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.  Sandstein  06:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovico technique[edit]

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

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

This "technique" seems to have no real "notability" outside of the novel (and film adaption). It's present one of the most famous scenes of a very famous movie, but it's still not relevant by itself, in a sense that make us make an article for it. The article is full of original search (the only reference is the original novel itself) and unsourced trivia. damiens.rf 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Clockwork Orange. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While my gut instinct is to agree with the merge, clicking on the Google Books link takes me to plenty of relevant, non-trivial, independent sources. While the current article may stink, it's clear that there's enough information to make a reasonable article out of it. Since I don't have time to add this myself, I'll probably tag it for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My reasoning is a little experimental— and evolving— but this is how I am thinking:

As a user, if I know I am looking for something that I know's a thing, I often prefer to find that thing in it's own article (reassures me that my recollection that the thing's a thing is valid). Take that for whatever it's worth. =)

As someone thinking about culture, I tend to see topics as part of a cultural tissue. In this sense, the items found in the section In popular culture represents the indepedent connectivity of that tissue to the rest of the culture. Anchoring that to a name and details is what an encyclopedia topic does. The connectivity confers notability, the specificity of that connectivity (the iconic image, the various references) confers independent notability.

As an editor, I see that independent connectivity, and think, yeah, this may need it's own IPC section, so the topic may have some structure that shouldn't necessarily embed in a larger article.

As a Wikipedian, I tend to think that if all the article did was allow one to refer to such an image as something more specific than, "...that Clockwork Orange scene with the guy strapped in front of a television or whatever with hooks pulling his eyes open...", if all the article accomplished was to make such a sentence easier to say, it has pulled its weight as an independent topic. Why? Consider the number of people who would get and are somewhat likely to hear something like, "...that Clockwork Orange scene, etc....". Those people deserve the focus such an article provides. They are, in a sense, a constituency.

-SM 06:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is mentioned enough in popular media as well as news results, to get people wondering if its real or not. Google news archive has 64 results until I remove anyone that mentions Clockwork, and then it drops to 30. Google Book search shows it in 481 books. Removing any that mention the wore mentions of "Clockwork Orange" and it drops to about 100 [1]. Some of those other results mentioning the film which the technique was first introduced in, might still be valid and not just talking about things in the context of the film. Dream Focus 12:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The technique is referenced in numerous books and so our editing policy indicates we should retain this. It might be sensible to merge into some other article such as Clockwork Orange or aversion therapy but it's hard to choose between them and such action is not achieved by deletion. Warden (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite from scratch. There appear to be sufficient solid third-party discussion of this fictional device (e.g. in Karolides, Nicholas (1993). Censored Books. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810826674. and Nelson, Thomas (2000). Kubrick, inside a Film Artist's Maze. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253213908.) that there is no reason whatsoever to leave this article as a mere primary-/un-sourced lead and a crappy ((inpopularculture)) list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odds are, a rewrite from scratch would make it better. A more modest target might be just to replace the bit describing how the technique is "classical conditioning", etc, which arguably strays into OR/SYNTH. -SM 11:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Clockwork Orange: The fictional therapy appears to have several mentions in reliable third-party and secondary sources, but I do not believe that there is enough coverage outside of trivial mentions to extract content about the specific technique without using original research. Since the current content is mostly original research or unreferenced, I believe that a merge is the best option at this point until the content is supported by the appropriate references and can be split from the main article. Jfgslo (talk) 12:58, 21 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects[edit]

Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article describing an obscure dangerous materials handling standard does not appear to be on a notable topic and is written as a how-to guide. As such, it fails WP:N and WP:NOTHOW. The article seems to have been one of a series of articles on similar obscure topics created as part of an university project - this has been discussed at: WP:AWNB#New articles on the handling of dangerous materials. I nominated this article for prod deletion, but this was disputed. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete nom makes strong arguments how this does not meet notability. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and notability guidelines. The category of standards might be notable enough for a section in some umbrella article, but this one by itself doesn't pass muster. LordVetinari (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep relevant almanac type information, and that's one of the purposes of the encyclopedia , though probably could be significantly shortened. Not the least trivial or obscure--such regulations are a major part of any laboratory activity. We need similar ones for other countries. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and this info is easily found on the relevant standards website. Not to mention that this is WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOTHOWTO. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 14 June 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, Larry V (talk | email) 23:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a regulatory handbook. Barring substantial media coverage of this particular law, it doesn't belong. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's not even a law, it's a standard that is not legally enforcable. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even more reason to be rid of it, then. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability guidelines - it's a highly obscure Australian standard that has never been covered in reliable secondary sources. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 08:58, 16 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Barker earthquake, 2010[edit]

Mount Barker earthquake, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability...We don't need an article for every earthquake, especially those that do not cause casualties and more especially if they attained only 3.8 on the Richter scale. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in addition that it is really poorly written and not even according to Wikipedia standards, this is not an earthquake which either received mass media coverage, nor any casualties. I say, get rid of it. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Even if sourced, this is a clear case of NOTNEWS. The earthquake (if it happened) had no encyclopedic consequences whatsoever. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not every earthquake merits its own article.and there is no long standing notability as per WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - not sufficiently notable to attract independent attention or coverage. 3.8 isn't terribly significant, and some parts of Australia record that sort of thing regularly anyway. Orderinchaos 04:08, 20 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Letandre[edit]

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

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

Non-notable filmmaker. No evidence, internally or through google searches, that there exists enough extensive and independent reliable sources to meet the minimum article inclusion standards as laid out at Wikipedia:Notability. I'd be perfectly willing to be proven wrong if someone can provide sources which are reliable, extensive, and independent. Jayron32 22:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Per G7, Author requested deletion here. There has been no significant improvements from other editors than the author. This diff shows the article in its current state compared to that of the original author. Almost all changes are refs. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G7 and failure to assert notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• explanation - I declined the G7 because I feel that the adding of references certainly does constitute significant editing by others, and thus as a procedural thing made a G7 inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 17 June 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.  Sandstein  05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer trash[edit]

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

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

Dictionary term, one ref (to a dictionary), and some wiki links to songs, tv shows, and movies. In interest of full disclosure, part of my ethnic background is PWT, so I'm familiar with the topic. Seems of little value to us here, probably be best if this were transwikied. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Familiarity breeds contempt. In fact, the topic is notable; for example, see "Trailer Park Trash": News, Ideology, and Depictions of the American Underclass. and so should be kept for further development per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I agree that the article is likely to tend towards DICDEF, but there's no reason, in theory, why it should; the concept is notable and has been covered in decent sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►Alþingi─╢ 22:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Warden, this is imperfect, but there's no reason it couldn't be a good article, it just isn't yet. Meelar (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very common phrase, even though mostly a derogatory slur (i think we dont document every minor slur/slang phrase), lots of ghits in books, scholar. it currently looks like a dicdef, but could easily be expanded.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Pejorative terms are magnets for vandals and don't add anything. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't delete articles just because they're likely to attract vandalism. Otherwise it's bye-bye Barack Obama and Tony Blair f'rinstance. The question is whether or not it meets our notability standard. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 14:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google books and scholar searches show sufficient sources to meet notability guideline.--Kubigula (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. We have articles on other pejorative terms. This does seem like a waste of effort though when there are so many core articles lacking.TCO (talk) 22:26, 18 June 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  06:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rucker Rule[edit]

