and NZ airports - NZ is three hours' flying time from Sydney and Melbourne, let alone Adelaide and Perth. SAS is not common to all the countries in the Nordic list either, it does not operate domestically in Finland, Iceland or Greenland. If the decision is to keep, then the page needs to be moved to "busiest" airports, as "largest" is misleading. YSSYguy (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just mentioned the other similar lists because this one was the last of the three to be made, and as they are of same nature, so either we have a consistent policy towards all of them, or otherwise there is no reason to have some accepted, and others not. Basically, if we eventually delete this one, and leave the others, we may still find some new user who will rightfully belave that he can create a similar one to this we deleted. We should consider the three lists together otherwise we risk to apply double standars for different lists. FkpCascais (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case of keeping, I do agree on your renaming proposal. FkpCascais (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision here is to delete, then I will nominate the other similar articles for deletion also. Bazonka (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. I presume this list and and the ones for Nordic countries and Baltic states exist because the countries in all three categories have a common history and common elements in their societies, which I'm fine with. (Though one cannot easily say a list for North America should exist because they have unique aviation regulation systems.) The flaw with this article is that the use of the term "Former Yugoslavia" implies a historical list of airports in existence during the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1943–1992). The correct name in my view should be "List of the largest airports in states of the former Yugoslavia". —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:06, 13 August 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. Once we cut away all the claims about how important this project is and the obvious vote stacking there is very little Wikipedia-policy-based argument for keeping this article, and many valid reasons to delete it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PARSIFAL Project EU[edit]

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

Ephemeral project. No independent sources about the project, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Article was de-PRODded by anonymous IP with reason: "Proposed deletion deleted as this is one of the few articles in Wikipedia introducing the European viewpoint on critical infrastructure protection". There are what looks like an impressive number of "references" and external links, however most are not independent sources and the others are not about this project (several don't even mention "PARSIFAL"). Crusio (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deliberately uninformative text:

PARSIFAL is aiming to bring together critical financial infrastructure stakeholders in the public and private sphere to provide a platform of communication for the research community, the European Commission and the industry, and to build a large consensus in the financial, security, industrial and scientific community. Small and medium enterprises in this field are contacted and involved, as well as European Academia and research organisations, and brought together with relevant national or regional actors in the critical infrastructure protection and financial sector.

PARSIFAL works towards its long term vision by setting short-term project objectives, to be fulfilled during the project lifetime, as well as coordinating actions and research road mapping that contribute to an effective and faster fulfillment of the vision.

PARSIFAL is focussed on CFI and the involvement of stakeholders from the financial sector and will dedicate special attention to the relation between the protection of CII and CFI and trust, the key business requirement in the financial world.

Materials, such as position papers, are prepared and confidentially circulated among the partners in order to stimulate discussion and opinion exchange. Personal meeting is encouraged at workshops, enabling a structured and strategic dialogue between stakeholders from the financial industry and researchers who can directly exchange their views and discuss future scenarios and challenges from different perspectives.

I think all they agreed to do is have a meeting later, sometime, maybe, as soon as their minds recover enough from the PowerPoint presentation at the last one. That could take years. Even if notability could be shown, this text says nothing at great length and has still got to go. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the author: The above doesn't reflect that Parsifal was (!) a project of the European Cmmission, terminated as scheduled and evaluated. I am sorry for the deletion of the tag, a good faith edit. The findings of Parsifal keep being cited, I added University of Savoie and CEPS yesterday. More publications are on their way, I just started collecting additional information. I am open for suggestions how this information could be merged to the more general aspects of CIP in general or Financial CIP in particular. My first language is not English, and I am more familiar with music than with CI, also I was careful not to paraphrase the sources too closely, which explains the (admittedly too) general character of the writing. I would like to see you, Crusio, to read the French paper from Annecy, a language which is even more unfamiliar to me. Thanks for your attention, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had already read the "Annecy paper". It seems to be a presentation at a meeting. It's a bit strange, because the pagination doesn't match the table of contents. It looks like all other presentations were cut out of this file. In any case, yes, there was a presentation (among several others) at (what seems to be a rather small) meeting, which mentioned PARSIFAL. I don't see how that conveys notability. (Note that we use "notability" here in the WP sense, this is by no means a quality judgement, just a judgement about the available sources; however, you've been around here long enough to know that, so this is perhaps too much pontificating... :-). --Crusio (talk) 07:43, 22 July 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) 00:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (no surprise from the author :-) ) for now until a broader, more general article about Financial CIP may be available, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johann Georg Mozart, where the subject itself is perhaps not relevant, but is in its relation to a relevant other subject. Differently, the broader subject to which the Parsifal project is related, tentatively called Financal Critical Infrastructure Protection, doesn's exist yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is really a far-out comparison, to a totally different sort of relationship on a totally different subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but I think calling this "deliberately uninformative" is not correct. It's just written in PR-speak, which, although a debased dialect, can be translated into English, That term used up above actually links to WP:Patent nonsense, which is simply not correct--it's just a wordy and unencyclopedic way of saying things. Anyone here can understand it if they want to bother. This way of attacking the article is pure abuse, a version of "give the dog a bad name and hang it." It does not discuss whether the subject is notable, and whether the article can be improved. Saying IDONTLIKETHEWAYITSWRITTEN is just as irrelevant an argument as IDONTLIKEIT. I could find similar epithets to describe the style of most Wikipedia articles: the terms primitive and simplistic come to mind as a general characteristic of prose here. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks gerda. Anyway shame on me I do not understand how this editor is working. To me Wikipedia seems to be cancer-prone: this is called bureaucracy. Too bad. A trap from competitors?.. Could be. Furthermore Mr Crusio serait davantage connu, il meriterait la carpette anglaise but why bother? JYG NB I am not an author of the page just a member of the Parsifal project. So, of course I am biased. But what kind of legitimacy bears Mr Crusio as the other 700 re. any article. This is not only obscure to me but to many potential or actual authors. Please do not respond with the usual preach, try to think a little bit further ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.88.250.175 (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I marked the original description of the project as a quote, and I wonder if someone familiar with the topic could shorten that, now that we are dealing with results and no longer need to know details of the process. The abstract of the eight recommendations is of course also on the general side. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no case having been made that justifies deleting Parsifal. It is extremely important that Wikipedia keep Parsifal and similar pages. The direction this and a couple of similar projects give drives hundreds of millions of euros of R&D funding in the EU. This funding is key to delivering security, identity and privacy requirements. R&D work directed at securing the financial infrastructure is key following the 'toxic' debt meltdown and black swan events. Without Wiki entries the wider audience will not have exposure to these extremely important but often poorly published influencing projects. There is a case for Wiki to actual create a premier category for these and any other high value entry. Separating them from the trivia like what color eyes Robbie Williams has would enhance Wikipedia immeasurably.

So the proposal I make is do not delete but give Parsifal an enhanced listing because of it's importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windsurfer777 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not contain articles about organizations or other things that may be important, but on those that are important, and can be shown to be so by 3rd party sources, which is what we mean by notability. Discussing the high purposes of the group is irrelevant. If you can find two such good references, the article will be kept, or, at worst, can be rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 13:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still written in PR-speak, and the required substantial third party coverage is not readily apparent. Sandstein 07:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ontology and 3 refs added, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 5 August 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, the writing style justifies deletion all by itself. Uninformative style is indeed a criterion for deletion, and in fact speedy deletion: ("Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.") This is "content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it," and as such is indeed patent nonsense in our technical sense.

Let's face it, the PR style this is written in is vague, uneditable handwaving. Its optimistic predictions, while probably "appropriate" for a grant application, break our core neutrality policy. The text is too vague and too unspecific to be improved by editing. About all most readers are going to take home from this article is that some people in the EU held some meetings about the security of financial institutions, and published some equally vague papers about the subject, with "ontologies" and other unhelpful jargon. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontologies are supposed to enable people to understand each other, interesting that you consider that unhelpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they don't work. I know of ontology in the philosophical sense: an account of basic categories, and what sort of things can or can't exist. I also know "ontology" as computer science jargon; somebody was apparently looking for something lofty and metaphysical to call a data file structure. I don't know "ontology" in this new sense, or what they have to do with bank security. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Ontology (information science). - I removed the (by now historic) project description, trying to be helpful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This is borderline. There are quite a few minor references on the web, and it was a EU-sponsored effort. On the other hand, it petered out after 18 months, so that tilts me towards Delete. --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the project is over, recommendations are useful for future research in several key IT areas --Honorcreek (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC) — Honorcreek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Please note that "useful" has nothing to do with "notability". --Crusio (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -whilst the style of writing could be improved it is fairly easy to understand and conveys the essence of the work. In any case if this criteria is applied to these pages for deletion then 99% of Wikipedia pages are at risk. The entry is without doubt important as it will influence major R&D requirements/funding for at least five years. Hopefully the authors will appropriately reference it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windsurfer777 (talk • contribs) — Windsurfer777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment 99% of Wikipedia articles are adequately sourced and as you say yourself, this one isn't. "Important" is not the same thing as "notable". --Crusio (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inaccurate attribution. I did not say this article is it not adequately sourced. It is important for the integrity of Wikipedia that posted comments are not distorted by misrepresentation. I actually do not have an issue with the sourcing. I hope that it can be appropriately sourced to further enhance the article and also satisfy you.

