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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tompion (bear hibernation)[edit]

Tompion (bear hibernation) (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 think this is an hoax. I am unimpressed by the references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Best case scenario is that this is a dictionary definition of a non-notable term. Carrite (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tompion (Bear Hibernation Plug) has already been deleted. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not seeing any real indication of notability. It already has an entry in Urban Dictionary, which is all it deserves. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Even assuming it's not a hoax, I would delete what is essentially a disctionary definition of a word that might have been created in a minor fictional work. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was somewhat surprised to find actual potential reference for this article. That still fails the GNG, though, and in general the article isn't even verifiable. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:54, 27 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. Given there is now prose, I think there is little need to spend more time discussing deletion here. Courcelles 23:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utah gubernatorial election, 1996[edit]

Utah gubernatorial election, 1996 (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 article has has had no content since last month but and infobox and the ((ElectionsUT)) template. Has been once before CSD'ed under the A1 criteria but was declined by administrator DGG. I say delete. —Croisés Majestic ^{(sur nous mars)} 23:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD A1 unless there is significant expansion. It could be a notable topic for an article, but the creator didn't bother adding any content, and I'm tired of cleaning up after him. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Above you say "I'm tired of cleaning up after him" as if this is a common occurence and implying that this editor is intentionally creating garbage for you. Could you explain this further? -- Avanu (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How would A1 apply to the article? It's easy to see that the page is about the 1996 Utah gubernatorial election. I'll work on the page though. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Clearly a notable topic and there is some decent content in the infobox. Damn those things to hell, by the way... Looks like this is flagged for rescue, no rush on the speedy, let's see if somebody wants to add 25 words and 1 source to save this thing. Carrite (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for rescue on the hope it would draw someone interested in improving articles.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added sources and prose. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rescued based on article improvement by TheWeakWilled, nice job!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wasn't aware Wikipedia had articles like this. [1] This article currently states: "Winning by the greatest margin in the state's history, Leavitt won every county". Seems notable. I would think that every election at this level should be considered notable for Wikipedia. They always get plenty of coverage for months, or even longer in some cases. The news media analyzes everything they do that might effect this notable event. Dream Focus 02:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - not that there isn't any notability, but could anyone explain what specifically makes this particular election notable apart from information on either candidate? In other words, in what way does the content here merit a standalone article? I mean, it does sound interesting, but the Democrats almost didn't put up a fight in this race, and the Republican won by a landslide. So why not just redirect this to something about Utah politics, or why Democrats didn't feel a need to run a candidate or whatever... but how is this race something really amazing? -- Avanu (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG I presume? See Category:Gubernatorial elections in the United States, this isn't an isolated article. There are 100s if not thousands of articles on U.S. state gubernatorial elections.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I would be absolutely staggered to discover that the election of a state governor happened without any newspapers thinking to cover it significantly. ╟─TreasuryTag►Alþingi─╢ 14:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, fairly obviously notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. While not every statewide election is notable, this one was filled with superlatives - most overspent, greatest margin of election, consistent polling, a last-minute major candidacy, etc. So it is far from run of the mill. There is, in fact, a whole category of 100s of these, but not every possibility (1000s) are included. Some good sources were not difficult to find and add to the article before its deletion nomination. This was 1996, not 1896; Internet sources about it can be found easily. The nomination lives on the periphery of bad faith. It has been rescued per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Good goin', Weak Willed! Carrite (talk) 22:57, 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 deleted. Procedural admin close for already-deleted article. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Abeid[edit]

Mehdi Abeid (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 was deleted recently. Has since been re-created. Player fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Signing for Newcastle after failing at Lens does not constitute notability. JS^{Rant Away} 23:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not worthy of a delete since the player is highly rated was wanted by several clubs and has numerous articles about the transfer of the player as evidence, as for "failed" he was never given a professional contract nor a chance to play in the first team but that could have been for any reason ie financial, the fact Lens had been relegated etc. He has had 12 appearances for Lens B and score 3 goals good start to a promising career from A Central DEFENDING Midfielder, Hardly classed as a fail! He has played well at under 17 and under 18 level, The fact of the matter is this player will be one of the 25 in the Newcastle squad. To delete the article now would be pointless when a new one will need to be created in a few months when the English Premier League commences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazza25784 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: ... because, of course, 18 year olds play in the Premiership all the time. Not. The subject continues to fail WP:ATHLETE. If and when he ever plays at a fully professional level, he may well qualify for an article. Right now, he does not, however "promising" his career allegedly is.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  06:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All these players played before or at the age of 18 In the Premier League: Walcott, Ramsey, Rooney, Wilshire, Armand Traore, Stewart Downing, Daniel Sturridge, Phil Neville, Gary Neville, Jack Rodwell, Andy Carroll, Joe Cole, Frank Lampard, John Terry, Jamie Carragher, Michael Owen, Ryan Giggs, Phil Jones, Rafael, Fabio, But to name a few. If you refused to give them a page because they are 18 you are an idiot. There are plenty more young players play in the Premier league learn about the League before you comment. Once He makes his debut in a few months you will have to backtrack and allow the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazza25784 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The player does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL - it is a simple as that. It has nothing to do with his age. Read WP:NFOOTBALL before making such comments, Lazza. Your language is inappropriate.Keallu (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per G4. This article is not substantially different then the one that was previously deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:02, 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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ifco tray[edit]

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

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

Should have been prodded or CSD'ed but previosu AFD prevents it. Long unreferenced article with no significant claim to notability, and per previous afd there are no sources to significantly expand the article Sadads (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a stub with one source. Meph^talk 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I managed to find two other verifiable sources this time around and have added them to the article. I've also copyedited to move the article toward a more general discussion of the use of these trays as returnable shipping containers and its effect on commerce, the environment and the tension between first-world consumers and third-world producers. I'm still nonplussed as to why such an ubiquitous product had so few easily locatable references. (I know it's OR to point out that I can see these every time I go shopping for fruit and veg.) Geoff ^{Who, me?} 01:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage in the OECD booklet makes it notable, and also has neutral coverage with both pros and cons. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:25, 15 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) 22:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep It looks like the sources added by Glane are enough to demonstrate notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:22, 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 per consensus, per WP:UPANDCOMING and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Joseph[edit]

Steven Joseph (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 originally BLP prodded this article, but I got tired of edit warring to keep the tag in place, so I thought this would be easier. Article claims multiple charting singles on the Canadian Hot 100, but I was unable to independently verify these claims. This article appears to be an extension of the subject's Facebook advertising campaign. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. I discovered that some of the information I had posted was falsified but the page should not be deleted as the artist has been listed through many internet websites and many magazine blogs. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecvntxo (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tried and failed to find reliable sources even suggesting the notability of this subject. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 01:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf? Why are you going to delete this? Even if he has no sources I'm sure that he will. The kid is obviously an upcoming star! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.9.197 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can think of several AfDs off the top of my head where a handful of fans passionately argued that the wannabe subjects were surely destined for greatness. None were ever heard from again. When (and if) the subject here attracts genuine notice in the form of reliable sources, he can have an article on Wikipedia. Until that time, he can't. In the meantime, according to Billboard, he has never charted on the Canadian Hot 100, and I'm curiously unable to find any reference to the "Canadian iTunes Pop Chart" this article cites.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  06:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, simply as a way of enforcing the BLP prod that can't be enforced otherwise. Once it's deleted, recreate as a redirect to Stephen Joseph. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timur Khakimov[edit]

Timur Khakimov (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:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Zanoni (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Zanoni (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable youth player who fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. WP:NSPORT specifically excludes youth footballers, and he quite clearly fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete - The reason is that this footballplayer is as notable as other footballplayers in this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_FIFA_U-17_World_Cup#Goalscorers However, there pages are not put into question. Farid2053 (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All the players on that list either explicitly meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG or should also be deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:31, 27 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 18:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bought in[edit]

Bought in (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 found this article that had an AfD temp put on it today, but there was no entry attached to it.

I have to say I agree with deleting the article per WP:NOT. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dictionary definition of obscure auction jargon. I can't see how this topic can be covered encyclopedically. Cullen328 (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probably merits a mention in auction or reserve price, but really no reason to have a stand-alone article on it. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete

Not notable, will be in the article auction. Also it is very small and if it wants to stay on wikipedia it needs to be made bigger. Willrocks10 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

Hi,

If you give me some time I could find some information for this page. This page could become a very good Wikipedia page. Normally, I find people delete pages without doing any research at all. Please bare with me.

Thanks, pbl1998

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. Kurykh (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project West[edit]

Project West (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 features original research and conclusions. Was previously nominated for Speedy Deletion; but does not meet any criteria; still, it meets the original research criterion for proposed deletion. Marechal Ney (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. A conspiracy theory/attack page that's been speedied twice in the last two days, and doesn't have any reliable sourcing for its key assertions. Whatever's legitimate in here -- and that's next to nothing -- is already covered in the Washington Mutual article, making this also speediable as an illegitmate spinout. Just giving it a neutral code name doesn't make it much better than a "Project: Silence Vince Foster" or "Project: Fake the Weapons of Mass Destruction" article would be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Warszawa[edit]

Delta Warszawa (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 semi-pro football club in Warsaw, Poland Ajh1492 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Ajh1492 (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Week delete. I see no claim for notability in this poorly written article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not really a notable sports organization, no evidence of reliable sources in existance. --Jayron32 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence that this club has participated in the national cup, therefore failing WP:FOOTYN; also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no evidence of coverage, and they do not appear to have played in the national cup, meaning they fail both WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 24 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. Note that the subject has requested deletion and that there is clearly a case of very marginal notability at best. Under BLP an admin closing an afd can delete in these circumstances. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frazer Brown[edit]

Frazer Brown (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 am unconvinced that a producer and director of fringe theatre is of sufficient public interest to warrant a Wikipedia article. Few reliable independent sources mention him, none in any depth, and I see no evidence that he meets any of the WP:ENT criteria.