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

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

Prod removed by author of article. Article is a neologism, and the only "source" for the term is a message board. No other reliable sources can be found. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was the original prodder. The nominator sums it up well. LadyofShalott 21:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge Stuartyeates (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 June 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 WP:SNOW closed, this seemed to pass WP:SPEEDY. John (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whinge wars[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. non-notable, made-up game. Google search doesn't find anything describing this paper-based game (other than the original source website). Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In this edit, OP admits that there exists no source to establish notability, thus making this article a likely candidate for speedy deletion. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge Stuartyeates (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per nom. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could find no reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously non-notable, no references at all etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI [2] is basically a call to arms to come here and save the article from the WikiNerds™. So far nobody appears to have acted on it.. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cn not find any reliable sources to establish notability. GB fan (talk) 20:46, 18 June 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 CSD: A10 as duplication of Porphyria (Assuming good faith). -- Selket ^Talk 21:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pyphoria[edit]

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

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

I believe the creator, who has few other contributions to his/her name, may have misspelled "porphyria". A quick Google search shows no legitimate mentions of this term in the literature. Difluoroethene (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and agree that creator's problem is a good-faith misspelling. I'm not sure if medical conditions fall under a CSD category. It's an unusual enough misspelling that I don't think it would be useful as a redirect. --NellieBly (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Edit to add: I think it might qualify under G6. So tagged. --NellieBly (talk) 20:45, 15 June 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. v/r - TP 22:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Falcon[edit]

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

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

Falcon fails Wikipedia:MLB/N, as he played only three years in the Minor Leagues, and never rose above Single-A. Adam Penale (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:NSPORTS, and a Google News Archive search revealed nothing proving that this player meets WP:GNG. There were some trivial mentions, but I couldn't find any substantial coverage on him. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Adam Penale (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 17 June 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.  Sandstein  05:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Minority[edit]

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

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

Notability; No reliable sources documenting the film. The film clearly exists, and it seems as if it may be notable, but I've been unable to confirm that with sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments below. Article has been expanded substantially. I'm still not comfortable with the quality of sources provided, some of which were printed only immediately surrounding the film's broadcast, and others being either questionable or mere mentions. However, I think it has a shot of improving, and would like to see it have an opportunity to.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is cited in scholarly books and journals as can be confirmed by a simple search on Google Scholar or Google Books. References are added to the article. Govynn (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete merely proving it exists doesn't establish notability. Significant coverage by reliable third party sources would do that. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom.Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The hansard reference in very convincing. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Veering towards Keep. It certainly need work, but there are signs of notability out there to pursue, although access to contemporary sources would be helpful. The controversy about the programme made into the British Parliament with questions in the House (Hansard extract) and if anyone has access to the Times website (or can tunnel through the paywall), it was mentioned in an article by Brian Rix on 2 June last. (The title of the article was "Britain is shamed by the cruelty at Winterbourne View"). The fact that this documentary is being discussed 30 years later (almost to the day), while of course connected to a recent Panorama documentary, is in itself a reason to expect that there are sources out there. It goes without saying of course that they would need to be added. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I'd fully agree with you, if those sources can be found. I've been unable to track any down, however.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mentioned" in an article and being discussed because the topic came up wouldn't sway my !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One need only look to see that the article in Glasgow Herald is far more than a "mention", as it deals with the film and its controversy directly and in detail.[3] Where there's one 1981 article about a controversial documentary, there are more . Just takes looking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• And looking it was not that difficult to find Yorkshire Post,[4] [5] [6] Just sayin... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and continue improvements to the sourced and expanded article. As the documentary has indeed received critical commentary and discussion in reliable sources independent of the subject, it meets the requirements set in WP:NF. The unsourced new article that was first nominated has been expanded and sourced since that nomination. We do not toss what can be so easily fixed simply because it might have started in bad shape. Deleting improvable content does not serve the project. Actually improving something does. I would ask the nominator and delete !voters to now consider a withdrawal as his initial concerns have been addressed... with Kudos to User:Govynn and User:Flowerpotman. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Amended my (not a) vote to Keep above, per improvements. Something else that seems to be true but needs sources is that it won a Royal Television Society Award in 1981. This needs sources; a lot of non-RS pages saying it is not enough; the RTS site is a bit weak when it comes to awards prior to the start of the World Wide Web but it does have has a list of winners. However.... they have goofed in the list (available via this link or this direct link to the pdf file in what looks to be a classic auto-complete blunder, and called it "Silent Majority". An RTS award would be considered a major award. Looking for sources for that now. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a nationally broadcast documentary that has received sufficient third party coverage, plus the award just mentioned above, it would seem. And I agree with Michael regarding the wisdom and value of nominating an article such as this for deletion when even the nominator observes that "it seems as if it may be notable" and the main difficulty is finding sources -- sources which seem to have been supplied rather easily by other editors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My having some vague suspicion that the topic may be notable is not any reason to keep an unsourced stub around, particularly when the only thing I can dredge up on the topic is a short and obscure mention in a QS. That said, it looks like the article has been expanded with sources substantially since its nomination, which is good. I'm dubious about the quality of those sources, but if the article continues to improve, I think it has a chance of eventually being higher quality. As such, I'm willing to amend my vote.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator. As someone earlier kinda-sorta guessed this came into the spotlight again after a recent panorma documentry and it was clearly notable from unreliable sources - reliable sources are quite hard for me to find without access to Lexis etc, more than I thought when I started the article, but I see others have put a start to it. Egg Centric 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Utterly fantastic documentary, well worth watching for da lulz. 78.105.71.57 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Note—the above comment was made by a trolling IP which was blocked minutes later. ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 17:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Re IP - see also: User_talk:NawlinWiki#H.Ross Meatpuppet Egg Centric 19:11, 19 June 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 with nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure Edgepedia (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sniggle[edit]

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

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

Contested prod for a non-notable protologism. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary; there is no place for this here. LadyofShalott 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Talk:Sniggle there was a VfD discussion at one point in time. I'll see if I can track down the proper link. LadyofShalott 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Well, it appears that is the link. The talk page is it. LadyofShalott 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep. Sniggling for eels is already at Wiktionary. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, as an article on eel-catching, per references added by Warden. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The work sniggle is used in EJ Poostay - The Reading Teacher, 1984 - JSTOR, [URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/20198630] Google Scholar gives:

Show me your underlines: A strategy to teach comprehension

EJ Poostay - The Reading Teacher, 1984 - JSTOR ... 123-26,163. Jabberboxy 'Twas August, and the impen swarms Did twitch and sniggle in the slats; All permy were the posimarms And full of intra-chats. ... And will he end up on the rocks, Or will he sup?rate?" Tis May now, and the impen swarms Still twitch and sniggle in the slats. ... Cited by 2 - Related articles - All 2 versions

However, it must be said that this article needs some work to ensure that sniggle is described in the way the above source (or other reliable references using the word sniggle) do.