Keep I'd rather prefer to keep the article as I consider it acceptable at least. It might still be a worthy text if you need information about the EU Project. CHfish (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References are improved significantly and seems that WP:GNG is met. Beagel (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading those references, I don't think GNG is met. --Crusio (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the IEEE to Association for Computing Machinery, Springer Science+Business Media and the Deutsches Institut für Normung. On a more general note: I believe that every European Commission project has a certain notability, because every one was chosen (among many more applications) by the commission, monitored and finally evaluated by the commission. Perhaps an article on that subject would be a good idea? Also: every such project is a collaboration of organizations from several European countries, I hope that has room in Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is incorrect to say that this is a project "chosen ... by the commission" if with "commission" you mean the European Commission. That commission put the Framework Programme in place. Individual projects are evaluated by commissions of specialists and the funding decision is taken by the Framework organisation. What you are saying is akin to saying that some NIH or NSF-funded project has been "selected by President Obama". It is equally incorrect to say that the commission monitors or evaluates these project, they really have something better to do. Again, it's the Framework organisation that does these things, just as in the US it would be NSF or NIH, not Obama. The statement that all these projects are notable just because they have been selected from among many more applications is untenable either. NIH funding rates are below 10% at this moment and nobody is arguing that each and every one of their funded projects is notable. Just as individual NIH/NSF projects are very rarely notable, EU-funded projects will be rarely notable, too. PARSIFAL is no exception, as becomes obvious when one looks through the references in the article. --Crusio (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken, I should have said "a commission" or - better - the Framework Programme. Not taken: I didn't say "that all these projects are notable", I said a EU project has "a certain notability", - which doesn't equal WP notability, obviously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is incorrect to say,"It is equally incorrect to say that the commission monitors or evaluates these project, they really have something better to do." EU FP7 projects are both monitored and evaluated by an EU commission representative and appointed independent evaluators who have been chosen for their globally acknowledged expertise in the area of research prior to acceptance of the project by the EU. EU projects like Parsifal will have passed a far higher level of scrutiny than the vast majority of published academic research.Windsurfer777 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow that reasoning, then each federal employee in the US is a direct representative of President Obama. The oversight of EU projects is not different at all from the oversight that NIH or NSF projects get, nor is the selection process any different. Should we now start creating articles on all of the thousands of projects these entities fund each year? --Crusio (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a logical conclusion. If you are detained by a contract security officer at Heathrow are you going to argue they have no right as they are not a direct representative of the queen? The commission is a body not an individual with employees and experts it contracts to undertake specific tasks on it's behalf. As you were incorrect in your assertion about EU monitoring I reserve my judgement on the comparison with monitoring other projects. If you have the time it would add significant value to Wikipedia if you did start creating articles on the other projects.Windsurfer777 (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your comparisons/arguments are getting rather silly. If you're detained by a security officer, then that is what has happened and what you would say. Nobody would say: The queen decided to detain me and sent a representative, because she'll be blissfully unaware of your very existence. Similarly with these research projects. Some (or perhaps even most, who knows) commissioners will know about the Framework programs, some will even be familiar with them. None will actually go into the fine detail of individual grants (unless perhaps if there's a significant problem). As all those other projects are just as non-notable as this one, I suggest neither of us loses time creating even more deletable articles. --Crusio (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not actually addressing the point I made and therefore made comments that are not relevant. The European Commission is not just composed of commissioners. I was not making a reference to commissioners but the commission. Your input has stimulated the author into producing a better article. You should be satisfied as it is a positive outcome rather than the negative one of deletion. Is it not time to move on and address the millions of other articles that could do with input or is there is another agenda?Windsurfer777 (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The global financial system is as volatile now as it has ever been. The last thing we need are unstable infrastructures underpinning uncertain markets. We need projects like PARSIFAL to help us keep ahead of potential attacks, & disruptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksullivan1 (talk • contribs) — Ksullivan1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Please not that "important", "good, "bad", etc. are not criteria entering into the equation determining whether something is notable or not. Plase familiarize yourself with WP:N. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several points:

1. I don't think academic research projects in themselves qualify as notable subjects.

2. That a project is funded/supported/commissioned by the European Commission is neutral as far as it's notability is concerned.

3. It is not unusual for obscure academic papers to refer to other obscure academic papers. In order to be notable IMHO something more is required such as mention is the popular media or winning an notable (in the Wikipedia sense) academic prize. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this copied from another project? Parsifal is not academic, not in popular media, not winning a prize. Hardly to the point. Parsifal is in scientific media and is referenced by DIN, German Institute for Standardization. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The project must be one of the only articles that has a reference that is as notable as the European Central Bank. All it is missing is the White House weblink to gain a higher rating! Seriously there is no doubt that WP:GNG has been met. We are in a financial crisis and a secure critical infrastructure is an absolute requirement. Interesting to see some people in the EU had the vision to look at this. Topical, relevant, important and notable IMHO. Ashtune (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Ashtune (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yet another obviously canvassed vote. Strange that an editor whose only ever edit to Wikipedia is to this deletion discussion should know what WP:GNG is!! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 23:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually read the article when your vote was canvassed you would see the reference link in the first line! I would go further than your comment on academic articles. Get rid of all the pointless and dull as dishwater academic journals that are referenced.Windsurfer777 (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm completely failing to see independent references. Materials generated by project participants or at project events are not independent no matter who they're published by. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I help you

during the project: IEEE, European Central Bank (ECB)

after the project: Springer Science+Business Media, DIN

more to come, but this is not yet encyclopedic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 11 August 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 with most deletion discussions, this one comes down to wether or not there are sufficient reliable sources that discuss this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actiontec Electronics[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that this business makes routers. May be worth a mention in the Verizon article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably well-known internationally, make consumer-level routers and networking hardware. Numerous ISPs internationally use their gear (Verizon, Qwest, a lot of British ISPs). It's stocked by a lot of different tech retailers of reasonable sizes including Amazon US and UK. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasonably sized (over 400 employees). Designs the products it sells directly meaning its a bit more vertically integrated than other businesses in that sector. Disagree about including it in the Verizon article since it also has partnerships with Cisco and Qwest (doesn't rely on Verizon).partnerships Grmike (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Number of employees is not a measure of notability on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tom Morris and Grmike. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:V#Notability, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." No such sources are provided here. Size and market share are not among our inclusion criteria. Sandstein 07:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Sorry to disagree here but size and market share actually goes to Verifiability. The requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia is that the article be Verifiable – have second/third part sourcing and meet Notability guidelines. In that the it can be verified through the following sources of the size and market share [10] a better question to ask does the company meet the guidelines for Notability. Hence the comment and not an !vote. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:55, 5 August 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appropriate policy is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I see no evidence in Google that this company is notable in the WP sense (independent mention by secondary sources). The mere facts that the company has 400 employees, has some important products, are not sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 18:41, 5 August 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) 01:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deception Island, Fiction[edit]

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

No reference of the fiction in all the links provided - except in the author's private website. Notability is not clear. No reference to any review of this fiction. May not fit under WP:GNG Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim of notability made. Bazonka (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability is presented, and I can't find any. This article is likely to be self-promotion judging by the creator's user name. Reyk _YO! 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 August 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Paltz Zombieology Center[edit]

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Trivial subject from one episode of a TV show fails WP:GNG. See also WP:INDISCRIMINATE. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rapid spread of references to the New Paltz Zombieology Center is an interesting cultural phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdgaines (talk • contribs) 09:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CARES The topic is of interest to more than zero people.

WP:CHANCE Give the topic a chance to take off.

WP:DEMOLISH Don't burn the house down before it's built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdgaines (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link you pointed to is marked as humorous and shouldn't be taken seriously. The second and third are essays, which are the opinions of individual Wikipedia editors and are not policy. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Everything ever brought to AfD is of interest to more than zero people (otherwise it wouldn't have inspired someone to write the piece), has a theoretical chance to "take off," and is, by definition, not fully built. What this process is about is determining whether an article topic is encyclopedia worthy (or at least entertainingly pop culturally crufty) and the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, independently produced, published sources. This, alas, is not. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. No sources on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SUNY New Paltz. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 8 August 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. Deletion unopposed. Sandstein 09:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of CECB units[edit]

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

This article is becoming nothing more than a list of converter boxes eligible for defunct government-funded discount program, and it almost reads like a historical advertisement. No notability is established to me, in spite of citations. Almost no one wants to read the list of boxes anymore as I believe. However, I'm afraid there would be too many keeps because of then-advertisment now-historical status. Maybe back then this article definate had reasons to be kept, but this is different now. Gh87 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A huge amount of really useless detail, most of it unsourced. The fact that the CECB program is defunct makes me even less enthusiastic than I would(n't) have been about this page otherwise. Maybe some material can be smerged from here to Coupon-eligible converter box, but this page contains so much dense detail that I would definitely not support simply copying this page. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:45, 9 August 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 speedily deleted per A7 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistajeanz[edit]

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

Author removed CSD therefore I am nominating. No sources whatsoever especially any that show significance. Author is most likely the person and violates WP:COI KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising, non-notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, db-band, retagged. Hairhorn (talk) 14:27, 5 August 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K U Mohanan[edit]

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

Lower standard than notability. Not much independent source. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, only IMDB mirrors. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. I've also tagged the article for WP:BLPPROD. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - anyway, I am not sure if an BLP can be PRODed while it is in AfD ! Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2011