Aside from the question of the article's relevance as a whole, the article contains a number of substantial unsupported and/or misleading claims.

1. "Frazer Brown (born 13 April 1979) is a British film and theatrical producer, director, impresario, writer and actor. He is best known as the co-founder of the The Rival Theatre Company.[1] He is also the founder of Debonair Films International"

The link given in support of this claim is dead, and is in any case a social network page created by the subject of the article, which I do not believe could be considered a credible independent source.

2. "He is an alumnus of the New York Film Academy and has directed, produced and acted in numerous stage, film and television productions. He has been involved with projects at HBO, So Television, PBS and Vinyl Foote amongst others."

No source is given to support this claim.

3. "Theatre productions have included Nevermind The Broadway and Dorian Gray.[2]"

The source cited states only that a touring production of Nevermind the Broadway took place, and that Johndeep More, known for appearing on Any Dream Will Do, appeared in it. Neither Dorian Gray nor Mr Brown are mentioned.

4. "In 2008 he collaborated with Jason McHugh and Trey Parker on the stage production of Cannibal the Musical."

One of the links [5] provided to support this claim appears to be dead. The others confirm that the production took place, directed by Mr Brown and with Mr McHugh as executive producer and emergency stand-in actor. They do not provide any support for the claim that Mr Parker's involvement with the production extended beyond writing the book, lyrics and score of the film of which it was an adaptation, or even that he was aware the production was taking place.

5. "in 2010 he produced and directed the world premiere workshop of the musical stage adaptation of The Devil's Advocate.[6]with a libretto by author Andrew Neiderman with music composed by Dutch composer Sarif Tribou. [7]."

Link [6] is to Mr Neiderman's personal website and confirms that he and Mr Tribou have written the work in question, but makes no mention of Mr. Brown's involvement. Link [7] redirects to the front page of the Camden Fringe website, suggesting that the press release in question is no longer online.

6. "He is associated with the Young Vic Theatre through the Genesis Foundation [8] and is a production associate of Mercury Musical Developments."

The link confirms that Mr Brown is a member of the Young Vic Directors Programme, which anyone not in full time education who considers him/herself a director may join. It contains a profile of Mr Brown written by himself. No mention is made of the Genesis Foundation or the Mercury Musical Developments.

7. "Early life

Frazer Christian James Aaron Brown was born in London to Eric William John Brown JR and Christine Mary Brown (née Cleveland). He has one younger sibling Verity.

Brown grew up in Ashford, Middlesex. He attended Ashford CofE primary school before attending Bishop wand Secondary School. He then went on to study Art, Film, Law and Performing Arts at Spelthorne College and Photography and Film studies at Brooklands College."

No support is given for any part of this section.

8. "During this time he made his West End debut in the Bill Kenwright musical Robin: Prince of Sherwood at the Piccadilly Theatre amongst other stage and television appearances including The Bill."

No support is given for any part of this statement. However, Mr Brown's IMDB page - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2114253/ - confirms that he appeared in a 1996 episode of The Bill entitled "Chatterbox" as a Gang Member.

9. "Comic Book Career 1994-1997

During his late teens Brown worked as a freelance illustrator and became a regular contributor to Theatre Mask as well as illustrating the theatrical posters and programmes for local dramatic companies. An avid comic collector, Aged 16 he formed his own small press company Embryo Comics, publishing, writing and illustrating the short-lived series Creatures of the Night, Trapped and Quantum Bob. He also had his work published in 2000ad and Defective Comics. His teenage comic career was the focus of the ‘comics’ episode of the educational Television series UK Kids. In 1996 he appeared as a guest at Caption and contributed to Angels of Deception -- the same issue featured Ian Churchill’s comic debut."

No part of this section is supported by references.

10. "Film and Theatre Career 2002 onwards

Between 2002 and 2005 Brown graduated from the New York Film Academy and co-founded The Rival Theatre Company and Debonair Films International. He was the UK based producer for Red Sky Pictures and Great Scott Films. Working on Snow Blind and The Cake Eaters (which was passed on to a different production company) amongst others. He was nominated for 'Best supporting actor' at the Woking Drama Festival for his portrayal Collatine in an adaptation of William Shakespeares sonnet The Rape of Lucrece.[10]"

This link is dead. Moreover, Casting Call Pro biographies are edited by their subjects and do not require verification.

11. "He currently produces, writes and directs independent productions in both theatre and film. He continues to act, sometimes in his own projects as well as external work. In 2009 he produced the short film Rapunzel, directed by Pietra Mello-Pittman in association with Sisters Grimm ltd. The movie received production consultancy from Mike Figgis and was shot using Red Digital Cinema Camera Company technology.[11]"

The linked site confirms that Ms Mello-Pittman directed the film in question, that Mr Figgis consulted on it, and that the camera system in question was used. No mention is made of Mr Brown. He is, however, credited as the film's producer on IMDB.

12. "In 2010 he was due to revive his production of Cannibal! The Musical at the leicester Square Theatre in the West End however this production was cancelled after rights were withdrawn [12]"

The linked article confirms that the production was scheduled to take place and was cancelled. Quotations attributed by the article to Mr Brown state that the rights were never legally granted. Nevertheless, the existence of such an article in a major trade publication represents in my opinion this article's strongest claim to relevance.

13. "Comedy

Brown had a small part in the controversial television series Brass Eye acting alongside Chris Morris. He created and wrote the satirical show Nevermind The Broadway and conceived and produced Hamlet (abridged) at The Etcetera theatre in collaboration with Simon Kane, writer for That Mitchell and Webb Look and Erik Wiener of Famous last nerds, and others. He was a technical consultant on So Graham Norton in New York, and has written sketches for Fox Sports News. In 2008 he directed Cannibal! The Musical from a script and score by Trey Parker. The same year he founded the LOL comedy evening at the etcetera theatre with comedienne Charlotte Jo Hanbury. Acts have included David Whitney, Vicky Stone, Tiffany Stevenson and Fergus Craig In July 2008 he wrote and performed in the play Hello in an attempt to break the Guinness World Record for world's shortest play.[13][14]"

Link [13] confirms that Hello was performed at the 2008 Camden Fringe Festival, and that it was intended to break the Guiness World Record for world's shortest play, although it is not clear that this attempt was noted or validated by Guiness World Records. Mr. Brown's involvement in the 2008 production of Cannibal! The Musical is confirmed by links [3] and [4]. No support is given for any other part of this section, although Mr Brown's aforementioned IMDB page - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2114253/ - confirms that he appeared in Brass Eye.

86.6.138.162 (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Holy cow, what a nomination. Is there a golden mean between the dullards who state "Non-notable" and leave it at that and this footnoted essay? I hope so. That said, I wanted to pass along something I learned today on Wikipedia: did you know that an "impresario" is fancy-pants Italian for a "promoter" in contemporary rock and roll lingo? Cool. More to follow. Carrite (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Gag-inducing photo of an Oscar that is not his aside, it seems to me that there is a sufficient corpus of work to merit encyclopedic biography. I'm too lazy to go beyond OTHERSTUFF on this guy, but he's produced enough that I think he's probably notable in WP terms. I hate plays, mind you, but if this guy were a band, we wouldn't be asking these questions. He has done enough. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no significant or well-known work, or collective body of work that satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of ref need to be added and it needs to be tidied up, google shows enough reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfan2424 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - I am Frazer Brown. and I am more than happy to have this page removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:FrazerBrown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.16.159 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that there is little significant work that satisfies WP:CREATIVE, and this appears to be the second time that deletion of this page has been debated. I disagree that google shows enough reliable sources - a quick search for Frazer Brown results in sources that are unreliable or user created. Also, it appears that "Filmfan2424", who comments above about keeping the page, is the creator of the page, and possibly Frazer Brown himself. User:gaylethomas —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• comment - I did start the article, but i'm not the subject, happy to discuss policy if i've broken it by adding to this conversation? I've taken on board the notes above and changed most of the article to fit including ref added. all the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfan2424 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 26 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) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED vehicles and aircraft[edit]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED vehicles and aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previous AfD was closed as a procedural keep because the nominator was a sockpuppet. As the closing administrator commented that this article could be immediately relisted, I'm nomination it again with the same argument that I gave in the previous AfD.

All the content in the article is original research by synthesis at best. The article does not provide even one reference. There is no presumption that the topic meets the general notability guideline with no sources. The content itself is exclusively a plot-only description of a fictional work and, because of this, the list does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. I believe that is article is merely an unsourced content fork of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, with no real justification to its existence. Since nothing is referenced, I do not think that a merge is deserved or that any other alternative than deletion is valid. Jfgslo (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Jfgslo (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT, this level of in-universe detail is not well suited to Wikipedia. Would be more appropriate in a Wikia fansite, but not here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 19:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY, and is just all plot info. If someone wants to transfer this to a wikia feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete If people need info on that subject, they could just check the Anime/Manga's own Wikia page. Rxlxm (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki and/or delete. Unnecessary level of detail. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this load of unneeded, non-notable information (WP:NOR, WP:GNG and WP:NOT#PLOT), although I wouldn't mind that this list should be transferred to Wikia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- this should not have been closed and relisted. Once a deletion discussion contains any good-faith delete votes, speedy or procedural keep is off the table and the discussion should have been allowed to run its course. Reyk _YO! 08:07, 24 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. I see no substantial, policy-based reasons for deletion, and the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the article. -- Atama頭 18:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camel toe[edit]