Govynn (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable and so should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability involves significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article currently appears to lack such things. Do you have anything more? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article now contains several such sources. Perhaps you need to refresh your browser cache. Warden (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that. I don't see why you think my browser cache ought to have contained at 17:43 a reference you added at 18:22, though. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination. Well done, Colonel. LadyofShalott 19:12, 16 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James robert nolan[edit]

James robert nolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Author contested WP:PROD. No substantiate claims of notability. Article reads like a CV, and so goes against WP:NOTCV. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced BLP of an individual without proven notability per WP:BLP. Yet another reason why that policy is so important: without references to reliable third parties, there's no way to prove that the James Robert Nolan who is the subject of this article is the same James Robert Nolan who filed those patents. --NellieBly (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - inventors must be notable generally, or meet the "prof test". Bearian (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note – The author seems to have consented to the deletion. Does that qualify for WP:CSD#G7? — Fly by Night (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article reads sort of like a resume, and I can't really see how the person is notable. Steven Walling 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Wikipedia guidelines. I didn't any hits on the "James Robert Nolan" on both Yahoo and Google. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:57, 19 June 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. v/r - TP 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Chaykin[edit]

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

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

• Delete - The only refs on here are unreliable and a quick Google search comes up with nothing reliable. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it appears to be a means of advertising. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No delete - It is not a mean of advertising. Most of the notes added are from specialized publications from different countries. Other watchmakers have already their article, see for example George Daniels (watchmaker). Jafd88 talk 13:55 GMT, 16 june 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Deleteadvert. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been "cleaned" to meet Wikipedia standards.

• Comment - No it hasn't. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the writing is indeed poor and advert-like, there is plenty of coverage of this person in Russian-language sources. See, for example, the external links section in the Russian Wikipedia article, or this English-language publication.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 19:20 (UTC)

• Keep. While if you look on the germany website, there are many exemples from germany artikles too. If you look some more in internet, you can finde many english artikles about this master too. If you want, I can send you some of that. And it is a member of an international academy of the clock- and watchmmakers: [7] Nadja Chaykina (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Nadja. There are a lot of information about this person and his creations on the internet in different languages; Russian, English, Spanish, French, Italian, etc. On the other hand, in the Wikipedia article there is a reference from the "Horological Journal", an independent and reliable magazine from the reputed British Horological Institute. Pedro (Spain).

Wow...isn't that not weird? Two newbies voting on an AfD consecutively? I smell SOCKS!!!! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a new artikle in a very respectably journal: [8] --Nadja Chaykina (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "newbies"? sorry, but I find it some discriminating. I thought, all can help there... And I have some artikles, but in other languages--Nadja Chaykina (talk) 16:07, 20 June 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. v/r - TP 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Antony[edit]

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

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

Article about a subject who fails WP:NACTOR. No reliable sources in the article to prove notability of the subject (own web site, IMDB and UKScreen.com). Could not find any other reliable source, all are potentially WP:USERGENERATED.

There are two users who edit, both have no other interests. A speedy has been declined. Has been deleted four times (all CSDs) in the last four years. Re-created one day after the last deletion. Ben Ben (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Ben Ben (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is NO footage of Stuart anywhere on YouTube. No mention of show reels and no evidence of him appearing in anything listed. This entry should therefore be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.79.79 (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no reliable third party sourcesSean (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 17 June 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. v/r - TP 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toot It & Boot It[edit]

Toot It & Boot It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:NSONG. noq (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it is a song without reliable third-party coverage. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:15, 23 June 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. v/r - TP 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown (beauty pageants)[edit]

Triple Crown (beauty pageants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable term. Seems to be original research. Previous afd closed as keep after the article creator promising to add sources and two other editors "trusting" him to do so. The sources - that we're never added to the article - do not support the fact that this is an established term in use in publications. damiens.rf 18:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I haven't been able to find any reliable independent sources that say that winning state pageants in the Miss Teen USA, Miss USA, and Miss America pageants is called the "Triple Crown". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources that saved the article in the last AfD offer only passing mentions of the term, and - to me - are weak indicators of notability. I Googled several of the pageant winners who've achieved this title and most results that use the term seem only to do so because the creator of this "Triple Crown" page made sure to stick the term in the leads of the applicable pageant winner Wiki articles to make it look notable and accepted when it's not.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Odd Future Tape[edit]

The Odd Future Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Mixtape that fails WP:NALBUM. Though there are listings on both Billboard and AMG, neither has a review of this album, and the album has never charted.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review and Discogs link are added. L Trey (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:32, 4 June 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,   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

keep whilst I'm not really a fan, this band is really popular with many young people. the recent Australian tours had large crowds and there was a lot of debate over the band. I'll search for some articles. I noticed pitchfork is already in the references - don't you consider them a RS? as I understand it, this band has become wildly popular without major media press coverage - they've used download sites and their blog and word of mouth. it's one of the modern success stories (or perhaps a return to the old days pre-PR / pay for coverage media?). so I'm not sure there'll be much coverage of this tape, but in future I think people will look back and say it was one of the most successful to use this model. in this modern world. this is the main reason I'll work on this article and try find some sources Kathodonnell (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found some reviews/articles on Pitchfork, XXL Magazine, LA Weekly. and some blogs/music sites. I've added them as inline refs to the article. (also moved the reviews from infobox to "Reception" section as per infobox page). so, yes, my decision is keep for this article Kathodonnell (talk) 07:41, 11 June 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, -- DQ (t) (e) 17:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. Not an over-abundance of coverage but a significant release from a notable group with some coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 15 June 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. Already deleted by another admin. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Antonio Juan Schotvanger de Borbón y Escansany[edit]

Don Antonio Juan Schotvanger de Borbón y Escansany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable individual. Somebody trying to pass himself off as a Spanish duke. Every hit is Wiki or a mirror. Kauffner (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a Spanish nobility site here and nothing shows up. Kauffner (talk) 22:30, 8 June 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, -- DQ (t) (e) 17:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as non-verifiable, possibly hoax. Zero hits on Google News, Books, Scholar; 7 on Web. Not notable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This article no longer even contains a claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homoud Nasser[edit]

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

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

I can't find sufficient RS coverage reflecting notability of this singer. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 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) 00:00, 7 June 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, -- DQ (t) (e) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. I've searched Google and Yahoo! and didn't find any reliable results. A Facebook page and an official website isn't enough to hold this article notable. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:13, 16 June 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  05:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jauqo III-X[edit]

Jauqo III-X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An electric bass guitar player. Created a 15 string bass guitar which has a reference that goes to a forum page. Found one self-released album from 2005. Can't find anything else to make him notable. Bgwhite (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources. I didn't get any hits on both Google and Yahoo! except for the official website and other non-notable websites. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:55, 17 June 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. v/r - TP 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Campusano[edit]

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

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

Non-notable minor league player who never rose above AA and hasn't played since 2009. Dewelar (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even a player from a youth team would be more notable than this. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you elaborate on why a player who has been on a major league roster is less notable than a youth player? Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I wondered that myself... -Dewelar (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It appears he survived the first AFD because one commenter thought that minor league play was good enough and another thought that spring training was enough. Ma^t_chups 03:48, 18 June 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. Already deleted by another admin. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asareh shayegan[edit]