Delete per lack of sources found on Google and Yahoo that could help a biography. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 9 August 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) 01:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiServer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This wiki software seems to have gained neither notability nor significant usage during its 8 years of existence (1997-2005) Yaron K. (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be notable, advertorial tone has been untouched since last AFD. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Previous AfD was taken over by editors that didn't understand the notability guidelines. Fails WP:N still. Joe Chill (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I personally found this article informatively useful. Note that wiki software written in C++ is uncommon, and thus noteworthy, but not only within the context of the actual software, but for the history of usage of the language it is written in and the history of software development (especially for the web) in general. I have downloaded the software and will be examining it in the near future as I evaluate software for my personal wiki. Note that as a C++ user, WikiServer is high on my list of software to evaluate, for I can make sophisticated changes to it as needed. No GPL-taint either, which is important for me. All that said, I'm not sure if the aforementioned makes it "Wikipedia worthy", or worthy enough to stay. I improved the article a little, but that improvment made the article rather brief. I don't know if there's much more to say about it, for the relevant material is in the side box and the history of the free product. So that's my .02 on this matter. TechTony (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally reworked the article since my "keep" suggestion, so please take a look at it again and reevaluate. TechTony (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your rewording looks nice, but in my opinion it doesn't add any further proof of WikiServer's notability. Yaron K. (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Will provide copy of deleted content if anyone wants to use it to preform a merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InQuira[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of previously deleted content after full discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InQuira. Another non-notable provider of enterprise knowledge management solutions. Article is written entirely in non-neutral sales patter:

InQuira solutions are used by support organizations to manage, access, and share the information that is needed to resolve customer questions. InQuira solutions are typically used within contact centers, Web self-service applications, sales intelligence applications, and company intranets. InQuira has customers in such industries as telecommunications, high technology, financial services, hospitality, and consumer packaged goods.
InQuira supports content authoring, publishing, and approval workflow processes, helping facilitate content development.
InQuira provides data gathering and reporting capabilities on contact center and Web self-service interactions, providing insights for ongoing optimization.

and the rest of the text is about the integrated capabilities of the company's core product offering. Most Google News hits are OCR mistakes on "inquire", and the ones about this business are press releases. (Hint: if it says a provider of enterprise knowledge solutions for Web self service, contact center support and sales enablement, it's not an independent source.) Recommend protection against re-creation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

delete blatant self-promo. even the references which are nominally independent of the company are to short pieces which read like press releases. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I search the company on Yahoo, I found two articles but they're small mentions: here and repeat on Reuters. I found the same amount of of links on Google, the article can come back if more is reported on them. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company was just acquired by Oracle and is all over the press. (for example) Toddst1 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 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, Sandstein 07:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisted to discuss whether its recent acquisition changes matters. Sandstein 07:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROMOTION. Virtually everything sourced was released by the company to hungry e-business media and intended to promote the company. Very press-releasy. Everything qualifies as WP:ROUTINE business coverage. Page creator with 37 edits has built an almost identical structure, Nimsoft. Breaking news holds no special weight in an encyclopedic context, per NOTNEWS. If Wikipedia is not an newspaper, it's also not the day's business section. No prejudice against recreation if current e-media coverage creates a resonance in sources not found this morning. BusterD (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per BusterD and SwisterTwister. --Noleander (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything here that can be merged into Oracle? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 12 August 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Does His Thing[edit]

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

The episode alone is not notable enough for its own article. No reliable references exist for this particular episode. Disputed PROD. ItsZippy (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to article from reliable sources. This is a historical episode within the canon of Bewitched as this was the last episode Dick York filmed and what happened, not unlike what happened to Curly Howard in Half-Wits Holiday. Is this episode any less important than, say, an ordinary, run of the mill episode of MASH or Seinfeld, which contain several individual episode articles? I can't see why this is bothering people. It is not based on a fan site philosophy and saying that the article was created to "puff up" the transition between actors is bemeaning to the actor involved. User:Lou72JG (talk)

Sorry, but none of those additions you made are considered reliable sources, and they aren't all even references, just links. Even if they were reliable, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the article's topic is notable. If this were one of a series of articles of Bewitched episodes, it MIGHT be worth considering, but it is clear you simply think this one episode is of particular notability. It is not. And there is nothing "demeaning" to any actor just because I said a certain episode of a series he worked in was not notable. Njsustain (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB, Turner Classic Movies, and TV are not reliable sources? Each of those links link directly to the page on the website of this episode. User:Lou72JG (talk)
- IMDB is not considered a reliable source. The others are simply notes on an episode summary page. Hardly an authoritative take on the matter. As I wrote on the article's talk page, "Trivial notes added to episode description pages on promotional TV industry websites do not constitute reliable sources and certainly do not establish notability." That they "link directly" is completely irrelevent.Njsustain (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. There is nothing notable about this episode, per WP is not a fansite philosophy. The article creator admits he/she thinks it is important because it is the last one in which Dick Sargent appears, but that is not grounds for notability of the episode in and of itself. Compare this to The Mary Tyler Moore Show which has only two episode pages (Chuckles Bites the Dust and The Last Show), but both of which are notable for gaining documented acclaim and Emmy awards. This Bewitched episode has no such notability.

Also, the material in the article is mostly repeated material from the show page and the episode summaries page, so there is no point in suggesting merge or redirect. This article was written to puff up the transition of actors playing Darrin. Though the transition was notable, it is adequately described in the show's article. Creating an article out of an episode in order to aggrandize the transition was inappropriate. Njsustain (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Information verified and confirmable, phrase not used in any other context. The Dick York episode should likely link to it instead of simply saying "sometime during the fifth season." Almafeta (talk) 08:39, 4 August 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, Sandstein 07:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable in and of its own, fine for inclusion in a list. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and merge into main TV series article. This particular episode is not sufficiently notable. --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability other than the fact it was the "last episode with Dick York" according to the TCM source. Notability has to be independent, not just through simple association to another notable subject. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:28, 13 August 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Carter (Heir)[edit]

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

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

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

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Fails WP:BIO. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Being "most widely known for being the son of multi-millionaire David Carter" does not indicate notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link you were looking for for that second point was WP:NOTINHERITED. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
imdb credible source. twitter shows notoriety.—The preceding text was posted by Belieber101 (talk⋅contribs), 07:31, August 5, 2011 (UTC).
Comment: Notoriety is not notability. Notability has a specific meaning in Wikipedia context. --Darkwind (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable source of IMDB added indicating that person is an Actor and person's twitter shows being known by over 16 thousand people and increasing. Notability, a famous or important person. Belieber101 (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)— Belieber101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment You might want to take a look at WP:RS, particularly the bit where it says, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth." Yunshui (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Having an IMDB profile may prove information in the article is correct but it doesn't show notability. In addition, follower count on Twitter means nothing, as it's fairly easy to abuse that number and as such holds no real weight. See WP:BASIC: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED fits quite well here, without the slightest irony. No reliable sources to show that he is notable in and of his own right. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His chief claim for notability is being the son and heir of David Carter, current owner of Carter Investments, yet neither David Carter nor Carter Investments have received enough coverage to be considered notable enough to inspire Wikipedia articles about them, at least not yet. Is it sufficiently notable to be heir of a company that is not itself notable? Or son of a man who is not notable? My thought would be no. And, independent of his connection to David Carter and Carter Investments, little in the article and nothing in my research indicates that he has otherwise made himself notable, save for the claims that he consorts with numerous celebrities, which, if true, still doesn't make him notable; he himself must receive coverage by multiple, third party reliable sources. The sources listed on the page to not satisfy this requirement, and my attempts to find reliable sources that do substantiate notability have been unsuccessful. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ A google search shows interest in this person. While information may be scarce, there is a tremendous amount of interest and could be resolved through this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belieber101 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please only leave one bolded opinion on an AfD discussion. This helps the closing admin to gauge consensus. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Reply Really? What search terms did you use? I found a mass of stuff on a wide variety of people named Matt (or Matthew) Carter, but next-to-nothing on the subject of this article. Also, please do not add additional !votes in an AfD discussion - you have already made your recommendation to Keep, above. Yunshui (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the record, my two cents says he's non-notable, per my own Google searches and the general notability guidelines/ Yunshui (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I initially tagged this as a hoax, due to the low quality of the references - Tripod, really? I'm still not convinced this isn't a hoax, considering the IMDB actor uses a different name, and certain personal details aren't mentioned here. A Google search on "Carter Investments" "Matt Carter" only shows this page - which has been deleted three times already. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think of the amount of people who are famous for accomplishing absolutely nothing; being known for having a famous last name and riding off the success of their forefathers. This guy obviously has earnt his entitlement to a Wiki page. Someone may have to rewrite it however to the format of the norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.120.250 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — 60.242.120.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: The subject of the article has tweeted about its deletion. Expect at least a few irrelevant keep votes in here. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google seems to indicate not notable. And, of course, WP:NOTINHERITED :-) --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the social register for the overly entitled spawn of the big bourgeoisie. How's that for a deletion rationale? Not satisfied??? How about saying this is essentially unsourced BLP, written by someone with close connection to the subject, and burdened by bilge like: "While being considered a “party boy”, Carter is very charitable and has donated a huge amount of money to many charities. Carter’s friend Gabriel when asked to describe his friend said, “He is very energetic and loves to party but at the end of the day, he knows he is blessed and tries to pay it forward every chance he gets." That is sourced to................ the opinion of the writer. Yesh. WP:BARFBAG and WP:MAKEITSTOP. Carrite (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~SPEEDY DELETE~~ by request of the subject via twitter. "How do I get Wiki to delete the article about me?" "I dont want random people knowing how much I'm worth" Belieber101 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No such tweet exists, sorry. However, as the article creator and sole contributor, if you want to request the deletion of the article, you can do so by placing ((db-self)) on the top of the page. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough information to establish notability and (as been stated several times already) WP:NOTINHERITED. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 04:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; no independent notability. --Darkwind (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to be exaggerating the subject's notability. I have not been able to find any independent sources discussing his father David Carter or the investment firm that the subject is supposedly the heir to. Furthermore, there are only four sources cited. The first is his IMDb page, which indicates that the subject plays mostly uncredited roles and usually plays roles without a personal name ("Student," "Grunge Kid #2," "Skateboard Kid," etc.). The only role with a personal name he is listed as ever having played is "Kirk" in an episode of "The Suite Life of Zack and Cody", for which he is listed as having his "scenes deleted" -- meaning he didn't actually appear in the episode. Thus, his IMDb credits don't establish him as having a great deal of notability as an actor. The second source is this picture of an obviously fake newspaper clipping. The third source is this not-particularly-reliable-looking page on Tripod.com. And the fourth source is the subject's Twitter page, which is not an independent source. If this subject were the celebrity socialite that the article claims he is, there would be much better sources available than these. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The newsclipping is definitely a fake, generated by The Newspaper Clipping Generator. Not only that, I was easily able to recreate his "newsclipping" website, which appears to be a self-published site. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking more and more like a candidate for G3 deletion to me... Yunshui (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close to G3, but not quite. The IMDb profile is genuine. Biographical information on that site is crowdsourced but the rest largely comes from industry databases AFAIK. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The IMDB page being cited, aside from not being a reliable source, suggests that his roles have been extremely minor. Until he's done something independently of note, his being an heir isn't enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. sonia♫ 06:29, 13 August 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satya Prakash[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:PROF. Relatively unknown individual with few published work and few citations according to GScholar (the first result that turns up with over 500 result is not him and is an entirely different individual). In the article it is mentioned that the subject received the Padma Shri - a highly credible award in India. But from the actual Padma Shri records this is found not to be true. — Finemann (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm really sorry to all the fellow Wikipedians to have nominated the article on Satya Prakash for WP:AfD. As Msrasnw points out, Satya Prakash did indeed receive the Padmashri Award, and the article passes WP:PROF. I'm not exactly sure if I can remove the deletion tag from the article myself. If I can I certain will do if someone sends me a message. Thank you and sorry for all the inconvenience caused. Regards — Finemann (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I think he (or someone with his name) is listed at the bottom of page 72 of actual Padma Shri records as 35 Prof. Satya Prakash PS GUJ Science &? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I think he (or someone with his name) is listed at the bottom of page 72 of actual Padma Shri records as 35 Prof. Satya Prakash PS GUJ Science &? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC))