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

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

Recently a more complete Wiktionary entry has been created for this term. Also, this article's deletion will pave the way for an article of arguably encyclopedic to be tentatively created on the subject of dress/fashion through the ages and profiling of the groin. (See guidelines wp:DICTIONARY, wp:NEO.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my above nom. Any content from current dictionary-type entry that might fit in another article or articles of course could be contributed there.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on grounds that is was dubiously nominated. Nominater has recently made various efforts to rename/move/merge the article to those that he saw as being more accurate. Once those were closed per snowball, he has nominated the article for deletion, citing Wiktionary. Suspicion is that once this article is deleted (should it come to that,) he will simply recreate it as his prefered version with the previously rejected names and content. Hence suspicion is that user is playing the game. a_man_alone (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my reference to guidelines, this AfD was dubiously nominated, according to an assumption of bad faith? How does the fact that !voted to delete the Moose knuckle article (to which you refer) fit into your solipsistic arugument?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; while the current content is largely dictionary content and should be transwikied, the concept of a camel toe is quite notable beyond merely the term used for it. We can and should have an article on the concept. Powers ^T 20:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the sources only told us the definition of the term over and over, thousands of times according to Google, then we'd only have a dictionary definition. This is the case with a number of related genitalia-obsessed neologisms that have been acting out for unwarranted attention of late. But this article cites at least three [2][3][4] sources which both use the term camel toe and give more information and insight than the definition alone. The article should be improved by expanding content based on these sources, and deleting or de-emphasizing the Common circumstances and Camel toe vs. bulge sections. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This is a POINTy nomination, as described by a_man_alone. The nom is sore because his recent articles about visible penis line and moose knuckle were deleted, and he'd like to take away everybody's marbles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I at first agreed visible penis line should be deleted, then changed my mind and believed it a straightforward description of groin profiling in fashion. As for moose knuckle, I agreed that it should be deleted as nommed.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nominator is losing a requested move (see Talk:Camel toe) so is nominating article for deletion instead. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It is only a short article about which there is not a great deal to say. I think it could be incorporated/merged into the article Wardrobe malfunction Amandajm (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a different concept, about actually displaying body parts. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term has actually made main-stream vocabulary (see songs written about it, and a product that is dedicated to prevent said problem). More than enough references to establish notability and article is more than a dicdef. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough realworld notability to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, WP:POINT. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Slang term; no encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. The definition is at Wiktionary where it belongs. The illustrations are idiotic. Yeah, we get it: "I can see pussy lips through tight shorts!" Yeah, we get it: "Haw haw, those jokesters inserted a picture of a real camel's toe!" Wanna know why we have a problem attracting female editors?!? Gimme a fucking break. Puerile. Idiotic. No serious content extant or possible. I don't care if this is 27-to-1 in favor of Keep, there is no rational argument to be made for retaining this. Carrite (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep Satisfies GNG, also, as Malik says above, I have concerns that the AfD may be WP:POINTy in nature. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 00:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Meets notability in that it has enough reliable sources. We can find a subject to be silly, juvenile, offensive, disturbing, disgusting, puerile, idiotic, or have a thousand other negatives. That doesn't remove notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which legendarily awesome "reliable sources" are you referring to? Might it be "Cameltoe Alert" in Salon.com? Or perhaps the exhaustive coverage of the encyclopedic concept in "Fashion Tip in Rap for Brooklyn Girls" in the New York Times which explains about a song lyric "Cameltoe is slang for a fashion faux pas caused by women wearing snug pants." WOW!!! That's a reliable source, the New York Times used the word once! How about "Anatomy of a Cameltoe, part 1" in that legendary independent, substantial, and reliable source, Fashion Incubator. Ooooo, they made it a two-parter. There ARE no reliable sources, this is a dictionary definition of a slang term with humorous photos. Closing administrator: This is not a vote. Decide this nomination on its merits. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this is elitist, deletionist stuff and nonsense, brought up only as moose knuckle is wrongly up for deletion. Both terms are subject to enough comment that a comprehensive encyclopedia entry is justified. Wikipedia is not finished and not paper. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary is UD:NOTFINISHED and UD:NOTPAPER either, which is where this belongs. Carrite (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This "point" contention is going over my head. For example, from the !vote on grounds of dubious nomination, "I don't understand your premise I'm sincerely here for clarity. You wrote: "Nominater has recently made various efforts to rename/move/merge the article to those that he saw as being more accurate. Once those were closed per snowball, he has nominated the article for deletion, citing Wiktionary. Suspicion is that once this article is deleted (should it come to that,) he will simply recreate it as his prefered version with the previously rejected names and content. Hence suspicion is that user is playing the game"--isn't Wikipedia an encycliopedia-"Wiki" that anybody can edit, each edit subject to the consensus of the community, with wp:BRD as always in play? What is the harm in my suggesting that a future article possibly cover the concept of groin profiling in fashion, per my nom? It seems the gist of these pointy arguments is a personal one: namely, are about "this editor (not this edit, this concept, etc.) that is bogus," then adding whatever arguments ad hoc, whose only rationally consistent theme is to oppose me personally. This is how it feels to me, anyway. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems fairly clear to most editors here, but to summarize; You suggested changes to the article that were not accepted by the consensus, so have instead put it up for deletion, whereupon you will almost certainly attempt to once again reintroduce your prefered versions into any new pages created, as per your own comments at the top: "this article's deletion will pave the way for an article of arguably encyclopedic to be tentatively created on the subject of dress/fashion through the ages and profiling of the groin" a_man_alone (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got the "normal editing of Wikipedia" part, per you recitation of events (my wishing to have a narrow term deleted and a broader one used instead). What I don't get is the "disruption of Wikipedia" identified under wp:POINT part.

"A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only type of behavior which should be considered "POINTY". It is worthwhile to study the above examples, to gain an understanding of this guideline's purpose."---Wikipedia:NOTPOINTY

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting all of our time with this nomination - hence disruption. I'm done here. No further comments from me. a_man_alone (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my AfD. Indeed, if we can break the sort of frat boy wp:OWNership logjam, guidelines be damned, that occur at articles of this type (due the biases of such articles' habitués) and move encyclopedic coverage of this slang term to an article whose topic is (A) more NPOV in its connotations, if possible (2) more all-inclusive in its scope, through its encompassing, for example, more eras of fashion or even, I dare say, both genders (3) more inclined to be supported by scholarly sources--it would be a good thing, worthy of Wikipedia's ideals and goals. Yet, those who argue "POINT" reveal themselves (A) AGAINST openly debating such things (in order to subject them to a careful parsing of WP's guidelines and analysis of WP's ultimate mission and objectives)! (B) IN FAVOR of clogging up discussion pages with considerations of user conduct (when the guidelines clearly indicate the same is NOT to be done in discussion areas)!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone intends to take action against you for disruption at this point, but I also think that you should heed the consensus that this campaign of yours is unhelpful to Wikipedia, and stop it. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Decide whether to substitute with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry by ordinary talk page discussion. If there's a point to be made here, that point is that there is no need for an administrator to delete the page history of this article - apart from a lack of information, there's nothing to object to. To the contrary, if that is done, it means that the original contributors who created the stuff I moved over to Wiktionary will no longer be properly credited. Also, there are some bits and pieces of content which, while rather obvious, I didn't manage to stuff into the Wiktionary article as quotes. Someone with experience in that project might be able to scrounge up something else to transfer over. I started a discussion along this line at WP:DICT's talk page, though it didn't sound like I was getting enough support last I looked - nonetheless, I feel my logic is right, especially for this example. Wnt (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It may not be the most important topic, but it's encyclopedic and this has now been repeatedly affirmed by rough consensus both here and at WP:RM, so strongly suggest giving it a break. Andrewa (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See further comment to this effect above. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• With all due respect to your status as an admin, user:Andrewa, I simply believe that it plain and simple that bogus accusations of WP:POINT (namely, the characterization of my having filed the Camel toe AfD as an illicit campaign) OUGHT to be brought to the appropriate forum and sorted out, to avoid such false accusations from being bandied about as a bullying tactic to stifle debate--since, of course, by any reading at all of best wp:EDITing practices on Wikipedia, what most definately is helpful to the project is to debate various interpretations of the guidelines offered in good faith, as, of course, it is exactly just these types of debates that establlish what the current editing consensus on Wikipedia should be thought to be. Further, 'tis the vio of Assuming Good Faith and the clogging up of discussions with commentary about other editors that is not in line with WP's most basic policies.(I also posted on this question here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Why_is_it_OK_to_.22emptily.22_accuse_good_faith_AfD.27s_as.2C_quote.2C_pointy.2C_unquote.28.3F.3F.3F.3F.21.21.3F.3F.3F.29.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not acting as an admin here, and wouldn't regard it as proper to do so now, having cast a vote. I was just trying to give some advice, as any user can, and frankly I still think it good advice. See also User talk:Andrewa#With all due respect to your status as an admin, sir <smiles>. Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As a paraphrase of the old legal saw, "If the guidelines are on your side, lay out your argument according to a detailed examination of the guidelines; if the editing histories are on your side, lay out the applicable diffs; but if neither are on your side, confuse the matter by attacking your disputant's motives and character." I have absolutelly no idea where anyone got the impression I have posted more than one AfD and one RM on this topic. The record plainly shows, after another editor moved most of Camel toe to Wiktionary, in good faith I posted this present AfD--my first and only one ever on this topic--on June 18 and that prior to this Wikitionary entry having been expanded, I had suggested alternate rubrics for the slang term camel toe via an RM--likewise my one and only, ever--here: Talk:Camel_toe#Requested move. To draw an analogy from the essay wp:Don't revert due to "no consensus" [first paragraph of essay's lede]:

  "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is 'no consensus' for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to 'first discuss'. Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus."' "[¶ ... ¶ ... ¶ ...]"