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

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

Apparently an autobiography of a musician. No independent reliable sources listed in article. No independent reliable sources found when searching. Does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. COI as created by user name Asareh shayegan (same as the article name) and unsourced BLP , and notability Bentogoa (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those is a speedy deletion criterion, though notability comes close to CSD A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No notability or reliable sources. Starionwolf (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I searched Google and Yahoo! and came back with zero results. At least, there would be one source (a website at least) to confirm this person exists. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It looks like the subject wrote an autobiographical stub before finding out about notability standards. The Farsi article on the same subject is up for speedy deletion, which I think could have been done here too.Bjones (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: autobiographical without notability.--Bersam (talk) 09:52, 17 June 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 unverifiable in reliable sources.  Sandstein  19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thiemassassians[edit]

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

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

No verifiable sources. Google searches produce (1) several Wikipedia articles, all of which have been edited by the author of this article, and all or all but one of which owe the mention of Thiemassassians to that author (the one possible exception had the mention inserted by an anonymous IP editor); (2) Wikipedia mirrors; (3) blogs, forums, facebook, and other unreliable sources. There seems to be no verifiable coverage of this in reliable sources. An editor has suggested that this may be a hoax, but if it isn't then it is certainly non-notable and probably "original research". Google scholar produces nothing at all relating to this, which is surprising. (PROD was removed without comment anonymously.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Historical and archaelogical evidence has been provided. I refer the reader to the sources section.Tamsier (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There does not appear to be anywhere that actually uses the term Thiemassassians. noq (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Those who are calling for it to be deleted should perhaps google the word "Thiemassas". Although a lot is not available on google, there are indeed reliable sources and they provide direct link to Serer history and people. Just because something is not visible in Google/ in huge numbers, does not mean it is false. I call for this article to be Accepted and time permitting, for this article to be developed and given the merit it deserves just like any article on Wiki. Tamsier (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did. Of the 6 results returned, 1 is to the Wikipedia article. 2 seem to be duplicates of each other, 2 are bad links. So that leaves 2 hits. Both of those hits mention the word but not in the context that the Wikipeia article uses it. noq (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per Noq. Doublechecking Ghits, the term does not appear to be used by anyone. Edward321 (talk) 18:42, 19 June 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. v/r - TP 22:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein[edit]

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No significant claims of notability, other than existence. References are all primary sources. No significant coverage found from independent publications. MikeWazowski (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is there significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources? If so it should be noted here and/or added to the article before the seven day AFD period is over. Nothing shown in the article satisfies WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. Wikipedia is not a directory of every business.Edison (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An old and established but utterly unremarkable law firm. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 16 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary calderon[edit]

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

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

Appears to be a non-notable person. I was unable to locate any reference to this person or "Star Magic". The one external link on the page links to a different person on the imdb. This may be a Speedy Delete as per WP:A7 Dougofborg^(talk) 12:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any reliable source to support notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Borderline A7 call, but it's probably safe enough to let the AfD run for a week and then delete it. Jenks24 (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage to establish notability. Moray An Par (talk) 09:48, 17 June 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) 00:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Competitiveness Institute[edit]

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

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

Contested WP:PROD; vaguely promotional, unsourced article which doesn't really assert notability. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:CORP. All the included references arte 1st-party, and thus do not establish notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above; language of the article is obviously promotional and too vague to inform: a global network for practitioners, policy makers, researchers and business leaders working towards improving competitiveness in regions and clusters.... a forum to create progress in the practice of cluster development, regional competitiveness and innovation support. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete: the language of the article is no longer promotional neither vague. There are no fist-party references, just one external link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clusmy (talk • contribs) 11:54, 17 June 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. OK. I'm calling deletion. Granted, we've no way of knowing if the person requesting deletion is the subject or not (and [9]). That would be a matter for OTRS. And, even if identity were established, we don't delete on the subject's request. However, User:Esydor, who is the only real content contributor to this article, has requested deletion [10], so that makes this a WP:CSD G7 (or at least reasonably within my admin discretion to call as such). Given the possible real world concerns, the borderline notability, and the fact this is a BLP, I think deletion is a reasonable conclusion. I'm not quite "ignoring the rules" here, but I am interpreting them in the spirit of "do no harm". Scott Mac 14:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Meek[edit]

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

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

The subject has requested deletion on the grounds that his employer, Goldman Sachs, does not "allow" its employees to have Wikipedia articles.[11][12][13] That is obviously not a valid reason for deletion, as a commercial organisation has no power to dictate what we choose to include in an encyclopedia, but this should be deleted anyway for lack of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject clearly meets the general notability guidelines. That said, the article contains personal information which is either not sourced or cited to sources that do not verify content. This information should be removed. All this said, deletion is not the answer here. Cind.amuse 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. LordVetinari 13:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, with no prejudice to future action. Any request to delete along these lines should be made to the Wikimedia foundation. If they deem deletion appropriate, it can be deleted under CSD G9. —WFC— 13:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify from my previous comment that I doubt the community will delete under the GNG. He just about meets it in my opinion, and borderline opinions will doubtless be swayed towards keeping by the subject's request. The sooner this AfD is closed, the more latitude the foundation will have to take a G9 decision. —WFC— 14:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment. I'm finding it difficult to see how the subject passes the general notability guideline. The secondary sources in the article appear to show borderline notability of the Start Now campaign, but not of Meek himself. Could those calling for keeping please identify the required significant coverage of Meek in independent reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, unfortunately you've muddied the waters here. What you've got is someone, claiming to be the subject, asking for deletion. That person ought to have been directed to OTRS. There's not a snowball's chance that deletion at the suggestion of someone claiming to be the subjection will succeed. There is another question of notability. If this doesn't meet the GNG then it ought to be deleted whatever the subject thinks (although if it is borderline, then an authenticated request might have some influence with the closer). Can I suggest you do three things. a) Direct the claimed subject to OTRS b) Withdraw this nomination as hopeless (and only going to draw more attention to the subject) c) if you believe the article not notable, open a fresh nominaiton on that ground and let's discuss that clear of the other issues.--Scott Mac 14:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I have been trying to make (although I would suggest that c) is not done unless or until a) and b) have been exhausted). —WFC— 14:58, 15 June 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. v/r - TP 22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Alexander Acosta[edit]

Carl Alexander Acosta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Marked as no references for >1 year; sole link only confirms age Stuartyeates (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable person. Moray An Par (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kid who can dance. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to OpenWRT. v/r - TP 22:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FreeWRT[edit]

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

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

This is a fork of another open source project, but it has seen only some brief media coverage around the time when the fork happened, and all the coverage was in German, even though it's not a product aimed at the German market; it looks like the main developer of this fork was German, which probably explains this issue. This fork became inactive soon thereafter, and so no more coverage is likely. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• s/Merge to OpenWRT, from which it is forked, since the original forked version was OpenWRT. This will add additional references to OpenWRT. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge not Delete to OpenWRT as dead fork. (dead forks uh!) Widefox (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to OpenWRT. Clearly will not get notability in the future. Its references are questionable too. For example http://wiki.openwrt.org/oldwiki/OpenWrtDocs/Hardware/Linksys/WRT54GL does not mention FreeWRT at all. The OpenWRT article has its own issues, like my pet peave of talking about events now in the past in present or future tense because the article has been neglected for so long. W Nowicki (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused old product, lacking third party coverage indeed. --Chealer (talk) 20:36, 20 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adsdoc[edit]

