< 22 June	24 June >

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of places known as the capital of the world[edit]

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

This article merely promotes cities added by some contributors depending on their good will or on their mood. Far too many arbitrary additions with no reliable sources. A lot of not logged-in users add their own town. If the goal of Wikipedia is to create a catalog, listing the claims to be a capital of the world of the 2,5 millions cities around the world, we are going to be very busy...... This article is unworthy of Wikipedia and as said in the discussion section: it is an utter a mess. What does this article bring to Wikipedia anyway? (apart from a lot of edit wars?) Does learning that the city of Salinas in California is allegedly the Lettuce Capital of the World is really relevant in an encyclopedia? At the very least we should put this article in the humorous section. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references here are a mixed bag. Some are articles from places like Forbes and The Wall Street Journal talking about economic and taxes in specific cities, and I think those are fair, reputable sources. There are other fantastically poor sources like this dictionary.com entry for capital with the sample sentence: New York is the dance capital of the world and this article written about some celebrities on their honeymoon. There is also the problem of several "self-proclaimed" entries come from nowhere or from Infoplease, which certainly isn't reputable. --I Jethrobot (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have mixed opinions on this, as you can see by the history, I spent a lot of time and effort on this article a few months ago, seeing it as a 'work in progress', unfortunately what I foresaw never materialised, and I don't see that that as a personal failure by any means . My main problem is that I personally do not feel the RS available truly represent the topics. The phrase 'Capital of...' is an Americanism which automatically skews any potential objective discussion, there are (quite frankly) ridiculous claims such as "Garlic Capital of the World" to a small city (Gilroy) in California when the U.S. produces 2% of the Garlic compared to China. I could go on but I probably shouldn't, my point is that RS would probably not help contribute towards a worthwhile article. Zarcadia (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issue isn't whether these cities deserve their titles, only whether reliable sources demonstrate that they are well-known by them. Gilroy, for example, may not really dominate the world's garlic supply, but so what? It's quite a well known nickname. Nothing wrong with this list that continued editing can't fix. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In principle, this is a great idea for an article, my problem is the lack of respectable RS. When developing this article I tried my hardest to get a balanced mix of candidates for each entry, but as I said earlier 'the capital of...' is not a universal paradigm so, by definition (through RS), finding a city that is 'capital of..' is not constructive. Zarcadia (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A perfectly reasonable and encyclopedic article on a very common concept. It is important to main quality through ensuring that content is properly cited however, something that I have been attempting to do since coming across the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still feel this article is worth saving though shouldn't be restricted to sources that claim 'capital of...' outright, the term itself will never help the article. If it's to continue it needs to conform to caveats other than the simple phrase 'Capital of...', anyway that's probably better discussed on the talk page rather than here. Zarcadia (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Figure out a standard or else delete I think there are reputable sources as per my comment above. However, there needs to be a better standard for what counts for inclusion on this list. It seems as though a mere mention on anything(even a sample sentence on dictionary.com) counts as a reputable source for a city being the "x capital of the word." I would suggest limiting the sources to reputable newspapers and journals and exclude vacation reviews, editorials, and travel guides. I Jethrobot (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a defined standard for cites is needed in this case, and your proposal is sensible. It is worth noting that a lot of the cites are already from the sources that you suggest. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not provide any valuable information. I don't see the meaning of "Capital of the world"? This auto-awarded title does not relies on a legal or uncontroversial ground. Hence, it is purely subjective and violates WP:NPOV. Kathryn.boast (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated by our guidelines: "The potential for creating lists is infinite". Hence, we have rules and Wikipedia content policies on stand-alone lists are clear on this. The claims to be capital of the world is not an appropriate topic for a list per WP:SALAT. A claim like this is not something broadly accepted, and a list of those claims is all but neutral. So, I think the list format is not the good one for this topic because a list affirms things without giving to the readers the essential informations suchs as why this topic is controversial, why the history of a given city led a lot of people to consider it as a "capital" of something.... So under its list form, this article is pointless because it will be subject to unexplained additions with doubtful sources. Hence, I really think this article will benefit from the advantages of starting from scratch and from being written in proper English, with complete sentences, in the form of a real article. OysterMaster (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -This article is made out of some claims based upon unreliable sources, because these alleged sources consist of journalistic prose and journalistic expressions which aimed at drawing the attention of the reader with fancy expressions such as "capital of the world". The claims are not even repeated in the main articles of the cities, which adds to the lack of credibility of this article. Can you imagine putting in the New York City article that this town is one of the three "General Capital of the World"? That would be deleted in less than one hour... Lankdarhn (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopaedic opinion piece. The List says that New York is the cultural capital but this source says it is Paris. Which is right? Does anyone care? The List says that Paris, Milan and New York are the fashion capitals of the world but this source says it is London. I note that the 'Chair making capital of the world', High Wycombe is an inexplicable omission. Hold the press, before you add it, this source says it is actually Mantua. And so you can go on. Limitless, pointless list. TerriersFan (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any city can claim it is the capital of " " so this list can go on forever. There is no universal standard for determining the capital of something subjective.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:55, 30 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. Courcelles 23:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ellis (journalist)[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS indicia of notability of this person, who has been tagged for notability since February. It is also an orphan; no substantive articles link to it.Epeefleche (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 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 - T P 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -This person is not the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable. So delete per WP:BASIC. Lankdarhn (talk) 01:47, 30 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) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Wrestling Experience Mayhem[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Unremarkable television show for a small wrestling company that doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 00:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 00:57, 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 - T P 23:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete- no reliable sources. Complete fail of WP:CORP. i kan reed (talk) 20:18, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feenix Films LLC[edit]