  --in this case, we have a wolfpack of editors alleging I am conducting some kind of campaign due to my personal preferences and therefore having been guilty of violating wp:POINT. If that makes for a so-called consensus, despite there being no detailed explanation backing up this claim, then such consensus is meaningless. That's why we have ANI. These points (pardon the pun) should have been hashed out there and not on the discussion pages themselves IMO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lugnuts (talk · contribs) ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 15:10, 24 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Milner Schools[edit]

The Milner Schools (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 Advert without sources containing hyperbole. JRPG (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete deep NPOV issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Lord Milner. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NPOV issues have not been resolved. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom Warfieldian (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clear advertisement.--BristolRobin (talk) 13:50, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TUFFEM UP Records[edit]

TUFFEM UP Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

New record label that has no claims of notability. None of the bands they represent appear to have any claims of notability, and all Google hits appear to be from music downloading sites and blogs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability; no sig-cov. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Non Deletion' Notability at a company level does not Apply as this is a Entertainment Group "This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)." — 16:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is not an "entertainment group": that would be a band or other such ensemble. This is a record label, which, by definition, is a corporation, whether they choose to call themselves one or not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Non Deletionone !vote per user Label and artists is supported and recognized on Itunes http://itunes.apple.com/au/album/rapid-fire-ep/id405340638 , http://itunes.apple.com/au/album/the-boss-ep/id394765269A Simple Google Search is not enough to be the key judge on the lack of notability. — 16:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterCronk (talk • contribs)

Comment Define recognition. The mere presence of music on iTunes is meaningless: anyone can post music for sale on iTunes; this does not make the label notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is incorrect, music cannot simply be posted on itunes, it needs to be sent to a distribution retailer like www.believedigital.com accounts with companies like these, requires regular releases, and contracts.

The point is, it's trivially easy to get music up on iTunes, if you're willing to pay what's necessary - there's no notability conferred by having it listed there, just as a self-published book gains no notability just because the writer went through the hoops to get it listed on Amazon. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - An up and coming new firm that has insufficient operation to date to assert notability. Fails both WP:ORG and WP:PEOPLE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unremarkable small record company. No real indications of notability, no significant coverage from reliable third party sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:25, 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 redirect to Physical cosmology. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic evolution[edit]

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

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

Not notable Fashionslide (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Evolution is the title of a 2002 new-age/religious book by Eric Chaisson, an astrophysicist at Tufts, where he is director of the Wright Center for Science Education. User User:Wrightcenter, who appears to be affiliated with Chaisson's Wright Center, has participated in editing the article and in defending it on its talk page. The article presents cosmic evolution as "the scientific study of universal change," but cosmic evolution is not a recognized or widely discussed scientific theory, it is an attempt at a spiritual synthesis with input from science. Chaisson does not describe it as a scientific theory. He describes its purpose as "to sketch a grand evolutionary synthesis that would better enable us to understand who we are, whence we came, and how we fit into the overall scheme of things." The article attempts to puff up the ideas in Chaisson's book into a scientific theory, and into one that is widely discussed, by giving a long list of references. Nearly all of these references are to books that came out before Chaisson coined the phrase "cosmic evolution" in his 2002 book. For example, there is a reference to the 1980 popular science book Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, who died six years before Chaisson published his book. There are references to a long list of new-age/religious books by Frederick Turner, most of them predating Chaisson's. The body of the article also freely invokes the authority of various academics as supporters for cosmic evolution, without citing any verifiable source to show that those people consider themselves supporters. For example: "The emergentist psychology of Clare Graves, which sees the human mind and societies as co-emerging into more complex levels, also fits well into the cosmic evolution paradigm." Although Chaisson's book has been reviewed favorably by noted scientists such as G.F.R. Ellis and E.O. Wilson, (a) they reviewed it as religion and philosophy, not as science, and (b) a favorably reviewed book is still just a book, not a notable field of scientific study in its own right. --Fashionslide (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply redirect to Physical cosmology, which is the scientific field that studies the evolution of the cosmos. The present article is largely an unsalvageable and incoherent amalgam of OR and NN pseudoscientific drivel.  --Lambiam 21:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Lambiam. Salt if needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirecting makes sense to me.--Fashionslide (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The current article is a confusing read and largely unsupported. I could find nothing salvageable in the current article, but if other editors think the article history might prove useful then a simple redirect would be fine. Timeline of the Big Bang is the article I was expecting, and I think would make a better redirect target. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The Big Bang is just one (although the leading) theory of cosmic evolution, and therefore redirecting to the Timeline article implies Wikipedia has a preference for that specific theory; in that respect Physical cosmology is more neutral. While I don't particularly care for the article history, it is harmless, and "cosmic evolution" is a plausible search term.  --Lambiam 09:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Wrightcenter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) proclaimed itself to be a role account, and I have blocked it indefinitely. Please keep an eye out for new individual accounts registered by the people who controlled that account and be careful to be especially welcoming of them. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The account had no registered activities for over two years anyway, so any individuals who used it have either become inactive or started using other accounts.  --Lambiam 09:37, 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) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Quail[edit]

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

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

This article is about a musical artist that is built entirely from primary sources. I have searched for independent coverage about her and have not turned up any. Searches for critical reception about her works have been equally fruitless. Note that I cam across this article when looking into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonver, the AFD for a group which she was a member of. Whpq (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any significant coverage for this musician in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time.  Gongshow ^Talk 19:44, 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, v/r - TP 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per lack of notability. I searched "Joanna Quail" on both Yahoo and Google, receiving the same results (official website, Myspace, and Last.fm). SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 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) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Free Zone[edit]

Gay Free Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Gives the impression of being about a concept but is actually about a non-notable event. PROD removed without explanation. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Censorship in the United Kingdom, where this otherwise non-notable event has any significance. Owen× ☎ 17:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not appear to meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events). I'm also not convinced that this topic is notable enough to be merged into another article, and so for that reason I disagree with the proposal to merge this into Censorship in the United Kingdom. —Tommyjb (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable single news story that does not establish the concept or term as being in general use. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article is written neutrally, properly sourced and about a concept that many would seek to research - ergo encyclopedic. As for non notable event - an African-American woman once broke the rules by sitting at the front of a bus, which gave rise to the American Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King. Do we on wiki deny the right of unfavourable concepts to exist? This article needs to be kept and developed. Mark^Dask 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A single event and not especially notable. I agree with the nominator that this article seeks to represent that event as a concept, something which is not supported by the attendant sources. Merging with Censorship in the United Kingdom would best be discussed on the talkpage of that article, rather than being determined via the agency of this discussion. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lovetinkle - read your homepage and love your name - describes every heteroman's favourite place. Mark^Dask 21:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as stated by Miss E. Lovetinkle, the article attempts to establish a concept based on a (OK-sourced) single event. Would support merging with Censorship in the United Kingdom. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:08, 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 merge to History of Firefox. History of Firefox is the main article about the history of Firefox releases. Releases for which limited verifiable information is available at the present time, like FF5, FF6, and FF7, should be described entirely within that article. Releases like FF4 which have extensive verifiable information should (and do) have sections in that article with ((main)) referring to a more complete article. I will perform this merge myself. Dcoetzee 08:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox 7[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Firefox 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of changelogs or release notes. This article consists of nothing more.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Firefox 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Firefox 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— Fleet Command (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At least keep FF5. - Firefox 5 is officially being released tomorrow; why delete now? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • It is released now. I am using it. (Though they haven't updated their site yet.) But released or not released; we don't keep a heap of junk in Wikipedia, do we? Fleet Command (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand FF5, delete FF5, FF6, FF7 - Mozilla decided to update Firefox even more frequently ^([5]), so FF5, FF6 and FF7 aren't needed. kongr43gpen^Talk 15:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you wish, you can take the heap of indiscriminate data to your talk page and incubate it there. Post it back to main space whenever there was more than just list of meaningless version numbers. Fleet Command (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or you can merge with Firefox... Fleet Command (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think that merging is the best solution, as minor articles like these can't be better than start-class articles --kongr43gpen^Talk 08:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Firefox 5 Don't care what happens to Firefox 7 though you will probably stunt the growth of the article and it at least seems notable enough. Marcus Qwertyus 17:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This version doesn't need its own article. However, keep Firefox 5.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FF5. Delete FF6, and FF7 - Firefox 5 will be released tomorrow. Why delete it? Roambassador (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FF5 (which will be released within 24 hours anyway) and Merge FF6 and FF7 into the main Mozilla Firefox entry until they are suitable to break off into their own respective articles. Having separate articles for FF6 & 7 right now is probably inappropriate because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but eventually such articles may become necessary.

Forgive me for quoting policy here, but:

“

Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.