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

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

No references and no claim of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - Absolutely nothing to indicate that this software package passes the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not seeing any reliable 3rd party coverage here. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another document management software package. Hardly even evidence of existence, let alone notability. Tiny, uninformative stub. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:00, 15 June 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. Also reads like advertising (G11).  Sandstein  05:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totara LMS[edit]

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

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

Article does not attribute reliable secondary sources. I found one hit on Google Scholar, but the paper does not describe Totara in any detail. Web search returns some press releases and other unusable sites. There is a merger proposal, which I can endorse if some verification can be located. Marasmusine (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to lack independent coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Article created by a WP:SPA. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Can we make ___________________ management system grounds for speedy deletion yet? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about that, but this article is a clear example why free software articles selling support contracts, as this one blatantly and openly does, do not belong in Wikipedia under the exception banner of "but it's free!" Instead, they need to be treated like any other product. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:36, 15 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh Pandit[edit]

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

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

No reliable references to prove notability of the subject. Re-creation of previously deleted article. -- Tinu Cherian - 08:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable enough (although his videos are a huge hit in youtube for all wrong reasons) --Sreejith K (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom--Sodabottle (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This guy is a nobody looking for a ego boost. The page is likely to have a negative effect for wikipedia as possible source of abusive comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithinharidas (talk • contribs) 10:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Nithinharidas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only abusive comment here is yours. WP:NPA? Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)please delete delete[reply]

• Delete - Not enough notable. Not enough references in the articles --Anoopan (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-This article is immaterial as it is about someone who is of no great concern to any one out there. As aforementioned by other users this article is about someone looking for a ego boost and the page is likely to have a negative impact for the Wikipedia community. --User talk:Bluestreak007 —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • — Bluestreak007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is about someone who is looking for a ego boost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kptikku (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Kptikku is most like a sock of User:Nithinharidas. Both these accounts have edited only here. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. No credible claim for notability. Salih (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete: He is not an actor, a stupid fellow doing all these for cheap publicty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.242 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't conform to WP:N Arjun^codename024 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He is basically using wikipedia for his film publicity. NO more further nominations should be allowed
  • There is a clear consensus for Deletion of the article and can be easily closed per WP:SNOW. But as a general rule, I won't delete page of which I have nominated the AFD and participated in . I will let some other admin close it. -- Tinu Cherian - 01:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Per nom. A eunanemous vote, eh? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP with a large chunk of SNOW. I'm happy to take Simple Bob's comments below as a statement of withdrawal, and interested editors from both sides of the border appear content for the article to stay. Please don't try shortcutting the closure process though – fairness dictates that such closures must be done by someone who is uninvolved. I just about qualify in that respect as far as this article goes, so I'm doing this now in the hope of maintaining a pleasant editing environment.  —SMALLJIM  12:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Cornish[edit]

Anglo-Cornish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Unnecessary and poorly executed attempt to fork a topic that is already well covered within West Country dialects. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My initial view was that this is already covered at West Country dialects#Celtic language influence. But will reconsider position if sufficient reliable sources are found to demonstrate distinctiveness and notability. What I am not clear about is whether this article will cover Cornish dialect - such as here - as well as "Anglo-Cornish" - such as this. Or are they the same? Clarification needed please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now well on the way to being a worthwhile article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification is the "Cornish Dialect" that is referred to in the Ken Phillips book is indeed what is referred to as Anglo-Cornish in the name of the article. The principle reason I used the name "Anglo-Cornish" is that "Cornish Dialect" to those not familiar with the topic, might be interpreted as referring to the Cornish language, rather than the dialect of English spoken in Cornwall. The name of the article is a subject under discussion in the article's own talk page. Govynn (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is signifcant material on the Anglo-Cornish dialect existing in various sources external to Wikipedia, try clicking on "books" or "scholar" above. Much of this is not well and specifically covered by the existing West Country dialects article. I, and any other editors who have an interest in the topic need sufficient time to work on this article. Govynn (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Govynn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I further point out that another user has supported this in the article's own talk page Govynn (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As Govynn said above. West Country dialects, which are based on Wessex Anglo Saxon forebears, should not include the unrelated dialects of Western Cornwall which are based upon both the Cornish language and possibly Oxbridge English as used by the clergy and landed classes. English was learned relatively late across the western half of Cornwall and it was from these upper sorts of people that it was learned.Bodrugan (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the term is used, see for example "Voices from West Barbary: An anthology of Anglo-Cornish poetry 1549-1928" by Alan M. Kent. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please keep this article. The Cornish dialect is a stand-alone subject, and can't be lumped in with a vague "West Country" category. It contains many words that descend directly from the Cornish language, which other dialects of the south-west do not share, and many other features that are also unique to Cornwall, and even to specific regions of Cornwall. I find it remarkable and somewhat disturbing that a call for its deletion has even been lodged. One hopes that the reason is merely ignorance of the subject rather than bigotry. Marhek (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Marhek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, yes it is a West Country dialect, but it is also heavily influenced by the Cornish language, especially in West Cornwall. The dialects of Devon, Somerset etc demonstrate some Celtic influence, but nowhere near to the same extent. Why wasn't this listed on the Cornish wikiproject?--MacRusgail (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose that the deletion tag be removed to allow editors time to work on the article - if anyone feels in the future, after a period of time, that the article should be deleted then they can remark it as such. Govynn (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid an editor who has been involved in the discussion about deletion cannot propose closing it, only an admin or long-standing editor who haven't been involved in the discussion can close it. With a little patience this will be resolved (possibly soon as a WP:SNOWBALL). Please don't take the tag as an attack on the article itself (or its creator) - it's just there to notify people of this on-going discussion. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unaware that to use the word "propose" appears to have a quasi-legal meaning, constituting part of a formal process in Wikipedia. In this case the on-going discussion here is principally a result, rather than a cause of the deletion proposal. The article was marked for deletion very quickly indeed after its creation, without following steps such as writing on the initial editor's user talk page, or the article itself's own talk page. Govynn (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is worth covering in a separate article though it could take some time to bring together properly referenced information from reliable sources. If it does get deleted the content should be used to improve the West country dialects article. The title is not ideal as a mere adjective: "Anglo-Cornish dialect" would be better.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Yes, this article is a fork, but is totally acceptable according to WP:SPINOFF; if this article was now to be incorporated into West Country dialects it would overwhelm it and make it out of balance. There are enough sources to demonstrate the worthiness of this article. Zangar (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I'm always happy to see a bad article rescued by the Wikipedia community and turned into a good one. Feel free to remove my AfD nomination. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built I hereby remove the deletion nomination. Govynn (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it needs an admin to close it. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and an uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept. If not enough people have joined in the discussion to judge consensus, the article will be relisted for several more days.