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this company. There are two sources supplied which address two examples of work by this company, but neither source directly covers the company itself in significant detail. Additionally, I cannot find independent sources to offer verifiable content about the company. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate Independent Film Company. It is a new company which has made tremendous strides in its short 2 1/2 year existence. It has in fact already received a distributor for its current film. As with many Independent Film Companies they are not going to receive the level of "exposure" a celebrity or Warner Bros is going to get. Feenix Films LLC has all relevant business materials including a tax id in the state of NJ.

The two newspaper articles clearly state the existence of this company. IMDB states the existence of this company. This is a real company. Both of the sources provided DO cover the company itself especially the LOCK-LOAD-LOVE article. That article clearly states the creation of the company and the founders frustration with the current climate in filmmaking.

I am curious what you are looking for in regards to "independent sources to offer verifiable content about the company". This is a reference I would like some clear explanation on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateMcG2001 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I offer this comment as an uninvolved, unbiased editor who happened to come across the last question in a quick scan of the Articles for deletion log: References in an article must be intellectually independent of the article subject and be reliable. See Reliable sources for an explanation of what is meant by "reliable". Also, some (not necessarily all) references must be about the company, not just mention it in passing in the context of something else, in order to meet notability criteria. What this all boils down to is that a company's mere existence is not enough to qualify it for a Wikipedia article; it must meet certain notability criteria in order to merit inclusion. The specific notability criteria for companies can be found here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let me understand this correctly...A highly well respected NJ newspaper that covers Northern NJ, and is in no way associated with Feenix Films chooses to do not one but two articles on the company, and that isn't considered legitimate criteria for this company? Feenix Films is in fact a legal entity in the form of a company. It is not a group but a company that is exposed to the public. A point in fact there are second party source in the form of a review that is written on the imdb page for Feenix Film's project Nicky Newark. I would of hoped that the individual who initially complained about the legitimacy of the Feenix Films entry would have done more thorough research and seen that someone unrelated to Feenix Films wrote a review of a film and stated throughout the review many of the points mentioned in the article for Wiki. For ease I've placed the review's link here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1682178/. It is the imdb page for Feenix Film's project "Nicky Newark". By the way films cannot get onto imdb unless they have been submitted to film festivals and open to the general public. Imdb looks for all projects listed on their site to be of legitimate making. If a project is not of legitimate making you can not get a listing plain and simple. This proves another level of legitimacy of the Feenix Films entry. At this point I feel that the two editors are simply being difficult for unknown reasons and it is quite honestly uncalled for and unneeded. There is plenty of material on wiki that is far less substantiated and yet is posted without challenge. I'm confused and concerned as to why this article and this company has been assaulted in the way it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateMcG2001 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take this as an assault on the article or the company. Indeed, I'd be sincerely happy to withdraw my concerns if you can supply reliable, secondary sources that cover the company directly and in significant detail. Sources that review films produced by the company are not covering the company, they are covering either the company's films or David LaRosa, and mention the company mostly in context. They are not "articles on the company." That is a key distinction, as KuyaBriBri pointed out above. That "Nicky Newark" was reviewed by an independent reviewer (and there aren't currently any external reviews listed on the Nicky Newark iMDB entry, either way) does not constitute coverage of Feenix Films -- it constitutes coverage of Nicky Newark.

That said, it's possible others will disagree with my interpretation of the sources. Please don't feel like this is an assault; that is not the intention, nor is it my intention to be difficult. Indeed, many articles that are sent to AfD end up getting enormously improved through the process.