”

OK, I'm done now. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we surely forgive you for citing the policy because that is the correct course of action! In an AfD people do two thing: 1. Mention the policy 2. Completely disregard the policy and vote. Fleet Command (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that having an article for each new version of Firefox (6,7,8...) would be just like having articles for each version of Google Chrome. --kongr43gpen^Talk 07:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are right. But what I don't understand is that how comes you made 5 an exception? Fleet Command (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the first version that has been coded so early. In fact, the comment above could be added. --kongr43gpen^Talk 12:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my view. Firefox 5 is the start of short release cycles, and rapidly increasing version numbers similar to Google Chrome. I favour all three being merged into Firefox. -- Fluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 19:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome has been going through nearly one major version number per month. FF is aiming for six months, and has more development activity in general. The difference is at least an order of magnitude. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I don't think the Firefox 5, Firefox 6, and Firefox 7 articles have enough information on them to remain separate articles. I think it would be better for them to be merged with the Firefox article. --Jesant13 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 5 (as it is a notable release of a major browser), redirect 6 and 7 to Firefox (as plausible search terms). Not enough info on 6 or 7 to justify a new article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I agree with Jesant13 that versions 5 through 7 should be merged into the main article. Kiranerys-talk 17:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)-[reply]
• Keep as it has been released and will eventually get a lot of reviews. --Hinata talk 17:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Starting with Firefox 5, Mozilla has stepped up the release schedule, so there will only be minor changes between major versions of Firefox now, not really worth an extra article for each. For demonstration, here are the release dates. Notice how there are only a few months between FF4 and FF5, and it will continue like this.

initial release
2.0 oct 2006
3.0 jun 2008
3.5 jun 2009
3.6 jan 2010
4.0 mar 2011
5.0 jun 2011

--Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 5, as it is released now. Redirect 6 and 7 to Firefox. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Firefox 5 but merge and redirect Firefox 6 and 7 into Firefox. At the moment the latter 2 do not have sufficient information to justify notability, however, I feel that the Firefox 5 article should be left to grow. Themeparkgc  Talk  09:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel rather than merging into Firefox as I had previously stated, Firefox 6 and 7 should be merged into History of Firefox. My vote to keep Firefox 5 remains the same. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all Firefox 3, 3.6, 4, 5, 6 and 7 articles into Firefox. For consistency. —Fitoschido // Leave me a shout! 20:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  NO! Merging makes no sense. Because merging makes less information available. And what I find absolutely baffling is why merge Firefox 4? That was a major release! I'll admit, Firefox 5 is not a major release, but Firefox 4 was. And it has plenty of sources. --Hinata talk 15:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it makes sense. If not, why History of Firefox exists? —Fitoschido ^[shout] \\ 23 June, 2011 [22:18]

  No, it doesn't. 2,3,4 were major Firefox releases, milestones. Chrome's ones are being released very fast, in two months there'll be a new version of Chrome. Did you check out the Wikipedia articles about 3, 3.6 and 4? They could expand even more. However, what can be put on articles about minor releases, such as FF 6? Only in Firefox 5 Mozilla's new fast release system and critisism for this could be mentioned. --kongr43gpen^Talk 07:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Fitoschido, this deletion discussion is about 5, 6 and 7 only, the primary reason for their nomination clearly does not apply to the other Firefox articles that you named. If you wish to propose to a merge of other articles you must open a separate discussion, wherein you will encounter extreme opposition. Remember, consistency would only amount to an inadequate excuse in the face of Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 5 as it is released now. Merge. 6 and 7 articles into Firefox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.110.214 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

  Wikipedia has no obligation whatsoever to have an article on released software. Released or not, Firefox 5 article does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia which are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. (Previous released versions of Firefox do meet these criteria.) Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Not sure why they just didn't name it 4.1, but its always been illogical with them. Firefox 21 Forever! — Dispenser 23:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Why are there all the Firefox 1, 2, 3, 3.5, 3,6, and 4 articles then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.211.96 (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, because 1, 2, 3, and 4 were each a new mighty version! But 5? You can't even tell the difference from 4 ... It should have been 4.00001. Fleet Command (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Firefox 5 is supposed to support CSS animation. And there are huge performance improvements. But why actually merge all Firefox articles? They aren't just release notes, they are major versions --kongr43gpen^Talk 12:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since Mozilla launched their new version policy there is no reason to create articles about every Firefox version. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge These articles will never become of higher quality than Start-Class, so there is not much point in having separate articles for web browsers. WhiteSGPlayer (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into either Firefox or an article similar to List of Ubuntu releases. Individual articles for 5/6/7 are redundant now Mozilla uses a time-based release schedule. -Halo (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an History of Firefox. —Fitoschido ^[shout] \\ 23 June, 2011 [22:18]

• Merge all - current press coverage indicates that these coming releases will not be major updates like Firefox 4 was. There certainly isn't enough unique content for each article, particularly the articles for 6 and 7. And Firefox 5 certainly wasn't a milestone release like 4 was. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: If all of the version specific content is merged into the parent article Firefox then the main article becomes bloated. It is far more valuable if the main article is kept concise and the detail on individual releases are collected in distinct, focused, articles.
  

While v5 is not visibly a milestone release, such as v4 was; it reprents a big improvement in security and stability. While v4 was vulnerable to various instabilities, memory leakages and buggy websites; v5 seems on the basis of various credible reviews to be a significant if not substantial improvement. This is likely why v4 is no longer supported, although v3.6 (currently v3.6.18, released 2011-06-21) still is.

To those who feel that Wikipedia should not be a directory of changelogs or release notes I would counter that the information presented is of significant contemporary interest and should be captured by a Wiki. If that is not Wikipedia, I would vote in favour of creating a new Wikimedia Wiki (maybe Wikiapps or something similar) and carve-out such Wikipedia articles into the new Wiki; so that we don't continually have this struggle over those who favour deleting, obviously relevant and impartial, reference material regarding computer applications in particular, and ICT applications in general.

Enquire (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to Firefox, which can be updated as needed. And it is not likely to go beyond start-class. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 23:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Why would you delete the Firefox wikipedia entry? Trust me, there are people out there who don't know what Firefox is. That's why you should keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shovenose (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not about the Firefox article, but about the Firefox 5, Firefox 6 and Firefox 7 articles --kongr43gpen^Talk 07:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, to the people saying delete. Since FF5, FF6 FF7 would all be plausible search terms, why not just redirect rather than delete? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Firefox 5 article does not contain enough information to justify having its own page. The list of features and public reviews can easily be summarized into a paragraph or two in the main Firefox article. The version history is completely redundant. I am OK with redirecting search terms for Firefox 5 to the relevant section of the Firefox article. All future releases of Firefox should merit the same treatment. Siddharth Prabhu (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone posted something at the talk page. kongr43gpen^Talk 07:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I sympathise with both viewpoints. There is a clear argument for following WP policy on Fx6 and Fx7 and they should be merged into the future versions section of the Firefox page, with redirects from the page titles to the relevent subsection of the page. Fx5 is a bit more complicated because of the existing pages for Fx2, Fx3, Fx3.5, etc.

We are in a situation of trying to determine how significant each version is and then trying to agree whether or not it deserves an article. What we need is to update community thinking in line with the publisher's change in version number policy. I suggest that we keep separate articles for versions that are in widespread use (maybe >20% of all version usage by counter statistics?) as in these circumstances, the detail will be of obvious interest and benefit to readers. A new version that people are likely to upgrade to would probably also merit a separate article on the basis of reader interest. All other articles should be merged into Firefox or History of Firefox. Wikiwayman (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no reason to keep articles that cannot expand at all. Articles like FF6 and FF7 could also provide useful information if they were merged into History of Firefox. Users would search for Firefox 6 and then be redirected to History of Firefox#Firefox 6. --kongr43gpen^Talk 08:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FF7 is now at the stage of having a released alpha, which would seem to meet WP:CRYSTAL and the comparable guidelines for large projects like film-making. This is obviously going to be an important product and we will require an article on it. The question is not whether to, but when to. As there's now public product visible, I'd claim that we've reached that point. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  FF7 may meet WP:CRYSTAL but is it significant enough? It is a minor release, whose article can't have so much information. Just like Google Chrome --kongr43gpen^Talk 08:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FF5 due to consistency, but redirect FF6 and FF7 to the main article, at least for now. Why not treat FF5 like other previous versions? I understand it has not changed much, but there still could new information added, such as reviews, etc. Unless you want to redirect all of the versions of Firefox, I think they should remain separate. Indynchild (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia has no obligation whatsoever to have an article for consistency's sake only. Consistent or not, Firefox 5 article still does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia which are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. (Previous Firefox articles do meet these criteria.) Also please see WP:WAX. Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with the idea that Firefox 5 fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not criteria. It is the current release, is already used by millions and has been reviewed by numerous critics. The problem we have is that many people (including critics) don't see it as a full version. There's almost enough material out there for an article entitled "Controversy of whether Firefox 5 is a new version"! Please read my comment above, re: community thinking; we need some kind of measure of whether or not articles on specific software iterations are of interest to Wikipedia readers. Wikiwayman (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I don't exactly see "used by millions" and "reviewed by numerous critics"; hence WP:NRVE fails. But I won't push it. Fleet Command (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Firefox 5 since it's a major software release (we have Internet Explorer 9, which is less widely used). The others are crystal (except for maybe one future version, FF6, for which something is known)