Comment: I am really sorry. I had missed his name. I've change my vote to keep. — Finemann (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. the issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New Age of Atlantic[edit]

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

10 pages of Google returns and the only notability are: a week on an unnamed chart (is this source reliable?) and Bob Dylan was introduced to John Prine by way of this album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This 1972 rock album includes songs by 11 notable artists, including the first release of songs by Led Zeppelin and Yes. At least four of the songs on the album are themselves notable. Our music notability guideline for albums says that "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." At the time of release, this album was discussed in reliable music publications such as Billboard and Gramophone and later was mentioned in a book about Led Zeppelin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Notability isn't inherited and this isn't a Led Zeppelin album--merely an album that has a Led Zeppelin song. There are hundreds--probably thousands--of instances like this. Mere mentions in books and publications do not amount to significant third-party coverage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with The Age of Atlantic. Per Cullen328 - these series of budget-priced sampler albums were important, influential and innovative at the time. Album reached UK album charts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additional ref provided. BlackCab (talk) 11:59, 6 August 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Dryden[edit]

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

Nothing in this article appears to indicate that this person as notable per WP:BIO. A search turned up a few GHits, but nothing that would satisfy the general notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable YouTube "personality". MikeWazowski (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being popular on YouTube normally doesn't equal being notable for Wikipedia. Joe Chill (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per per WP:BIO. Beagel (talk) 19:58, 8 August 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) 01:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featurestage[edit]

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

The language of this article is not quite promotional to merit a speedy deletion for advertising in my opinion, but this remains a non-notable software product. The only references are to an open directory, and I am not able to find any reliable sources as defined in the general notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find good sources either. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no reliable 3rd party refs, no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 17:38, 7 August 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jono Bacon[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO; has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources independent of the subject; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew D. Sacks. — Jeff G. ツ 03:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - he has released a lot of relevant books and scientifical articles, those include the 2009 title "The Art of Community: Building the new age of participation", which spawned a seminary which still occurs until recently every year, he is the one which also went from Ubuntu's developer to be its "official" guider, he has collected a lot of material from willingly ubuntu user and created The Official Ubuntu Book, he is mentioned in several relevant sites which are within internet scope, LinuxToday, Linoob, TechBytes, but also from mainstream news sites and newspaper such as ComputerWeekly[11], OnLamp, TechRadar, InfoWorld, PC Magazine, Linux Magazine, among others. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has not only appeared in those magazines, but also contributed within them. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the article had no independent third party refs that showed WP:N I have now added one that does establish this. - Ahunt (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. Even accepting Ars Technica as a reliable source for the sake of discussion, the story mentions Jono Bacon only in the context of planned future accomplishments (see WP:CRYSTAL). The Southern California Linux Expo page bio is promotional in nature and presumably not fully independent. The O'Reilly sources identify Bacon as an author of specific books, but that isn't enough for notability, and since O'Reilly published and is trying to sell these books, the independence of these sources can be questioned. All the referenced pages in Bacon's own blog are, well, right out per WP:SPS. Same with the page from Mark Shuttleworth's blog. If there is any other source here that meets the requirements of being "reliable" and "independent of the subject", it's hard to find a needle in a haystack. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming that O'Reilly, a major publisher, cannot be used as a source for information as to its own authors? Francis Bond (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. O'Reilly is presumably a reliable source of information about its authors. However, what we're dealing with here is notability — and the policy says that notability requires substantial coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject — and O'Reilly does not satisfy that requirement w/r/t Jono Bacon. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion it was already adequately sourced, but I have added an interview in Ubuntu User as well. Francis Bond (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the independence of pretty much all those sources (except the Ars Technica one) is really suspect. We need substantial coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 11 August 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 Music of Macao. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuna Macaense[edit]

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

Appears to fail both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango 03:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself does not make any claims to establish notability and cites no sources. I did a little google searching and couldn't find much of anything. they don't show up in the news, which isn't particularly meaningful. Searching books I found 2 English-language books that mention the band directly but without so much as an entire sentence devoted to the band. Of course, there's no requirement that sources be English-language. There may be entire books in Portugeuse devoted to this band but I highly doubt it. A look at the revision history shows only the article's creator has added or significantly edited content, and that was more than two years ago. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I, like Metal.lunchbox, searched for some sources that would establish notability, but only found some incidental mentions. --Noleander (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Music of Macao, which already has most of the information in this article. As I think this makes clear, the group does have enough notability to warrant a mention and a redirect there. PWilkinson (talk) 18:13, 8 August 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Naked Monster[edit]

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

A few mentions of this existing, including one in the NYT, but no reviews, no discussion of it at all other than it exists. This article has no sources for a reason, apparently none exist. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... been expanded and retitled by the filmmakers. Original title: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~per (sorry Sven) errant WP:BEFORE.~~ This film meets WP:NF. The ~~nominator missed that the~~ film screened as film festivals[12] and actually did have genre coverage. IE: In-depth critical commentary found in articles in such as DVD Talk Dread Central and others,[13][14] and its contents can be verified in such disparate sources as Washington Post and Napa Valley Register I would ask the nominator consider a withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not withdrawing this. Let's go though the points one by one.

1) How the heck is anyone supposed to know that this was called Attack of the B Movie Monster? It's not in the Wikipedia article. For the sake of discussion, it's not in any of the other articles you linked to.

2) The first thing you linked to, a The Modesto Bee article, is behind a paywall, and nothing in front of the paywall indicates that the article is on topic.

3) DVD Talk does not appear to be a reliable source. On top of that, the review is done by a friend of the director for the director. I did see this one ahead of time, and discounted it entirely as unreliable COI.

4) DreadCentral lacks the obvious COI of DVD Talk, but I still don't view it as reliable.

5) The Napa Valley Register is a passing mention; it's an item in a list of movies he did, with no discussion on the movie itself. Ergo it's not a source.

6) The Washington Post - Okay, you got me there, I didn't see that.