The majority of AfD discussions are expected to run for at least seven days. In some cases a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. If there is some concern over the validity of the closure, questions may first be asked of the person who closed the AfD, and, failing satisfaction there, raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Bodrugan (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Simple Bob's withdrawal it should come under Wikipedia:Speedy keep which can be done by a non admin editor. I don't know how to close the discussion so I'll leave that for someone that does. Bodrugan (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy keep still has to be properly closed and that applies to the tag on the article. I'm happy for the nomination to be withdrawn but let's follow the proper procedure. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Govynn (talk) 11:26, 16 June 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 Nomination withdrawn in good faith. heading towards WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Potts[edit]

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

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

this has been tagged for a while for notability and sources issues. i cannot find any indepth coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. all the article has in one source from the not so reliable www.mp3.com.au nothing in gnews and all google comes up with is one line mentions [14]. the most indepth is this and not exactly a major music media source. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep self evident from improvement SatuSuro 10:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whilst it looks a lot of sources at least 7 of the added sources are mere one line mentions which confirm that he was a member of certain non notable bands. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satusuro's edits show that Potts meets MUSICBIO and GNG. Nice work. Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above. Not heaps, but enough to keep.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If ninetynine and Baseball are both notable, then Potts automatically is under point six of WP:MUSICBIO. Baseball have the weaker claim (and a dreadful article) but there's enough there, particularly on touring and membership (other than Potts) to suggest they qualify relatively easily. They've also survived AfD in the past. BlueThird (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per point six of the guidelines for musicians. Notability on his own may be borderline, but Potts is notable enough for Wikipedia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)*[reply]

Strong Keep after extensively reasearching, it is clear that Potts is a notable artist, participating in a number of notable bands, which have undertaken numerous international tours, mostly organised by Potts. He is also a published author. Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 17 June 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  06:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalrashukla Classes[edit]

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

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

This article fails to meet the minimum notability criteria (CSD A7). ∃ Aaditya 7  07:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable coaching class. This is not a school--Sodabottle (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ORG. no extensive coverage [15]. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 20 June 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  05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musicism[edit]

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

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

Neologism that not notable. Shrike (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is such a thing as "Musicism", and it may be notable. This however, is not it. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:14, 15 June 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. v/r - TP 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Van Ghoul[edit]

Vincent Van Ghoul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clearly non-notable. This Scooby-Doo character has no sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No out-of-universe context or notability, no sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo.SPNic (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The fictional character does not meet general notability guideline and an article about him can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article is unreferenced, so all content is original research. Jfgslo (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Fuse it with The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo. Maybe we should just put the whole article, along with The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo. 22:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.159.36 (talk)

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. Although there were more keep !votes, many of them are SPA accounts. There does not seem to be consensus based in policy and guidelines to support keeping or deleting this article. v/r - TP 23:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated[edit]

Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable warez group Ridernyc (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable warez group that has been unanimously kept twice. jorgenev 06:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Unanimous" by the same handful of editors who actually never established notability. There are no third-party sources. As it stands, this fails WP:NOTE. Where are the sources? freshacconci talktalk 14:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A "notable warez group that has been unanimously kept twice": so where are the sources? Looking at the last two discussion there's a great deal of bad-faith attacking of the nominators for not knowing what this is supposed to be and some really weak justifications of self-published references being used to establish notability. It's been four years since the last AFD: where are the third-party sources? As someone who hasn't a clue what the hell this is supposed to be about, why have there been no edits by the supporters of the two AFDs to bring this up to standards? It's poorly written and makes no attempt to explain what Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated is supposed to be. The previous AFDs insist that this is notable. I see no evidence yet. I am holding off on a !vote for now. freshacconci talktalk 14:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was hopeful that Wikipedia had grown beyond the "are you crazy, of course this is notable" arguments. The previous AFD's for this are basically irrelevant, compared to our current policies there was basically no inclusion criteria back than. I have yet to see a valid argument made for keeping this article. There has also been no improvement to the article in 6 years. While I would love for these groups to have pages and detailed histories on here, there are just no reliable sources for any of it at this time. Ridernyc (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article is administered on a regular bases and states information about one of the three underground computer scene groups, which founded the scene in the 1980's. Over the years, there have been many attempts to delete this site, also sections of it, by people from the scene, for various reasons. TRSI represents a group of people, working creatively in programing, graphics, animation and alternative platforms, recognized by peers all over the digital sphere. Many productions are link referenced. Keep this part of pop culture on Wikipedia, due to public interest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.34.218 (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why delete a page of such public interest. All involved in tech sociology know about this group, you can back-check all their mentioned products on www.scene.org or www.pouet.net or even go to www.trsi.de and verify. Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated is computer history, why not let folks know about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar.Press (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "public interest" has nothing to do with it. This needs verifiable, third-party sources. freshacconci talktalk 23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, how DARE Wikipedia think of the public interest! It's not like they're the ones reading this stuff!189.222.12.246 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. TRSI are the biggest of the big. Here's almost 200 reasons why deleting is not only inappropriate but unquestionably malicious: http://pouet.net/groups.php?which=280 or http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trsi+demo . These digital arts superheroes devoted huge portions of their lives to create some of the most memorable and genre-defining pieces of real-time art a person could wish a computer to subject them to. To dismiss the group as a mere 'warez' group is to fail to take the effort to inform oneself of simple facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongledan (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any sources to back up those claims? freshacconci talktalk 21:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is the reason to delete this entry really just the comment 'not-notable warez group' ? TRSI is far more: a demo-scene group which evolved from their cracking roots from the 1980 and 90s (far before the the term warez was used.) If noteable in the warez context: they have been one of the first groups which have been involved in cracking software (an interesting historical aspect, I think). So first : the comment "just a warez group" wouldn´t fit. Second: They also have taken part in creating intros,demos and few breakthroughs for the demoscene (so from a historical view more than just notable in context with the demoscene) and still are creating demos, music and graphics in the demoscene context.(compare the last entries at pouet which is the website to check for demoscene releases: http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=280&order=release) Compared to that it would be as if you would say from a famous band that they are not notable. But the demoscene as a sub-culture is sometimes intransparent for outsiders, so maybe this could have lead to suggest the deleting. I think the facts themself tell something different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.10.32 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. I'd like to add this link to back up some information: http://noname.c64.org/csdb/group/?id=602 from being in the scene these days, I can assure you that the claim made on this Scene-driven-website is pretty correct: 1993 they were pretty much the most influential cracking-group on the C-64 with lots of different intros, an enormous amount of releases. Deleting an article on the group is pretty much like showing to have no clue whatsoever. I agree though, that the article might need some polish, but that is no reason for deletion, just for amelioration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.1.239 (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why do you want do delete this aricle? I've an old very big paper encyclopedia at home, but I don't use it very often because I use wikipedia because there are much more articles like this init. TRSI is an old cracker and demo group and it's not impossible to find sources for it. Look at http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=280&order=release look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demomaker and much more. You will find very much articles about TRSI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.243.194.45 (talk • contribs)
  • Neither of those are reliable sources per WP:RS. The latter is the German Wikipedia. How is that helpful? If there are no third-party sources available to verify any of the claims, I can't imagine !voting for anything other than delete at this time. freshacconci talktalk 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've tried finding something, anything that could help establish and verify the notability of this. I've searched under both Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated and TRSi. There are no third-party sources out there. Everything is connected to the actual warez group. I do actually believe the supporters here that this group has this history but without actual WP:RS nothing can be verified. The only "keep" !vote so far doesn't actually provide an actual rationale for keep other than this has survived two AFDs in the past. Looking at those two discussions, there were no arguments given to establish notability here. Since the last AFD four years ago nothing has been brought forward to help. Unless third-party sources rather than anecdotal evidence can be brought forward, there is no option other than to delete. freshacconci talktalk 14:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are the perfect example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia editors these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.78.226 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In this case you should delete all entries for demoscene and all related entries. There are parties every year (you can look up site like these where the results of the contests are shown(http://breakpoint.untergrund.net/results.php - a official party with an official contest)and search for trsi and you have reference. Informations from other sources (same precedures:look up and search trsi) http://revision-party.net/history/2011 or http://blog.zdf.de/3sat.neues/2010/05/31/trsi-demo_fur_android/ (a small report shown from the german tv-channel 3sat) or check books like:"Freax: The Brief History of the Computer Demoscene". Most informations of the demoscene can be found in discmags which has been a standard way to exchange information before the web in the demoscene if you don´t see a scroller below a demo as a reference (which has been the first way to exchange greetings and infos ).
• Comment I think freshacconi hates TRSI, because you find very much about in the web like this:

http://no-copy.org/trsi.html (A german book) DataBecker is a german software company http://www.databecker.de/ DataBecker sold the Red Sector Demo Maker in the 1990er look here: http://www.classicamiga.com/images/stories/jreviews/software/R/rsi%20demo%20maker%20%281991%29%28red%20sector%29_001.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.184.13.89 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A warez group made it into multiple published books in a foreign language. Welp, there's your notability. Time Magazine isn't writing about warez groups. The New York Post doesn't put that day's warez articles next to the ones about what strain of hep A-Rod caught this week. The notability guidelines are awful, laughable, and obviously inapplicable to something like a warez group, which centers around a subversive scene and illegal activity. Now, having said that, welcome to the part where the one guy has made this the literal center of his life handwaves over the very sources he was asking for via self-parroting and gets it nuked anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceCreamJonsey (talk • contribs)
  • Hey, I tried finding sources and held off !voting. I have no vested interest in this being kept or deleted. Unfortunately, underground means less legitimacy. That's the way the world works sometimes. As for the sources provided above, the first link is a single line in a book. The other two, I have no idea what those are supposed to be. So what we have is one book which mentions this group in passing. Sorry, per Wikipedia guidelines, that is trivial. Everyone (if these comments are from more than one editor) really needs to read WP:V and WP:RS. freshacconci talktalk 00:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've heard of them, they are notable in their subject area. They are mentioned (admittedly briefly) in published sources, e.g.: [16] [17]. Someone with more familiarity with the subject could probably come up with better ones, Google doesn't scan everything. The article could certainly use some sourcing but I don't think deletion is the solution. DopefishJustin (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - some additional publications mentioning their 'notability' [18] and [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnosan (talk • contribs) 09:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even network television features TRSI productions, so how can you say, there are no third party references = http://blog.zdf.de/3sat.neues/2010/05/31/trsi-demo_fur_android/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.34.218 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The scholarly works linked above by Jonnosan meet WP:RS guidelines. Dyer-Witheford is a noted scholar of computer history: if he claims something is important, that is good enough for me. Dariusk (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think that the aforementioned link meet the requirement of "significant coverage". They are mentioned in passing once. Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Along with the whole lot of these demoscene and warez group pages. If the "scene" wants to have its own "in-universe" warezipedia or whatever, then by all means. But by their very nature, underground groups like this only receive 3rd party, reliable sources when they are of importance. If all you have is a bunch primary sources, and a passing mention in a book, you don't meet WP:NOTE. Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd also like to point out that all of the commenting IPs so far have only ever edited this AFD and the article in question. Food for thought. Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's almost like some people only edit and comment on things they're knowledgeable about. Imagine that! 95.34.78.226 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Says the guy who vandalized the page. Doesn't exactly help your case. Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Also, for people who would like to see references of TRSI in third person literature, try to read: http://www.amazon.de/Hackerland-Logbuch-Szene-Denis-Moschitto/dp/3932170296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308727258&sr=8-1 and http://www.amazon.de/Freax-Brief-History-Computer-Demoscene/dp/3981049403 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar.Press (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those would actually help to establish notability if you would be able to provide page numbers and give us a sense of how TRSi is discussed in those books. My German is limited but if we could verify those two books discuss TRSi in detail, that definitely help. As I've said, I have no vested interest in keeping or deleting this article and I believe the supporters here when they say this group has a significant history. However, one core policy is verifiability. And policy is not negotiable. freshacconci talktalk 13:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I feel very sorry for me and my group that ppl still call us a warez group. We where the first who released a demo on android, we where the first who released a demo on xbox360. We are party of the mainorganizing teams of Breakpoint (http://breakpoint.untergrund.net)(rip),Revision (http://www.revision-party.net) and Mainparty in France (http://www.mainparty.net) the biggest pure demoscene events on the entire planet. We havent crack software since years...so actually to call us a warezgroup is a farce. I guess the hate in this discussion comes from a totally other direction, and shall only be covered/hidden here with other topics. TRSi even had its own record label... so wtf. If TRSi is only "3rd Party mentioned" then "Hells Angels" and all other Motorcycleclubs should be deleted here aswell - because theya are aswell only 3rd Party mentioned. / - docd/TRSi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedocd (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you actually look at the Hells Angels article, there are 159 references from third-party sources, so that's not a particularly good example of an article lacking third-party sources. Given the Hells Angels history, they of course have been covered by countless news sources and books. And there's no hate here, we're just trying to maintain Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Again, I ask people to actually read WP:V and WP:RS. We need sources not connected to TRSi that discuss the group in a bit of detail, not just a brief mention. As for any articles lacking good sources, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is huge and has a relatively small number of volunteer editors. There are plenty of badly written unsourced articles out there. Because one has slipped by the attention of editors is not a reason to keep this article. freshacconci talktalk 13:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find some news coverage of these events and how TRSi relates to it, then. If it's not being covered by reliable sources (see WP:RS), then it's not going to meet WP:V. For example, PDXLAN is one of the biggest LAN parties on the west coast of the US, and has been running for a decade or so now. Since it doesn't get independent coverage in reliable sources, you won't find a wikipedia article about it, or its founder, rightfully so. Just because something is big and important to you doesn't mean that it meets notability and verifiability requirements for inclusion in wikipedia.Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This starts becoming a biased farce, when two people decide to delete an article they don't appreciate, then get proved wrong and then decide to ignore all facts that are put forward. If they had any knowledge of the subject matter, this would all be pointless in the first place. Everybody in tech sociology and grassroots digital realms knows TRSI to be one of the founding institutions of the homebrew and scene community and the ones outside, stay outside. Go to www.pouet.net or www.bitfellas.org and start reading the forums. You might learn something new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.34.218 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use fora to establish notability, and in this case, reliability. Take a look at WP:V: You claims may be true, but unless you have evidence, I couldn't tell if you were lying or not.Curb Chain (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep more links - Even in the world of Elektro Music, TRSI left a mark, as you can read here: (http://www.4players.de/4sceners.php/dispnews/-/2058557/index.html) Also, see these pages for further third party references: (http://www.defacto2.net/groups.cfm?mode=detail&org=pe-trsi-defjam-tdt) and (http://www.defacto2.net/groups.cfm?mode=detail&org=trsi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar.Press (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How do those links meet WP:RS? Vertigo Acid (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For an example of a demogroup that meets the necessary requirements, see Future Crew. Coverage in reliable secondary sources establishing notability. Vertigo Acid (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Okay, so here are the external links for Future Crew (by the way, "hi" to Skaven): Pouet.net / Defacto2.net / Scene.org / Music Magazine / YouTube.com ... Guess what, those were all already mentioned for TRSi on this page here! And by the way, talking about YouTube: (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trsi&aq=f) gets over 600 hits for TRSI productions, posted by third parties. Notice something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.34.218 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really, really wish people would read WP:V before posting. There is a huge lack of understanding about what a reliable source is and what "third-party" means. Youtube is not a source. People commenting on youtube are not reliable sources, are not "third-party" sources, even if they are unaffiliated with TRSi. Sources must be published, print or web, but, again, read WP:V & WP:RS to find out what counts as a source. freshacconci talktalk 21:19, 23 June 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  05:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutranity[edit]