• Merge all. Individual releases of a software application are not notable enough to require separate articles for each one -- at least not releases that are so close together and contain so few changes as these do. Powers ^T 17:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FF5 The future releases can be merged for now. But given there are multiple article for I.E. 7, 8 et al I don't see why Firefox has to be merged into one article. FF5 is a new version, even if it has similarities to FF4. John Smith's (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete They just released FF5, we gotta go thru 6 before we even think of this article. --TheTruthiness (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the lot - either into Firefox and/or that timeline. FF5 may be released, but it's a fairly minor update upon FF4, not really all the notable in of itself. The pre-releases have even less to them, especially as it is, and considering that they're now all evidently updating on a much more regular basis, having separate articles makes less sense than previously, indeed. That said, if something does happen, one turns out to be a milestone after all or happen to have something else more notable about it, branching it into a separate article when that happens would be reasonable. ~ Isarra (talk) (stalk) 04:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The version has been released so there's no point deleting it as millions of users are using it now and firefox is the topper in the browser war. So its latest version must be a hot feature and media value is great, I feel the article should be expanded more. It's not just a minor release but a MAJOR one. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it hasn't been released, neither has its predecessor Firefox 6. WP doesn't exist for "media value" and your other logic is even more flawed. --TheTruthiness (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful, well-sourced article on a pertinent topic. It's sad how often I come to Wikipedia these days seeking content on a notable topic and find that it's up for deletion, or useless "merging" into an article whilst retaining none of the content the user actually wanted to find. Rebecca (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into History of Firefox. E.g. Firefox 5 is a "major release" in version number only, and the changes are fairly cosmetic. The development time (3 months from 4 to 5 vs 14 months from 3.6 to 4) is also telling. But what's the most important: there is no substantial content that would warrant standalone articles. GregorB (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Happened to notice this while I was browsing, and while I rarely edit these days, I actually searched up the changelog to find changes. With time, it'll develop into a full-class article. We also have Internet Explorer 10, so why bother? 122.108.161.92 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blaster-bolts, I thought I was logged in. Scalene (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, keep FF5 and FF6, and expand them. Scalene (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Firefox 5. I honestly can't believe that the article about the CURRENT VERSION of Mozilla Firefox, version 5, is nominated for deletion. I'm not weighing in on the debate over Firefox 6 and 7, since those aren't out yet and I don't really care, but the fact that the Firefox 5 article has a thing at the top saying it's been nominated for deletion is just RIDICULOUS, since Firefox 5 is the current version, it is out, and I am using it along with many other people. I also strongly think that the nomination for deletion for Firefox 5 should be removed now that Firefox 5 is out, and it should be limited to just Firefox 6, 7, etc. The thing at the top of the Firefox 5 page saying it's been nominated for deletion shouldn't be there, in other words. --Yetisyny (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  THIS. It's just embarassing for the project. Rebecca (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with your opinion, FF5 passes WP:CRYSTAL, but is it notable enough? It's not such a major version. Take for example, Google Chrome. There are no articles for its versions. --kongr43gpen^Talk 18:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all Firefox articles (Firefox 2, Firefox 3, Firefox 3.5, Firefox 3.6, Firefox 4, Firefox 5, Firefox 6, Firefox 7) into History of Firefox. I think it is the only right way. Nicholas Love (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Please check above discussions about FF2-4. This RfD is NOT for FF2-4, but for FF5-7. --kongr43gpen^Talk 18:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Firefox 5 - sections like the Reception section are useful and meaningful. Nikthestoned 17:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge 5 into 4 - aren't different enough to deserve two separate articles. I support having F1, 2, 3 and 4 articles because they are relevant enough and would make a mess in a single Firefox article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Firefox 5 - per User:Nikthestoned and the final development of stable FF5 by Mozilla is released to public according to official website.WPSamson (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Firefox 5 per Nikthestoned. Also, the same development will be possible for 6 and 7, so why delete now only to recreate later? --Waldir ^talk 13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge FF 5 into FF 4 article; redirect 6 and 7 to the main Firefox article. Unless FF 6 and 7 roll-out some major changes, I don't see any point in splitting them from the main article. The FF 5 release didn't introduce anything particularly notable, and information about this release is probably best merged with the FF 4 article for now. 70.153.125.178 (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit: Actually, I changed my mind. After reviewing other comments, I'm not so convinced that we need separate articles for various Firefox versions. I'm sure everything could be truncated and crammed into the main article as an outline of notable version differences / major feature implementations. To spawn articles for every version means having to write separate introductions for each, and pad the rest of the sections with information that likely serves no other purpose than to make the article look up-to-code. Really, all I see in each article is reception / reviews and bits about development history. The development history doesn't even need to diverge from the main article in the first place. Let's just put everything in Firefox and tidily organize it. I would be willing to draft some ideas for an all-inclusive main article. 70.153.125.178 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, are you suggesting that the Firefox 4 (and the Firefox 3) articles only consist of reviews and release notes? And, as stated above, this discussion is NOT about Firefox 2 etc, only for Firefox 5, Firefox 6, Firefox 7. -kongr43gpen^Talk 20:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge FF5, FF6, and FF7 to FF5 and newer, because all in all, they might have some noatble changes, that way the History of Firefox article will not be as biased towards FF5-7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfoske70 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge FF5, FF6, FF7, and future releases Mozilla's new fast Chrome-like release schedule means that "major" releases aren't actually so major at all now. There is no point in having an FF5 page when the only changes from FF4 are minor and not noticeable to the casual user. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Firefox, History of Firefox, or Firefox 5 and later releases. Without major features that matter to the user community, there is no need to have an article for every release. Cogiati (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Firefox 5—major notable version of a major browser and platform. While at this point there's not much info, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there is more or less a guarantee that more information will come in the future. No opinion at this point on FF 6 and FF 7. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere There is a massive amount of misinformation and people not reading properly in this thread. Firefox changed their release schedule so they now release a new version every two months (firefox 6 is scheduled for release on 16 august). We will have nowhere near enough material to write proper articles about these an upcoming releases. Presumably this is better dealt at the end of next year when we are at firefox 14 and even the most diehard keep voters understand that this is not gonna work. Yoenit (talk) 07:50, 28 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Living in the Moment[edit]

Living in the Moment (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:NALBUMS. no evidence of charting. could not find significant indepth coverage in reliable sources. [6]. there's this review and a short review in allmusic [7] but not much else. LibStar (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tagged as unsourced since May 2007 - neither is this article likely to receive any coverage in the future. Not notable. Mark^Dask 11:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 13 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, v/r - TP 14:52, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going Down with the Ship[edit]

Going Down with the Ship (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:NALBUMS. no evidence of charting. could not find evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. [8] contains mainly directory listings. this is best reference i could find. Allmusic merely lists this album, no reviews. LibStar (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the artist's article (A Tragedy in Progress (band)) for the same reasons and then speedy delete the album per criterion A9. Neither the artist's article nor the album's article establishes notability. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 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, v/r - TP 14:51, 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Pogadayev[edit]

Viktor Pogadayev (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 created and largely maintained by article subject. Notability not apparent. Appears to be self promotional Merbabu (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS - and contravenes WP:AUTOBIO. --Merbabu (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although it cites books, it isn't enough for a encyclopedia article, not to mention it's been contributed by subject. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:42, 18 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, v/r - TP 14:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - per nominator - inadequate third party reliable sources to establish adequate proof of wider notability SatuSuro 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:N. Orderinchaos 10:44, 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. v/r - TP 18:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Earley[edit]

James Earley (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 am struggling to find reliable sources that give significant coverage to this record producer in order to show that he passes the general notability guidelines. doomgaze (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 11:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Even I could not find any references or sources that could establish the the general notability guidelines for James Earley, should not be kept in Wikipedia Tashif (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 6 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:27, 13 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, v/r - TP 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment - This is an unsourced BLP. The fact that it is vastly long and seemingly self-written cloaks this fact somewhat. This needs to be sourced out or removed, under the rules of the road. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All right, fuck it, I've had all I can takes and I can't takes no more... "As a baby, Earley first exhibited signs of musical talent." Sourced to: opinion of author. This article needs to go away now... Carrite (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:20, 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. — Cirt (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Power (actress)[edit]

Samantha Power (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced BLP. It has remained that way for a long time. I went through the entire article history and never found one reliable source (IMDB is not a reliable source). Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 23:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. All Google News hits, even when I specify "actress", are for the author and foreign policy specialist of the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 12 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 13 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, v/r - TP 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep, provided that the BBC is a reliable source. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The only items from that reference that could be cited in the subject's bio are the program name and the character role name; the previous/ next sections are the other actors/ roles, and the station will broadcast the series, inferred this year. This section is about the role, and opinions and perceptions of the actress of it. Dru of Id (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete This is quite a difficult one to call, because she has made a role in at least one notable production. According to statement 1 in WP:ENT, an actor needs to have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." One of the notable productions she took part in was Little Britain where she played as Jane Evans, and yet I took a look at the List of Little Britain characters and that character isn't even listed on there, which in my opinion Jane Evans isn't a very important character, and thus meaning this was only a minor role. There's only one significant role of a character that she played, and that was Debbie Rossi in The Cup, but still, one significant role isn't good enough to pass WP:ENT. Minima© (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Jane Edwards (not Evans) was a very small role, only appearing in four sketches in TV series 2 (those with "Harvey Pincher" in the title). I don't think that was Powers's only part in LB however: I have the CDs of both radio series - they state "Performed by Matt Lucas, David Walliams, Gwenllian Davies, Tom Baker, Samantha Power, Paul Putner" (series 1) and "Performed by Matt Lucas, David Walliams, Jean Ainslie, Tom Baker, Samantha Power, Paul Putner" (series 2), but unfortunately they do not link characters to actors. Eliminating the men, there is only one name common to both series, so any genuinely female characters found in both series were likely played by Power. There are several of these, such as Myfanwy (in several Dafydd Thomas sketches) and Samantha (wife of Edward Grant, her former schoolteacher). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 24 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lombardi (businessman)[edit]

Michael Lombardi (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional article about an otherwise non-notable person. There are a smattering of real sources, but they are not in any way in depth, as is usually required of sources for WP:N and WP:BIO. Given that, though there exists proof of this person's existance, there does not exist extensive, reliable, independent biographical information, the article should probably be deleted. Jayron32 14:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not appear to meet GNG, and the sources are either very limited in usability or clearly not reliable sources for the subject of the article (which is not the company he heads). --Nuujinn (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of significant coverage as required by the notability guidelines. Most of the citations provided are about his company - none of which mention him - and the Who's Who entry does not seem enough to show notability. I must point out that various shop sites refer to this publication as being independent and I can find no mentions of people paying for an entry. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} —Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Promotional article that fails notability.Griswaldo (talk) 21:57, 22 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. not further sources have emerged and the delete votes therefore prevail. Since this is clearly marginal I'll note here that recreation is expressly permitted if someone can find anything more Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netop Summer Camp[edit]

Netop Summer Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While I was able to find a couple of articles covering "Camp Netop", nothing rises to significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo _matic 01:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 11:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just put in some references. Please check it out and reconsider deleting this page. Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nice try on the references, but none of them qualifies as an independent reliable source as Wikipedia requires. I tried searching Google News Archive to see if the camp has gotten any news coverage, but all I could find was a couple of directory-type listings. Unfortunately, if the camp is not WP:NOTABLE as Wikipedia defines it, no amount of rewriting or addition is going to save the article. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak delete. Searching without the word "summer" in the search turned up this full article from the Times-Herald, and this two-paragraph mention in the Christian Science Monitor. Those are getting closer to what we need here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 12 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) 00:02, 13 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, v/r - TP 14:34, 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. — Cirt (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live At Rock City[edit]