All I see in the way of reliable sources is one paragraph in the Washington Post. I'm sorry, but that's not enough, I'm not going to withdraw this. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~You need not believe me, and you may choose to discount them, but~~ DVD Talk and Dread Central are accepted as reliable sources for such genre films, and those two as offered above are quite in-depth article about the film. And too, M. J. Simpson (now in the article) is another in-depth review from a genre RS. There are more that can and will be used to source and verify the article's contents (it is now IN WORK, after all), but Wikipedia has no mandate that an independent low-budget niche horror film have the same coverage as Star Wars. ~~Withdraw as the article is improved, or not... I predict snow in August. Thanks for your input.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Talk and Dread Central have been used as reliable sources many times in the past. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly has the sources and content to indicate it meets our film requirements. Thanks to the great expansion work by Michael Q this is pretty good now even if it is a "ultra low" budget film. I also questioned Dread Central Sven when I wrote the Dolph Lundgren article but I looked about and it appears it is respected in the horror film world.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the by, neither M. J. Simpson [15][16][17] nor Glenn Erickson of DVD Talk [18] nor Melissa Bostaph of Dread Central [19] were in the film, yet they chose to write about it at length and in great detail. Add these independent sources to Washington Post[20] choosing to make note of the film directly and in detail and we have our meeting of WP:Notability (film), even for a cheesy comedy spoof film by an independent. ~~But again, the nominator need not agree.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly making veiled jabs towards me will in no way help your argument, and will indeed only make this process more acrimonious. I strongly advise you to stop. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Schmidt showed the film's notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DVD Talk reviewing DVDs does not equal having a conflict of interest with DVDs. Just like Dread Central has no COI with horror movies. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CraveOnline operates Dread Central and according to the article, they only choose qualified reviewers. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that this is at best the bottom edge of passing the general notability guideline, all of the sources are weak. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DvD talk article / Dread central - is questionable if these counts as a reliable independent source
- The google search to books just points to names in a list, nothing more can be said about that, please actually brinsg sources to discussions, don't just assert them
- Washington post - One paragraph in a very-edge-of-thepaper dvd review section
- Napa Valley - this isn't about the movie, it's about the man.
- Do we accept www.mjsimpson.co.uk as a reliable source?
  - Bottom of the edge? So what? It's an "ultra low budget film". Even if it minimally meets the notability guidelines, there isn't much more that people can expect. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I highly doubt that DVD Talk and Dread Central are not independent. If that was the case, they wouldn't even be used in many articles as of now or helped AfDs end as keep. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) @Joe Chill: You're misunderstanding what I meant with COI. I was referring to the line "**Full disclosure: I've known Ted for years. And yes, I am speaking to him. " from the DVD talk review, which in my mind, disqualifies the review as COI. Friends writing reviews for friends, even if the platform is acceptable, is unacceptable IMO. My issue with Dread Central had nothing to do with COI, that was an issue of professionalism, or what appeared to be a lack thereof.
    - @All: As far as I am convinced, the Washington Post is the only truly reliable source this has. In light of Dr. Blowfeld's support of it, I suppose Dread Central is passable. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm also well satisfied that this now meets the general notability requirements. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source: Here is a DVD Talk review by a different reviewer - http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/23396/naked-monster-the/. Joe Chill (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note sure about reliability - http://www.dvdresurrections.com/MovieReview_TheNakedMonster.html
- A review from a popular radio show called Dead Pit. They were even able to get A Nightmare On Elm Street star on their show (homepage). - http://www.deadpit.com/reviews/thenakedmonster.html
keep because multiple unconnected sources are cited. This is not the place to judge sources' merits, but whether the existance of sources prove it's notable. TimeStandStill (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Let me be clear here, this has nothing to do with Michael Q. Schmidt's asking me to reconsider. On the contrary, I found Schmidt to be unpleasant to communicate with, take great offense to his comment re: BEFORE, and most certainly do not look forward to coming across him in the future. That being said this transformation is staggering. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My thanks to all who assisted in expanding and improving this article to better serve the project and its readers, and also to the nominator for the withdrawal, even if he feels me "to be unpleasant to communicate with". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt is a top bloke Sven and one of the friendliest, but deletion threats and warnings from other editors generally tend not to be a recipe for friendly banter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 7 August 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Corassani[edit]

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

Subject is an MMA fighter who has had no fights in a notable organization and against no notable fighters. Very little coverage of this person. His biggest claim to fame is that he is supposed to appear in a future reality show. TreyGeek (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Previous discussions have always concluded that appearing on TUF reality show is not sufficient to show notability and he has no fights for a top tier organization. Papaursa (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about an MMA fighter who fails WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MMANOT#Fighters, WP:PEOPLE, and per Papaursa above. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:54, 9 August 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. Already relisted three times and not really closer to consensus here. Basically there is a debate as to whether the sources provided cause the subject to pass the broad notability guideline and I don't see consensus either way since there seems to be agreement that this is a marginal case. Jolyondixon, the article subject, suggests he might pass criteria 6 of WP:MUSICBIO which could be true but isn't really something addressed by other participants. Defaulting to keep for now, but notability could be revisited at a later date via AfD or a merge, as Noleander alludes to. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jolyon Dixon[edit]

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

This article is a biography of a living musician that fails to establish notability. There's a lot of name-dropping in the article. He's worked with a lot of notable people but notability is not inherited. I can find no significant coverage about him in reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've added a couple of sources. He's been a member of several notable musicians' bands, and while more significant coverage would help, he's at least borderline notable.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi there.. just added some more citations and info.. hope i dont get deleted- all the best ,Jolyondixon (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) having researched wikipedia's policies further, and in accordance with some of the new citaions i have added, (namely the endorsements of musical equipment) I would argue My "notability" based on Wikipedia:Notability(music)- criteria for musicians and ensembles, part 1, note 3 -"Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]^ For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist." i have added links to 3 manufacturers websites, containing endorsement pictures and qoutes from myself, and one of those is a full interview (Roland U.K) and also part 6 -"Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."- given that i have been a member of several independently notable ensembles.. many thanks.. Jolyondixon (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) i'd also like to point out that i did not create the page originally, but i am very proud to have it! Jolyondixon (talk) 19:06, 4 August 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) 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keephas plenty of reliable references. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Plenty? It's very thin and I'm not convinced they are reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The notability guidelines for musicians are described in WP:MUSICBIO. My reading of the article doesnt reveal that the subject meets any of the dozen criteria listed there. Maybe another editor can go through that list (there are 12 ways to be notable) and see if one applies. Being a musician on an important album, the guideline suggests, merely means that the musician should be mentioned in the article about that album - but it does not guarantee a dedicated article. The article does include about a dozen citations, each of which mention the artist, but often in a tangential way ... I'm not seeing and independent sources that focus on the artist, and demonstrate that the artist is especially noteworthy. --Noleander (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
again, clearly does meet one of the requirements at least ofWP:MUSICBIO..criteria for musicians and ensembles.. point 1. dot 3 (and note 3) , where it states that" Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]^ For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist."- the link in the references section labelled "interview with amy macdonald"- not by me- is in fact a whole page interview with myself... i have re- labelled the link accordingly...i'm only pointing out that it absolutely fulfills at least one of the requirements..Jolyondixon (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The earliest version of the article had no independent refs proving WP:N Now, the inserted refs support it. --Yamsahh (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. The only source that appears to be at all substantial (the Roland UK interview) is by a company that makes musical instruments, so I'm not convinced of its independence. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can we talk more about sources, please? Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the only truly independent sources are by Z100 and the Litchfield County Times (WP:INDY is an essay; there is no policy dictating that local newspapers aren't independently reliable.), most of the remaining web sources seem to meet WP:SPS because they are official websites already notable subjects. This means the creators of these websites are already experts in the relevant field, e.g. Amy Macdonald, Judie Tzuke, Toyah, and Roland Corporation. International Who's Who in Popular Music appears to be an encyclopedia with hundreds of entries. The Google Books preview indicates his entry is just as detailed as most other individuals listed in it. It also verifies his date of birth. Single mention in Who Are You: The Life of Pete Townshend, but I'm unable to assess how (non-)trivial it is since I can only get a snippet view. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I discounted the Litchfield County Times story because it seemed to me to be mainly a promotional piece about a future event. On rereading the story, I do note that it says the following: "Jolyon Dixon and Stuart Ross have worked as musicians alongside some of the biggest names in the business, like Pete Townshend for example." Do people feel this statement does help establish the subject's notability? Does the use of the phrase "some of the biggest names in the business" brand the overall statement as puffery and deflate its value? Or does the mention of Dixon having "worked ... alongside ... Pete Townshend" suffice to override other concerns? Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:47, 16 August 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. Clear OR essay. Can be editorially redirected if desired, but does not look like a probable search term to me. Sandstein 09:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement (intellect)[edit]

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

Looks to me like WP:NOTESSAY. CharlieEchoTango 01:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a typical "one shot" account. User:Kreykh was not heard from again since the one week two years ago when the article was developed. The many sourcing and first-person essay issues have not been fixed in that time. redirect Measuring intellect also needs to go. W Nowicki (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (without merging the content) to Intelligence quotient (just like, for example, Measure of intelligence). --Lambiam 17:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural sensibility[edit]

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

I'm no deletionist, but this article seems spurious and no high quality research. Refs. given are not really convincing. Artiquities (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems somewhat fuzzy but it is our policy to persevere rather than delete. The title phrase certainly gets a lots of usage and it's up to us to find the sources which best explain it. Here's an example which demonstrates the notability of the topic: Cultural sensibility. Warden (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Though the article does seem to speak to a cultural ethic that is notable (WP:N ) the authors sources do not provide a link to its relevance to any academic field of study, therefore, I believe it is original research (WP:NOR ). Nor do the references (WP:RS ) or notes provide support for the topic to warrant its inclusion in the Wiki. If there is some linkage between Woody Allen, the environment and cultural sensibility it is not clearly defined by the author. Perhaps with an extensive rework it might comply with (WP:POTENTIAL)--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 1 August 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) 01:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary definition. Not a valid encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I believe this topic may be notable, I don't not believe that any of the provided references are primarily about the topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 11 August 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Robotics Research Network[edit]

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

Non-notable network. It exists. They organize meetings. However, there are no independent sources about the network. Article was de-PRODded by User:Chaosdruid, who posted on the article talk page saying that there are loads of Gbook and Gnews hits. However, from the links this editor posted, it is evident that all these are just in-passing mentions of this network. While some of the involved researchers may be notable, as well as some of the subjects that people in this network collaborate on, I don't see the network itself being notable. Crusio (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated on the talk page, a quick Google book search produced these: [21], [22], [23], [24] and [25]. From a Google news search: The Times, Fox News, The BBC and The Telegraph It shows at least four independent international news sources: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability". As for the matter of "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability" I cannot agree that these sources are trivial. Some could be considered incidental, but WP:ORG states:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

I would say that those have been met, though I would have to do more than the five minute searches I did already to provide more info. I am in the middle of a large copy-edit so will get around to doing that, if it proves necessary, in the next 24 hours.