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

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

A philosophy seemingly made-up in school one day. No sources, nothing from a Google search suggests this is notable. 28bytes (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is not my intention to bite what appears to be a new comer but the author might wish to begin here, Policies and guidelines should he/she consider writing another article. Here is what Wikipedia is not. Items 2.2 and 2.3 might be of special interest to the author.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Defend. Of course there will be no sources (yet), when this "religion" is newly formed. This is just a beginning;

The "religion" is a hope for those who have nothing to believe in. Why take away hope, when it's simply a single page on Wikipedia? Maybe there's a person out there who is about to give up hope, and then, he discovers and reads the page: the page may just be the persons last hope before loosing all faith. Why delete hope, when it's just a single page on Wikipedia?

The page will grow and more information will be added: references from the Christian Bible will be included, quotes will be added and more symbolism will be added and explained. Don't kill Neutranity, believe in it and give it hope, give somebody else hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.houstrup (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a webhost. This belongs somewhere else on the internet. If in the future it's covered in reliable secondary sources, then it might be time to have an encyclopaedia article on it, but that time is not here now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Defend. I truly understand, that Wikipedia is NOT a web host. But I already know 2 people, who found the article helpful.

Wikipedia is all about learning stuff, right? And the article might be new and unfinished, but it's pure wisdom and truth. The article is for people who SEARCH for help and answers, so why delete something, that might count as an answer?

I have always been taught, that if you believe in something, then you must never give up hope. And the article might be new, but it has already helped people, who searched for help. It has given hope and knowledge. So why remove the opportunity to get an answer?

My friends and I are working hardly to give people hope, to teach people that they must fight for what they want, and Neutranity is a great help for those, who feel lost and not cared about. We are researching the Christian Bible for further answers and references. Why we do this? Profit, you might think? No, no profit. Fame, you might think? No, no fame! Love, is the answer. We want to give a chance to everyone - we want everyone to feel welcome.

• Delete; as well intentioned as this may be, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why kill and remove something of pure and good purpose?

And as mentioned before, the article will get references from the Bible itself. How much more nobility do you need? At least give it some time. Give a chance, how cold hearted can people be? I thought, that Wikipedia was all about helping people learn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.houstrup (talk • contribs) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the link I gave you above? Good cause≠notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Defend. Yes, I read the article you linked.

And I thought about it; Although this is for a good cause, it's still a religion. And some other religions are for a good cause too, but are they noble? Is the Bible noble? Do we have evidence, and is that evidence noble? Nothing is completely noble, but what makes the different things and religions noble then? We do. Our beliefs do.

I can make this more noble, and I'm working on it. But I need at least a week, before I have all the references, which can make the article more noble. I have collected a lot of documents and information from e.g. the Bible, and I'm also working with other things, so it is very hard for me, to make it all happen fast.

And I also understand that the article is NOT completely noble. And it would be acceptable, if the article would be marked as "Not noble" or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.houstrup (talk • contribs) 14:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, made-up philosophy / religion - no results on Google web or news searches or other evidence of notability. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Defend. The article needs time. Try reading the article, and ask yourself: "Why would you delete it?"

Of course, the article seems non-noble, because there are YET no references. But they will come, the article and I need more time.

And also, how can it return any Google searches, if it's a newly formed religion? M.houstrup (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A new religion that was made up at school one day. No sources whatsoever. Even the text is very vague, it's hard to distinguish what's the point of this religion other than "think positive and try to do good things". JIP | Talk 18:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Defend.I agree, that the article has no sources, but so far, I have found 2 references from the Christian Bible (I haven't yet included them), and these references have a huge influence on the religion. But is there anything better, than if we all thought positive, did good things and lived a great life? And about the language: It's probably a bit (or very) poor, but you are more than welcome to help and re-write some of the sentences, as long as you keep the moral.

But although the religions point seems very nude and unclear, there's more to it, than "just" being positive.

If you have a bad time, when everything just seems shit*y, then what could be better, than someone telling you that you're worth more? That you're welcome and that there's always someone, who will care about you? That's the point of this religion: Love! M.houstrup (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the only reference to Neutranity in Google Books this: URL http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Neutranity&btnG=Search+Books and has nothing to do with the content of this article. As other editors have indicated, see what Wikipedia is not. Govynn (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Defend I just don't understand why you people oversee the fact that this is only for a better purpose? That the article is to help people, and give them hope. Sigh. It just frightens me how cold some people are these days. Who does this article hurt?

But instead of deleting the article, is it at least possible to "hide" it, so I can work on it, and then ask for a review, when I finally have included sources and references? M.houstrup (talk)

And this is how the flame of a new hope goes out.

Hope is the poor man's bread.

-George Herbert

• Delete. The article makes no assertion of notability, and the total lack of sources (which the entry's author conceded above) means that notability cannot be established. Dawn Bard (talk) 05:23, 19 June 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. Edwin herdman's sources are passing mentions, which normally are not considered sufficient for notability.  Sandstein  05:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Case Against Israel[edit]

The Case Against Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Book that fails to meet any of the notability criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (books). brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Brewcrewer. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It may be considered notable. A few minutes' search turned up a reference in a Seattle Post-Intelligencer column, though it is not clear if the text comes from the book (most likely) or a direct interview with the author; and perhaps more relevantly was cited in [20] the journal Social Identities], which appears to be a smaller but still relevant subject. I also must insert a small disclaimer: I haven't read this book or have any particular stance with regards to its content, nor have a horse in the race of the article's deletion, or criticisms of Israel-related policy. The names involved simply caught my eye due to similarity with familiar works when I came back to AfD. Edwin Herdman (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find sufficient RS support for notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:28, 16 June 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.