Live At Rock City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't find anything on a Google search. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This would probably be best merged/redirected to The DVD, which itself should probably be merged into Napalm Death if insufficient coverage can be found.--Michig (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 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, 13 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, v/r - TP 14:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete fails WP:NALBUMS for lack of coverage. No evidence of charting either. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon (protocol)[edit]

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

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

In April 2010 tagged for being written as an advertisement and lack of context and references. The original author seems to be gone (1 edit since Oktober 2010) and nothing has happened. Maybe better to remove this article and trigger somebody to write a new one, then keeping this dodgy article. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. This advertisement is at least somewhat clever in its perverse will to be vague about what the software actually does: a protocol for comments and annotations to swim upstream to original update sources -- and spawn more commentary in a virtuous cycle. Seems to be some kind of aggregation protocol for social media. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it's so obscure that we can't know what it does, and the absence of the original author means that it can't really be fixed. Nyttend (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange enough the original author showed up to protest against the AfD on the talkpage of the article. But he did not change a letter in the article (yet). Night of the Big Wind (talk) 12:27, 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 keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idwal Robling[edit]

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

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

Barely did one season to a national audience as a supporting commentator, created just because he died also Ifore2010 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "national", I take it you mean UK as opposed to Wales? That is a very narrow definition. Deb (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do, just one season on Match of the Day as a third rate commentator, also had appaling Google search results during his lifetime. Ifore2010 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you mean "appalling". Deb (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - botched AfD nomination completed & logged for today (20 June). GiantSnowman 11:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - looks to have had a substantial enough career in television to merit obituaries in national publications. GiantSnowman 11:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient coverage for WP:GNG and having competed at the Olympics, he passes WP:ATHLETE. Favonian (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He never actually played at the Olympics, so he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE - but GNG is enough. GiantSnowman 12:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bevin Boy, 40 years as a radio sports commentator, BBC commentator on Match of the Day, picked for a GB Olympic squad. Easily passes GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' --- the article looks stable enough and has potential, and at least it was referenced twice. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 25 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. Consensus has been established on this more than necessary - let's not retread a dead horse. Or whatever the saying is. m.o.p 18:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for "santorum" neologism[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Campaign for "santorum" neologism (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 term "Santorum" was coined as an attack on a living person. Per WP:ATTACK: An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to speedy deletion. Upon finding such a page, identify it for speedy deletion by prepending the ((db-attack)) template, and warn the user who created it using the ((Attack)) user warning template. Attack pages may also be blanked as courtesy.

Per WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP this page must be deleted. Any mention of "s@nt0r&m" as a neologism needs to be removed as it exists only to disparage Rick Santorum (No I don't support him and think his comments are un-intelligent at best, but I DO support keeping attack pages of the pedia ) KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 11:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly with additional re-naming / re-focus of article). Ample coverage in reliable independent sources, relating to public figure, can be written in encyclopedic manner without violation of policies. ^Bongo_matic 11:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Speedy keep You've got to be joking, that article is packed with loads of reliable sources. We've got articles on troll sites like the Gay Niggers Association of America and 4chan and Anonymous (group) should we delete those because we get the occasional vandal or two from them? No, because they also cite reliable sources. It is not a direct attack on Rick Santorum as you can see if you actually bothered to read the article in its entirity. You'd also find that the article states this is an attempt by Dan Savage to label a politician and his entire family with a rather disgusting sexual act. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:41pm • 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• oh for fuxake... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Actually, I think this argument holds water. The sources are clear in stating that the entire Google bomb campaign is an attack by Savage and his followers on Santorum. Therefore, it makes sense that Wikipedia, by its own policies, cannot aid and abet this attack on a living person by joining in in this campaign. Cla68 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - at least as currently titled. Paucity of sourcing (documenting use or employment independent of the issue itself) suggests it is NOT an established neologism and certainly within WP editorial discretion to decline independent treatment as such. Issue can be adequately and appropriately addressed in Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and work on it) 5th nomination .... I saw the previous title to be offensive and participating on the attack. But this one? It does not say the term is real neologism (JakeInJoisey? The previous title really did so). Instead it says someone really push for it. Making it clear, that there is dirty attack on the Senanator in real life and article is just about it, not the word. (If it is not clear from the title - better should be chosen, see bellow) The real life attack is dirty, and it is pretty notable as may be seen by the lists of sources. It influences his career too (without Wikipedia taking part in it), in previous political campaign it was blamed. But the article is written in wrong manner to collect sources and qoutes to bolster the notability, it is not nice one. But effort to rewrite it is just normal cure here. The title should be adressed, it should match the content better. And it should be adressed there, where the debate is ongoing. See: #Back_to_the_re-naming_issue section. The current title is considered interim a) before we rewrite it to see clearer what would be best fit b) to aleviate the BLP - this title was the best working title not pretending that the neologism has any significance here. But those are concern for RfC and debate, not for AfD here. --Reo ⁺ 12:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead it says someone really push for it.

You mean like Dan Savage Google-bomb Attack on Rick Santorum? I'd merge that as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. Article just survived an RfD that proposed merging it without a redirect, which was functionally equivalent to deletion. It's survived three previous AfDs plus an aborted AfD proposed by this editor while the aforementioned RfD was in process. Based on the RfD voting and previous results, there's not a snowball's chance that this AfD will pass. The "it's an attack page" argument has been advanced repeatedly in the past without success or consensus. The nomination comes close to being WP:POINTy. I am trying to AGF really really hard but all I can think is WP:STICK. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article seems contrary to numerous policies including WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It generally seems quite outrageous and maintaining this blatant attack page while the subject is a high-profile presidential candidate seems likely to bring the project into disrepute. Warden (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Token delete, really, since there's probably Not a chance in hell of it happening, but it really is just another front in the Savage vs. Santorum war rather than a legitimate article. I have to wonder what the tune here would be if, say, Glenn Beck coined something like "The Obamalama" as the frothy mixture of something similarly distasteful, and the right-wing blogosphere + FoxNews dutifully reported it and put it into general use. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow dog - as in Kosh Vorlon of the Regulon Sector is very dogged in his determination to eliminate the sa-nto-rum quandary of the Galaxy. (ok, but seriously, really again?) (also a dog with snow on his tail is known among the 7 tribes and 2 remnants of Vorlosh 2 as the sign for don't delete because this article has notability and sourcing) -- Avanu (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't care As long as the page is renamed to remove those god-awful quotation marks. Reywas92^Talk 13:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, I guess. I'm not thrilled about the existence of this page, but I can't bring myself to !vote delete here. The title change is a (somewhat flawed) step in the right direction, but the article really seems a bit bloated to me, like someone tried to mention every single time someone in the media referenced this campaign. I'd feel a lot better about keeping this if it were trimmed down to the most significant coverage by the most reliable sources available. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's terribly written, probably needs renaming still, but is of a notable prank. There may not be enough relevant stuff to say about this to justify a stand-alone article, but that won't be known till all the irrelevant bloat has been trimmed. It's perfectly possible to write about an attack without becoming part of the attack. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a huge stretch to try to apply attack page policies for biographies to an article covering of an orchestrated campaign at politicized language manipulation. I like the new title for the page "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" as opposed to "Santorum (neologism)" because that is precisely what is of historical import in this affair: the campaign... Not everything in life is sweetness and light, it is not Wikipedia's mission to lend coverage to only that which is wholesome and positive and edifying. The question is whether this coordinated campaign of the 2012 election cycle is encyclopedia-worthy as a historic event. I think there is a sufficient body of published material to demonstrate that it is. Carrite (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article, under its former name (changed to satisfy Santorum partisans), has survived four AfD nominations. It is already well established that the article does NOT violate BLP guidelines. Will requests for deletion become a regular event until the partisans get their wish? Yes, it is becoming very difficult to maintain good faith. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violates WP:NPOV WP:BLP * Keep - after reviewing the history and background, changed my opinion on the matter. Santorum has been maligned by this sex advice columnist but does appear to have achieved notability and not a BLP violation. Warfieldian (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not a BLP violation. It's not an attack page. It's a notable topic. It's not terribly written. It's well sourced. We've been down this road before. Trout for the nominator for trying it yet again. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. It's a smear, but a highly notable one (much like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Willie Horton controversy, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, etc.) and has been widely reported on in the US media as having a significant impact on Santorum's presidential ambitions. To use Cla68's logic that this article must be deleted because "The sources are clear in stating that the entire Google bomb campaign is an attack by Savage and his followers on Santorum", none of those articles could exist, as the controversies were all attacks on major political figures, created for the sole purpose of attack. If we agree to start censoring negative news about politicians, where does that madness stop? +1 on trout all involved in trying to delete this for a fifth(!) time. I would have thought a 100+ participant RfC would have been enough. Are we going to have to vote on this every week for the rest of our lives? --Khazar (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as this AfD is clearly against the current consensus for renaming (which has been done twice now as an 'interim measure') and reviewing the content. Those are currently being actively discussed on its Talk page. I have no idea how this AfD can be justified at this point in time, especially by someone who hasn't been taking an actually active part in the Talk page discussion. His/her confusion seems to be between an actual attack page, and an article describing a notable attack. There's a difference. Flatterworld (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. You and I may not have agreed much on the article's talk page, Flatterworld, but you've hit the nail on the head with this one. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. And groan. The subject of the page passes WP:N. What is needed now is editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Opening an AFD right after a weeks-long RfC with feedback from over a hundred editors (including Jimbo Wales) closed with a consensus to keep the article is a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please back slowly away from the horse carcass and close this nonsense. elektrikSHOOS 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Current name is per consensus, is notable, and when the recentism dies down it will be reduced to a reasonable size (or maybe before). I dislike the senator's opinions, I dislike the sex-advice columnist's name calling campaign, I dislike how disruptive this has been to Wikipedia, I dislike political activism on Wikipedia, I dislike the gaming of Wikipedia . . . I'll probably think of more things I dislike about this later. But keep it. It belongs on Wikipedia. Review the see also section in WP:STICK. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, one of the worst misinterpretations of BLP I've ever seen. An article about an "attack" is not an "attack" itself, nor even is the term itself an attack in the sense of a negative and/or false factual statement about Rick Santorum. Even if it were, it is not a BLP violation to cover notable negative false statements made by third parties and reported upon by reliable sources, as noted above by Khazar (e.g., Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). postdlf (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Article passes WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NPOV criteria: nor, as said above multiple times, is it a BLP violation. This has been established by four AfD processes so far -- nothing has changed recently, and merely repeating AfD nominations over and over is not a reasonable response to this. -- The Anome (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This will no doubt be kept, but the rationale above is largely bullshit, as a coterie of like-minded editors do not get to decide what is or is not a BLP violation. It has been said before and bears saying again; local consensus should not be allowed to override Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that consensus is what decides Wikipedia policy in the first place (including WP:BLP) I find your rationale interesting. elektrikSHOOS 17:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What part of "local consensus" did you find confusing? Tarc (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Local.. under your tone, it would be hard to decide, when the consensus ceases to be just local. Is full fledged RfC local or not? Centralized RfC would be? Proposal to change policy is local if the number of people attending it is small? How you would be deciding hierarchies of policies. Consensus is consensus, the only viable thing, it is not determined by number of votes.Reo ⁺ 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, there was an RFC that closed last week that determined that the article should not be deleted or merged/redirected.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wallpost.com[edit]