I notice that you have not informed the Robotics project, I will do that for you. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are certainly respected sources, however, as I said on the article talk page and in the nom, all of them are about other subjects/people and just mention this network in-passing. As for the Robotics project, I thought that all projects (and certainly one on this subject) were using Article Alertbot and got notified automatically about AfDs, PRODs, etc concerning them. --Crusio (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we fall under the auspices of "Technology" and do not get our own at the moment. It is a situation I intend to remedy once the GOCE drive is over at the end of the month. We did get them under articlealertbot until the latest version after the long hiatus. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is finally working properly again, using talk page tags so that we get informed. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 1 August 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) 01:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Concur with much of what user Crusio says in the nomination. An organization, yes, but notable? No. The independent sources presented so far that discuss the ogranization are not sufficient: they tend to discuss it very indirectly. --Noleander (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that you are going to ignore "Organizations are usually notable" and claim that the organisation does not meet the two criteria? (which I have posted above): Scope is national or international; and "Infomation ... can be verified by multiple ... sources" - as shown above, The Times, The BBC, Fox News and The Telegraph? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article needs better references. However, it seems that based on different search results thr notability criteria is probably met. Beagel (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need independent third party references to published sources about the network. Not references to materials published by participants in the network. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous comment, did you look at The Times, BBC, Fox News or The Telegraph links? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did look at those references. They're fine references for proving that this topic exists; they should certainly be added to the article if it is kept. But since they only mention the topic in passing, rather than containing substantial content about the topic, they do not constitute evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, as per the user above you, how do you see that as not fitting into parameter 2 of the notability I have quoted above? "2 Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.". I am a little confused as how people are not understanding that both those parameters are fulfilled, yet they are still saying delete. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news articles aren't about the organization and its activities they mention someone who is identified as being connected to the organisation as having an opinion on the another subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "can be verified", not "has an article about them" Chaosdruid (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone being identified with the organisation is not verification of the organization and its activities. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't read them then: Ref 1 - "The analysis culminated at a meeting recently held in Genoa by the European Robotics Research Network (Euron) that examined the problems likely to arise as robots become smarter, faster, stronger and ubiquitous." and Ref 3 "The European Robotics Research Network is also drawing up a set of guidelines on the use of robots. This ethical roadmap has been assembled by researchers who believe that robotics will soon come under the same scrutiny as disciplines such as nuclear physics and Bioengineering." and Ref 4 - "The initial findings of one such group, the European Robotics Research Network (Euron) were unveiled last summer, and went as far as raising the question of the ethics of robot sexuality, and whether sex-toy robots should be developed." Chaosdruid (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make statements about what I have or have not done without direct evidence. I have read the article. I have read the WP:GNG. I have read WP:ORG. I have not read the references in the page in question, since there are none, only a link to the homepage. I have read the four references posted here. I do not believe the article in question meets either WP:GNG or WP:ORG, so my position is still Delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article contains no third party coverage, and the news articles mentioned previously only mention the subject in passing. This fails WP:GNG. Sandstein 09:44, 13 August 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) 00:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Command MASH[edit]

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

Poor choice of title, which might in other circumstances warrant just moving it. However, it has totally inaccurate info about the episode of M*A*S*H it purports to be about, as it includes the summary of a completely different episode of MASH, and there is nothing in the history worth salvaging. Carolina wren (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to M*A*S*H (season 4). Many episodes linked at List of M*A*S*H episodes simply redirect to the list of episodes dedicated to that specific season. Unless there's a big rush of edits undoing those redirects and making good articles out of them, I don't see any reason to have articles for any but the most notable episodes. That this is a terrible article doesn't help its cause. SilverCityChristmasIsland 23:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 1 August 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, Courcelles 01:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SilverCity. --Noleander (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. At best, this is a bad content fork. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:05, 8 August 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 Stanford University. As the article appears to have possibilities for merging and/or a stand-alone article I have preserved the edit history. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Roble Gym[edit]

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

This is simply a gym and not unique in any way neither based on the sources or claimed in the article. It is as notable as any of the immaterial buildings on any campus. The article does not meet the general notability guidelines nor is it properly sourced with multiple non trivial coverage. This rationale is based on the merits of this article alone and is not intended to be interpreted as prejudice nor retaliation against any participating editor. On its own this article does not stand. I have nothing against Stanford or this gym. It seems that it could be merged into the Stanford article if someone finds that to be useful. I do not. The article as written does not assert notability. It does not seem that this facility is notable in any way outside its relation to the university and notability is not inherited. FireTool87 (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This appears to be part of a series of bad-faith nominations by user:FireTool87, who was unhappy with my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilma Pang (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review#25 July 2011. In retaliation, on July 28 he nominated several articles created by me and another editor for deletion. One of the nominations was this article, which he nominated using his ISP account, User:184.164.148.90. It's possibly he nominated it by mistake; he may have confused it with Roble Hall which I did create. The nomination of this article was incomplete and so it was reversed [26] on July 29 by User:H3llkn0wz. All the nominations of my articles were speedy-kept as bad-faith nominations, and this one should be also. (The disavowal above may be justified, since in fact I had nothing to do with this article, but still, this article was originally nominated as part of the series). It looks as if the speedy-kept AfD discussions have been deleted (they were never properly listed at the AfD log) so I cannot link to them. Evidence of the situation can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review#25 July 2011 and at User talk:FireTool87. --MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bad faith nomination. This article simply does not have any notability to it. I have informed all the editors and took the time to read into the right policies. It continues to not meet notability since it does not have multiple reliable sources. You cannot keep on article on wikipedia simply because one editor does not like the fact that I have nominated this article and I have made it clear this nomination is based on the article's merits only.FireTool87 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On its merits: The article as written is not very encyclopedic in style; that can be fixed. It is also not well sourced; that can also be fixed. Possible references include books see page 8 and historic newspaper articles going all the way back to the Los Angeles Times in 1904[27] and the San Jose Evening News in 1930.[28] --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining for the moment at least: Notability would be in its history as the women's gymnasium at Stanford University during the time when women's athletics was strictly segregated from men's athletics (pretty much up until about 1970). It could be merged with Roble Hall which was the women's dorm (the male equivalents were Encina Hall now an administrative building and Political Science department and Encina Gymn, torn down recently). However it also has importance as housing a dance theater (Roble Studio Theater) so may be inappropriate to merge with Roble Hall. --Erp (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't see any rationale to merge it with Roble Hall; if it is to be merged, it should be to Stanford University#Campus or Stanford University#Athletics. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 1 August 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, Courcelles 01:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My research turns up virtually no independent secondary sources that discuss this gym. If someone can find some historian talking about the special role the gym played in the history of women's collegiate sports, fine. But I cannot find such a source. Merge, as suggested by MelanieN, into some other Stanford page. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stanford University. Referenced content can be Merged where appropriate, and it can be expanded upon. If it grows large enough the element can be spun out as a sub-article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only the San Jose Evening News reference meetings the independence requirement of independent third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 11 August 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of information technology companies by market capitalization[edit]

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

Lightly sourced, unhelpful list. Very few companies included, and sources (when provided) are to a few articles from 2006 and 2007. If there's any value in the topic, deleting and starting fresh would be quicker and easier. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 1 August 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, Courcelles 01:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unmaintainable info dump, unencyclopedic, and to what purpose this stands, I have no idea. Market capitalization is a formula with two parameters: outstanding shares and share price. Outstanding shares can change at any time, and the share price do change all the time. Multiplying them together only compounds minor changes. In short, the article wants to solidly quantify something that isn't solidly quantifiable over time. There are programs that do this automatically as part of research tools for investors, and this is not Investopedia. MSJapan (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedia article as the information is constantly changing. Better suited to an investment site. Dzlife (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a dedicated editor wants to make changes every day to this page sourced in 2008. Article is badly put of date and wildly inaccurate, based on easily yahoo'd sources. BusterD (talk) 02:22, 13 August 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of software companies in India[edit]