Wallpost.com (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:N. Non notable website, no reliable independent sources about it. The one source that comes close, Killerstartups, is not sufficient in my opinion, with 15 startups listed per day it isn't very distinctive. No hits through Google news archives. Fram (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. World famous in Hyderabad but nowhere else. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:41, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Seisen Saunders[edit]

Anne Seisen Saunders (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 real notability shown for this bio. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. of current sources: Sign On San Diego is a local interest piece; Tricycle: The Buddhist Review is written by the subject; The Press-Enterprise (California) is not significant coverage of Saunders. nothing satisfying WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article doesn't seem to state why the article is so important except that she's a student. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Dunckel[edit]

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

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

Completing nom for 67.101.6.24. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page:

I am nominating this article for deletion because I believe it fails to meet WP:GNG.

After noticing that the PROD by Belovedfreak had been removed, I looked for evidence of that it met WP:BIO. A search on google.fr found only the 2004 documentary short on IMDb that Belovedfreak mentioned. I checked and found this message instead of an article:

"Cette page a été supprimée. Le journal des suppressions et des déplacements est affiché ci-dessous pour référence: 13 juin 2011 à 19:00 Lomita a supprimé « Bruno Dunckel » ‎ (Ne répond pas aux critères d'admissibilité de Wikipédia, contenu non vérifiable : Le contenu était « Bruno Dunckel est un monteur vidéo, réalisateur, gra)".

I then checked for other contributions by Annghrian that suggest expertise on the subject, and discovered that the editor who contested the article was also the creator of the article, and had edited only this article, raising the possibility of a WP:SPA.

These factors convinced me to nominate it for deletion. 67.101.6.24 (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see any many or major contributions. Fails per WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability. I didn't find any reliable sources on both Yahoo and Google except for a MySpace page and official website. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of appearances of Beats by Dr. Dre[edit]

List of appearances of Beats by Dr. Dre (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 list of places that a product appears in popular culture is not encyclopedic and does not belong on Wikipedia. The fact that people editing the product's main page continue to create such pointless lists in the article itself does not justify creating a separate page for the equally non-notable information. Dimaspivak (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree & Keep. Obviously the dozens of contributors to the list proposed for deletion as well as to the main article itself find it to be of some encyclopedic value, inadvertently generating a large consensus in contrast to your lone objection. It is of no more or less encyclopedic value than the List of Strategic Air Command bases - a defunct organization of almost 20 years, and listing a majority of facilities which no longer exist. As there is no WP policy prohibiting lists of this nature in addition to the consensus supporting the need for this type of information to be cataloged, and it has obviously seen and generated a rather significant amount of traffic, I contend for it to remain, yet to be expanded and better formatted. Srobak (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list for the deletion of lists. Epic, circular logic. Srobak (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of information. Listings of occurances of uses of specific articles of clothing, pieces of equipment, etc are well out of the scope of Wikipedia's mission. The information doesn't really have a place at Wikipedia, either as a stand-alone article, or as a comprehensive list of uses within the main article. Would be equally rediculous regardless of the consumer product being hawked; i.e. a "List of people who wear Levi's brand jeans" or "List of people who drive Honda cars" has no more place here than this list does. --Jayron32 19:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Beats by Dr. Dre. I've never heard of them before, but after reading the two articles I see that the product placement marketing is a big part of the story of these headphones. The merged article will not be too long and a precedent will not be set for other product placement lists. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seriously? The idea as stated above is to get the main article not to read as an advertisement, which the endless contributions of product placements resulted in, and got it tagged as such. I'd rather have the list deleted outright rather than have it clutter up the original article. Srobak (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Jayron32's statement; although I would have chosen to merge the content if there are some references to accompany some of the appearances in this list, but every list has to have at least one source otherwise it might get deleted. Minima© (talk) 08:00, 25 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 153[edit]

London Buses route 153 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Do bus routes really need a separate article? When I added bus routes to an article, it was wiped off citing notability issues, and another time saying that Wikipedia is NOT a directory. An article, or a list will all bus routes with destinations, routes, a rollover map maybe, might be handy, but individual article PER route sounds silly to me. Please by all means, let me know your opinion. Regards, -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I'm inclined to agree with the nominator. There's nothing specific to this article to establish notability for this route. The list of bus routes in London covers the pertinent information from this article already. If a notes column were added to the table on that list, the two historical facts (original contract for service, renewal of that contract) could be added to that page as well. In the meantime, a footnote for that information could be appended to the service provider name in the table. On the whole, this article though does not satisfy WP:GNG, so delete, or redirect it back to the list. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are articles for series of bus routes but individual bus routes must meet WP:GNG which this does not. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the last AfD, I originally went for 'delete' then changed this to 'keep' when a source and brief mention of the route's history was added. However, nothing further has been added, and I could not find anything at reliable independent sources which would allow this article to be expanded beyond what currently exists. As such, I feel that this is one of the London bus routes for which there is no justification in having an article. Of course, if someone can find a reliable independent source (on- or offline) and expands the history section, then I might change to 'keep', but I couldn't find anything suitable. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be happy with Redirect to Buses in London instead of deleting (although a delete before redirect would be required) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After reading Steve's comment, I want to add a point. Maybe such routes, which may have a tad bit notability as compared to others, can be listed in a single article about notable routes, PROVIDED that notability is established thru reliable sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the list or delete. Unlike many London routes, the sources for this aren't enough to establish notability under WP:GNG. Searches in various source, both on and off the net, gave nothing more in-depth than a 50-word announcement about a tender win and this one-sentence mention. Redirecting is the standard practise for these, as evidenced by Category:Redirects from London bus routes. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Buses in London or Delete. The paragraph about the history of HCT Group is already available on HCT Group anyway. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the historical connection of this route warrants an article of its own. Anti Bullying Warrior (talk) 18:21, 26 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Carlos[edit]

DJ Carlos (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 DJ in the San Francisco Rave scene. Article currently has 72 references with I think all of them to posters or announcements to a rave. Per WP:MUSIC, "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates..." Unable to find any reliable sources about him. However, "DJ Carlos" is a common name... for example, one in Egypt, Romania and one in Ithaca, New York who is available for mitzvahs. Bgwhite (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, in searches for mention in news, books, or scholarly sources I could not find a mention of the DJ Carlos which is the subject of this article. There are other DJ Carlos-es but not of the subject of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability. The article only cites Ravergeek as a source, so I went ahead and searched DJ Carlos and I didn't get any reliable hits on Yahoo and Google except for MySpace and Facebook pages. I suspect the article was created simply for promotional purposes. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 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 Keep as meets Wikipedia:ATH#Generally_acceptable_standards for participating in international competition.. LibStar (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Patchett[edit]

Katrina Patchett (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:BIO. there are only primary sources listed in trove for her. [9]. could also be WP:ONEVENT as the only coverage in gnews is her for her appearance on the French version of Dancing with the Stars. [10]. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are verifiable sources SatuSuro 06:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HOTTIE. What, that's inadequate? All right: this is a modest article making a small number of claims that are adequately sourced. Such material as the names and degree of professional success of her parents is indeed vague, inadequately sourced or both, but it's not crucial to the article. And the nominator has a bizarre understanding of "WP:ONEVENT". -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Keep Together in 2007, they became the French national champions sourced in the article meets WP:SPORT, or maybe Australian Junior National Champion, then thers a 4th place at another international event, all of contribute to the reason she appeared as a professional dancer on dancing with the stars oh which she happened to win. all source already seriously why are we here, well I know I'm here cause I was stalking SatuSuros contribs then read this. This is yet another unnecessary afd I see why people are getting upset. Gnangarra 03:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the claim of French national champion is not from a reliable source [11], if cannot you can edit the article yourself. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually being national champion does not guarantee meeting Wikipedia:ATH#Generally_acceptable_standards. but she has competed in international competition. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 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) 04:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fear Experience Haunted House[edit]

References were added and the article was written by primary sources at the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undertaker313 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fear Experience Haunted House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:N guidelines. No references from reliable secondary sources. Warfieldian (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 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.