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

A hopeless unsourced list with no criteria for inclusion. We don't have any other "List of software companies in X" articles, this one appears to randomly place companies in cities, most of the companies aren't even Indian, and most are primarily known for other things (e.g. Tata Consultancy Services, CGI Group, Nvidia, Deloitte Consulting). Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, if you think that other article are not there thats why you nominated or if you think that this article missing reference(I can see good sources) or having incorrect data then I think before nomination you should have tried to improve article, instead of nomination here. Atleast tagged article with some improvement tag and if that failed then this step should have been taken. I dont know which background you come from but TCS,CGI are mostly known for software industry. About criteria for inclusion is clearly written in article "This list contains some notable Information Technology companies based in India or having development centers in India." Please read the article carefully before nominating for deletion, dont jump on some conclusion based on your own thoughts. KuwarOnline ^Talk 07:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 1 August 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, Courcelles 01:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think the article is just a little to general WP:SALAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djohns21 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know lack of sources is usually not a reason for deletion, but in this case I think it should be, mainly from practical reasons. This is not a very new list, it has been there since May 2010, so there has been enough time for the creator or any interested party to add sources and verify notability. However, there doesn't seem to be any intent or interest to do so. If one would challenge all unsourced entries and remove them, we will be left with a handful of companies, which is practically the same as removing the list. If someone objects to this deletion, let them start by sourcing a reasonable portion of the entries to show it has potential. Otherwise, I think it is worse than nothing. I would also think the inclusion criteria would need to be defined and listed, but this can be done easily. --Muhandes (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously going to challenge that Wipro writes software just because there's no inline ref in this article. See WP:NOEFFORT and WP:SOFIXIT. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm going to challenge that Symantec develops software in India, because it isn't even mentioned in the Symantec article. Or that EXL even develops software, again, I had a look at its article. That's just the two random clicks I made. The entire list is (in my humble opinion) worthless, since no single editor has ever taken any effort to verify anything in it even makes sense. I don't think such lists are worth keeping. In case you wonder, I removed those two random companies from the list now --Muhandes (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? ~ 30% of Symantec's R&D is done in India according to [29]. They have "development centres in Pune and Chennai [that] employ 2,500 engineers." FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As for EXL, inclusion in this list is debatable indeed, being in the ITES-BPO sector. It's more suitable for Business process outsourcing in India, and frankly this list could use some expansion to an article along the structure of that one. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason to delete. All entries have blue-link wiki articles. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In essence, I agreed above that not having source is not usually a reason to delete, but I believe this is a case where we do no good to our readers in keeping it. Of course there are only blue links, that's because I removed the ones weren't (which were a majority of the list). As shown above, two random links of those blue links showed two companies which should not have been in that list to begin with. Having a blue link is proof of nothing. Then again, if you, or anyone else, states an intent to improve the list, I will reverse my opinion. --Muhandes (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could add General Motors, Bombardier and Nestlé to the list. They all have blue links, and I'm sure they all write software too of various sorts. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of the companies like GM, Nestle etc outsource there software development to other pure software development companies like TCS, Infosys etc, Every big/small companies need specific software to run there business, so they dont go and develop them self, but they outsource. Offcourse they have there own software dept for integration and testing, not for development. I cant believe I m explaining this why software industry exist, what kind of job they do. I think wiki should allow only adults to edit articles here. KuwarOnline ^Talk 09:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure personal insults always get you what you want. However, in Wikipedia we try to avoid ad hominem arguments and stick to the facts. I think you may have misunderstood Jayjg's comment. His comment was that claiming "All entries have blue-link wiki articles" (what FuFoFuEd claimed) would lead, hyperbolically, to the inclusion of General Motors, Bombardier and Nestlé - they all have blue links and they must have some "software" presence in India. The list needs clear and strict criteria (I try to add such) and at least some minimal effort of verification that indeed entries in the list adhere to these criteria. If no one intends to do this, I agree that the list is better off not existing. --Muhandes (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that was my point. All large companies have blue links, and all have software departments of some sort or other. "All entries have blue-link wiki articles" is not an argument for keeping. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it wasn't personal attack on him, Its my experience from last 5 years on wiki says. Some inexperienced editors added some companies which are not software related which lead to deletion of this list, that only reason I said "wiki should allow adults to edit articles". Some times even everything as per guidelines/policies still we need to fight for article what to keep and what not. Even if that article clearly as per policies, still we fighting for it. Simply we get comments like above by Jayjg who believes to add non software(GM, nestle) companies to this list? If they are main stream software companies then just go ahead and add, no body has issue with that, but before adding anything person should understand what he is doing, Even I was amazed to see comments by Jayjg that Tata Consultancy Services is not Software company, which is totally wrong, TCS is India's largest software company[30], [31] which employs more than 2,00,000 (2 Lac) people across globe. Finally this list comply what Wikipedia policies says a list should have. This list clearly says that it should contain notable software companies and not everything/every company. As per guideline about list, its says that every list should have notable companies/article(certainly we only create article for notable companies) with/without non-notable but certainly notable to add to list etc etc. see WP:AOAL, WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCOMPANY. If there are few entries which are not related to software companies we can certainly remove that, deleting articles is not always a option. KuwarOnline ^Talk 06:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you did not mean that personally I apologize.--Muhandes (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, it should be in a tabular form otherwise the list will become too long, since one company may have its offices in various places of India. Guitarist^<<Talk>> 15:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems a good proper list . It meets the criteria for lists on wikipedia.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge every unreferenced entry.Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 11 August 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. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4Children[edit]

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

No notability provided; no references, a Google search reveals this Guardian article but not much else. Albacore (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blatantly notable children's charity involved in running government programs. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 1 August 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, Courcelles 01:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, In light of the heroic amount of references provided post nomination.--Djohns21 (talk) 06:11, 5 August 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) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FCS Software Solutions[edit]

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

Advertisement for a non-notable business that provides information technology services like application management, application hosting and application user support. Unreferenced to anything other than internal sites. Google News confirms that this business is indeed listed on the SENSEX exchange, so I find dozens of notices that the stock has gone up or down, but in the first six pages I find no coverage that would appear to be deep enough to sustain an article about this business, only press release stories and incidental mentions in connection with investment indices. There's an outside chance that there may be sources that aren't in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Comment. SENSEX is apparently a stock index on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Our article does not list this business as a current or former member; it may be wrong. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current listing for SENSEX does not apparently list this business as a member. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:14, 29 July 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, Courcelles 00:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any notable third-party sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 11 August 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) 00:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JordyVision[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was (and still is) - I cannot find enough significant coverage of this person to say that they pass WP:MUSIC, or even WP:GNG at this point in time. The article does not contain independent sources to establish said notability.'. The entry of the record label of this DJ (Prowess Records) has been deleted, so this BLP goes to the community for discussion. ArcAngel (talk) ) 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 1 August 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, Courcelles 00:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going with Delete because there are very few notable sources for biography aside from MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, YouTube. I didn't see anything notable on both a Google and Yahoo! search. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. No evidence in the given sources for notability established independently of the subject. I couldn't find any independent, reliable, non-promotional sources in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:30, 7 August 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) 00:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of circle kick variants[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTMANUAL. (+ WP:OR) CharlieEchoTango 00:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteBut for different reasons. I'm fine with the idea of detailing different forms of a game,but with absolutely no references, and the inherent "make it up as you go" nature of hacky sack, this is just begging for cool things my friend and I do.--Djohns21 (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Djohns21. This is an unsourced article that fails to show any notability for its subject. Astudent0 (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure why this is under "martial arts". However, this is an unsourced article with no indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 11 August 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) 00:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of academics and intellectuals against the 2006 Thailand coup[edit]

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

Looking back now, I think that the information this list provides, the names of and quotations by certain persons based on political opinion over a single event, is not encyclopaedic nor useful to the reader. A list of leading participants in a political event would be useful. A list of commentators with no clear inclusion criteria unlikely so. At best this should be merged with Public opinion of the 2006 Thai coup d'état. Paul_012 (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, post haste. I have nothing more to say.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the rationale of your position. You haven't provided a valid argument, and how does this fit CSD criteria anyway?--Paul_012 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 1 August 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, Courcelles 00:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Academics and intellectuals" is a rather vague grouping. None of those listed are wikilinked. If we assume that they are not notable, then it's just an indiscriminate data dump of people who have commented on the event. If we assume that some, or even all, are notable, then it's still just listing people by their stated opinion on a given issue, which may or may not have any actual relevance to them as subjects (note that it's not even necessarily a "list of Thai academics..."), thus still making it indiscriminate and an unencyclopedic cross-categorization (list of [people who do X] who have [voiced opinion Y] [regarding event Z]). And it further seems like this list, if fully developed, would just turn into a quotefarm. As the nom noted, Public opinion of the 2006 Thai coup d'état is the proper place for this subject to be addressed. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is too broad. Public opinion of the 2006 Thai coup d'état is where this should be mentioned. Joe Chill (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to refer to Wiki policies regarding biographies in my comments WP:BLP. In the BLPs introduction this statement is made, "and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." References are also made to victimization [32]. Other information can be found that may be relavent to this situation here WP:BLP1E. the stature of these individuals is not clearly defined, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Perhaps an addition should be made here WP:NOT, that being .......... ;The wiki is not a "hit list"[33]..--User:Warrior777 (talk) 09:30, 9 August 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. After improvements. Sandstein 09:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Patterson (director)[edit]

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

Non-notable. No sources found, has produced one independent film (also nominated for AfD) which also appears to be non-notable. Yunshui (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because the film appears to have no sources demonstrating notability per WP:NF:[reply]

Keep both A film screened in one of the main competitions at Cannes is notable, and this director is also notable (ref added). I'll add some more refs later too. Lugnuts (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSlamCam Films is the director's own website, and thus fails WP:USERG; it's not acceptable as a demonstration of notability. I don't doubt that Lessons... was screened at Cannes, but it didn't even merit a Mention Spéciale in the Un Certain Regard category, far less winning it; it was mere shown in that category. Had it been put up for a Palme d'Or then fair enough, but Un Certain Regard is specifically for films which are seeking recognition - and therefore have not yet attained it. Yunshui (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More refs added. Disagree with your belief that non-award winning films in Un Certain Regard are not-notable. Are all of these films not notable too? UCR is as notable as the main competition at Cannes. It would be the equivalent of saying that the Short Documentary Film category at the Oscars isn't notable, compared to the Best Film category. Lugnuts (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 1 August 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, Courcelles 00:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Notability for film is covered in Wikipedia:Notability (films). The film Lessons in the Language of Love doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria. A Keep comment above says "A film screened in one of the main competitions at Cannes" is notable, but WP:NFILM says otherwise. The director, Scott Patterson (director), has very few independent reliable sources that discuss him: just a couple, all in relation to the film Lessons in the Language of Love. If these are kept, they should be merged. But, I dont see sufficient discussion in independent sources to demonstrate notability. --Noleander (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commnent - Have done a little research and it would appear that he is responsible for a number of films and TV series. I am sure that there will be sufficient references in relation to some of these other films. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Dan. His filmography shows evidence of notability, and at worst, the short film should be merged into his article. Lugnuts (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there appears to be sufficient references to clearly establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the director has made more than "one" film, and has been shown to meet WP:CREATIVE through his works. Okay with a Merge and Redirect of Lessons in the Language of Love into the director's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 12 August 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. Although the article is poorly sourced, the notability of the subject in question is consensually acknowledged. @pple complain 11:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yau Lop Poon[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. All external links are blogs/personal sites, and all "references" are written works by the person detailed in the biography itself (WP:COI). Notability of the individual not established with verifiable and reliable third-party sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Suggest nominator read WP:BEFORE. Type 'Yau Lop Poon' into Google and there are tons of references on the web and in books. Meets WP:GNG. Article is a mess, but subject is notable. Bgwhite (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 1 August 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, Courcelles 00:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is probably an intimidating subject for AfD regulars since the main sourcing is obviously going to be non-English. Even limiting oneself to English sources demonstrates that this is a clearly notable individual, a long-time editor of major publications. I know that so-called blogs don't get much traction at AfD, but when somebody is TRANSLATING TWO-PART INTERVIEWS of the man into English, that should be a tipper. Runner-up in the 2010 EXCELLENCE IN OPINION WRITING AWARDS of the newspaper society of Hong Kong. I assume that Chinese-language sourcing is vast. Carrite (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When nominating an article for deletion, one should also search for sources to check for notability, not just rely on what's cited in the article. In this case, per User:Carrite, some reliable English sources can be found. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:56, 9 August 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 somebody wants to source this article let me know. I'll be glad to userfy or incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Storm[edit]

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

Unable to identify any significant coverage in reliable sources about this actor. ^Bongo_matic 05:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Beagel (talk) 20:42, 3 August 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, Courcelles 00:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of biographical sources. I didn't see any other biographical sources on both Yahoo! and Google aside from IMDb. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 August 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. It's probably worth splitting these into separate AfDs. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Total Elimination 2003[edit]

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

another non notable sporting event. fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. 1 gnews hit. and google just reveals directory listings. also nominating:

Pride 26
Pride 25
Pride 24
Pride 23
Pride 22
Pride 21
Pride 20
Pride 19
Pride 18 LibStar (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These Events are probably not notable because they do not have enduring historical significance and do not meet the general notability guideline, also they don't have a significant lasting effect. Sehmeet singh Talk 11:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be some sources available for these (details @ WT:MMA#MMA_event_articles_up_for_deletion) but some may need translating or an English version may be harder to find. As the series and organisation was notable, it might be worth waiting a little to see if sources can be turned up for these by the MMA project.--Nate ^t/_c 16:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Where could we possibly find English-language coverage of these events? Oh, look! There was a full writeup of Pride Total Elimination 2003 in the November 2003 issue of Black Belt magazine: Link. I found that in 30 seconds on Google Books. So much for the nominator's due diligence... -208.81.148.194 (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a good bit (in English) about the Overeem/Liddell fight from this event in Chuck Liddell's autobiography: Link. The online version doesn't include page numbers, but the relevant bit encompasses the last three pages of chapter 28. He calls it the "Middleweight Grand Prix", but it's the same event. -208.81.148.194 (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest that you might want to split all of these off into separate AFDs (if this isn't closed immediately due to faulty claims by the nom), since the coverage will likely vary considerably from event-to-event (though pretty much all will be written up in "Black Belt" to one degree or another). -208.81.148.194 (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree the grouping these is a bad option as some may be notable and others not. --Nate ^t/_c 16:06, 3 August 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, Courcelles 00:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some, keep some I agree with the previous comments that lumping all these events into 1 AfD is a problem. I'd say some of the events aren't notable--18,20,21,22,24, and 26 just seem to be routine sports coverage about events with no significant impact. However, others are probably notable because they had world championship fights or should be merged (like this AfD's lead article) because they were part of a significant tournament. Papaursa (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also agree that lumping 10 distinct events into 1 AFD is a mistake. I think most, but not all, of them could be deleted as routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd suggest a withdrawal of nomination, then opening new processes against individual or smaller groups of nominees. Would make it easier to sort wheat from chaff. BusterD (talk) 15:53, 12 August 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. Courcelles 17:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Calderón[edit]

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

Non notable individual; useful content may be used at her mother's article Raquel Argandoña. Her only album No Molestar! did not chart anywhere, and being the daughter of a well-known Chilean celebrity does not give her notability. Diego talk 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 1 August 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, Courcelles 00:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Reliable sources were present already, and I've added more. She's famous, she clearly passes WP:GNG. You can also take a look at No Molestar!. Sources have been added by now there too. Moscowconnection (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange, I saw the article before but I didn't notice it was nominated for deletion. Moscowconnection (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Speedy Keep only applies when there's a lot of keep votes in a row, which isn't the case here. Also, she's only famous for being the daughter of well-known Chilean celebrity Raquel Argandoña, not in her own right (well, clearly, being controversial may be is, but I'm not sure an encyclopedia should have an article for such persons, if so, we should have an article on Luli, Adriana Barrientos, Tanza Varela, Angie Alvarado, etc.) Diego talk 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was Snow Keep when there are overwhelming majority of Keep votes. And Speedy Keep when an article should definitely be kept and when a nomination seems to be a mistake. As a musical artist, Kel probably passes 1, 10, 11 of WP:MUSIC. But more importantly, I can see that there are many articles about her and she's a celebrity, for whatever reason. She passes WP:GNG, I can't see any reason why the article about her could be deleted. I can see you're an experienced editor, but I do think the nomination was a mistake. Moscowconnection (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for others you mentioned, I don't know. es:Constanza Varela has only one role that might be notable by Wikipedia standards. It all depends on whether there are detailed articles about her. Moscowconnection (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — Moscowconnection (talk) 04:31, 6 August 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Backstrom[edit]

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

Prod deleted. Prod said: Not notable actor per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. His only role was a seemingly minor (the character doesn't even appear on the character list in the Brothers & Sisters article) one, and not enough to satisfy notability guidelines. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He plays main role in a film, Hello Herman, which i can't seem to find on wikipedia, and he is in The Motel Life which is due out next year... Therefore he is quite notable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethorne143 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Too Soon. Clearly, he has accomplished anything major, and the only good source I could find on both Google and Yahoo! was IMDb. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has 16,000 follows on twitter at time of writing...how is that not notable, he might not be as famous Bella but he is quite famious, anyway, he is dating her, he goes everywhere with her, they were at launch party together of HTC Evo 3D he was dancing with LMFAO Steve Thorne

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS, WP:ENT, WP:PEOPLE. IMDb is not a reliable source, and I couldn't find anything else reliable in a Google search. The listed film/TV roles do not meet the WP:ENT criteria. Sorry, but no indication of notability per Wikipedia's criteria. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:24, 13 August 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) 00:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Turvey[edit]

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

The article starter contested the prod. This regional journalist fails WP:BIO Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per lack of biographical sources. I didn't see any good sources that could support this article on both Yahoo! and Google, aside from a Linkedin page. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any sources for this Matthew Turvey either, apart from social networking sites. Acabashi (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Google search is burdened by namesakes. This stub is whispy enough and the subject's claims to notability are borderline enough that this can be made to go away quite safely. I'm not finding the substantial published coverage of the subject necessary to meet notability standards. Delete without prejudice, the dude's still young. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional sources being added as per requirement for multiple sources Gabrielaston (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any coverage by reliable sources. The external links added do not constitute coverage. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 07:00, 9 August 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) 00:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo (film)[edit]

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

Future film, violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF GroovySandwich 00:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF (the film won't be out until 2013!?!). Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Crystal Ball argument. This isn't about a movie, it's about a possible future movie. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 11 August 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.