As an aside, if you want to re-locate the article back to Articles for Creation so it can be worked on through that process, I'm happy to work with you there rather than have a deletion discussion. I note that you initially started the article at AFC and then re-created it in the main article space before it had been reviewed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 11:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At issue is not the existence of the production company, but rather whether the company meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. With the sourcing present in the article, and my own searches, I conclude that there is no significant coverage about the company to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 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 - T P 23:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -This article seems to have been made for promotion purposes only. Evidence of this is found in the lack of any in-line citations, in the very low (non-existent?) coverage of the firm by reliable sources, in the fact that the entire article has been edited only by one user: KateMcG2001(talk | contribs) and that his account seems to have been created only for that purpose. Lankdarhn (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't seem to find any mention of this company outside other sites where you can add/edit your own content. Interstellarsheep (talk) 03:05, 30 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. Courcelles 00:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indiepix[edit]

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

Advert for minor company trying to break out. Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a company. Most of the sources here are poor quality anyway-- they come directly from the company's website or blog, or from IMDB. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just some NN company. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Club G-EGGS[edit]

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

Team doesn't meet WP:GNG. The information can easily be included in the individual members' articles. The sources in the article are wrestling fan sites that are not considered reliable third party sources. Nikki♥311 01:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 01:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 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 - T P 23:43, 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. Courcelles 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Mobile International Collaborative[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. gets passing mentions in gnews [1] that merely confirm its existence. no indepth significant coverage. the article is also overly promotional. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 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, v/r - T P 23:40, 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. Courcelles 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Di Jorio[edit]

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

"Professor" of History of Mass Communication at the Universite Libre de Bruxelles, but her University profile lists her as an instructor. Received her PhD in 2004. She was a post-doc till 2007. Google scholar lists 8 articles, but I've found about 20 articles and one book. She appears to be a case of too soon. Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No cites on GS. Agree as too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:20, 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 - T P 23:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe Speedy delete -Completely unsourced and this person doesn't seem to be notable at all. So, delete per WP:ANYBIO. Lankdarhn (talk) 02:31, 30 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Markham[edit]

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

Jerry Markham appears to fail the notability requirements of WP:ACADEMIC and Wikipedia's general notability requirements. An academic is notable if he/she is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources." Markham may well be interesting, but there are not enough independent reliable secondary sources to warrant notability. In short, there are not enough people talking or writing about him. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Markham is fairly well reported as an expert - perhaps the expert - in the field of securities commodities regulation. Consider the following:
- Andrew Longstreth (Alden Bentley, editor), "CFTC faces high hurdles in oil manipulation case", ‎Reuters (May 26, 2011) (citing Markham as a former chief of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission).
- Jonathan Leff and Robert Gibbons, "Analysis: Commodities margins: art, science or politics?", Reuters (May 12, 2011) (citing Markham as "a professor of law at the Florida International University at Miami and an expert on commodity market regulation").
- Barry Critchley, "TD may join ABCP bailout", Financial Post (April 1, 2011) (stating: "If Dodge wants some ammunition to his argument, he may like to reread Chapter 3 of A Financial History of the United States, Volume II. Written by Professor Jerry Markham, the chapter shows the leadership of the legendary J.P. Morgan in the U.S. Financial Panic of 1907. Morgan got the major U.S. banks to agree to a bailout of several trusts that were suffering runs by depositors, who feared the loss of their money when the net assets within the trusts were becoming impaired in value. 'Morgan locked the financiers in his library until they agreed to provide even more funds to stop the panic,' Markham said").
- Asjylyn Loder (Dan Stets, editor), "Commodity Manipulation May Be Easier to Prove After Overhaul", BusinessWeek (July 19, 2010) (citing Markham as "a professor at Florida International University law school in Miami and an expert witness").
- Howard Gold, "Wall Street didn't hear Obama's greed message", ‎MarketWatch (January 23, 2009) (citing Markham as "a professor at Florida International University College of Law and an expert on banking and securities law").
- Alison Fitzgerald and John Brinsley, "Treasury Seeks Asset-Buying Power Unchecked by Courts", Bloomberg (September 21, 2008) (citing Markham as a law professor and author of A Financial History of the United States).
- Alan Rappeport, "JP Morgan Returns to Its Rescue Roots", ‎CFO.com Magazine (March 18, 2008) (stating: "In A Financial History of the United States, Jerry Markham calls Morgan a "one man Federal Reserve Bank" for his heroics during the panic of 1907").
- Ann Therese Palme, "A Guide to Walking Right", Registered Rep (February 1, 2004) (citing "Jerry W. Markham, Professor of Law, Florida International University, and Thomas L. Hazen, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, authors of: Broker Dealer Operations Under Securities and Commodities Law: Financial Responsibilities, Credit Regulation, and Customer Protection, West Group, 2002").
- Ann Therese Palmer, "The Non-Compete Trap: No Longer the Jaws of Death‎", Registered Rep (June 1, 2003) (citing Markham as "a University of North Carolina securities professor and co-author of a 1,500-page securities law treatise").
Markham is hardly new to this recognition of his expertise. Consider also:
- Scott Andron, "Food Lion Back In Courtroom", Greensboro News and Record (Feb 15, 1998) (citing Markham as "a law professor at UNC Chapel Hill and former lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission").
- David S. Cloud, "Confidence In Futures Markets Under Construction", News-Journal (Apr 4, 1989) (stating: "According to Jerry Markham, author of The History of Commodities Futures Trading, in one year alone - 1868 - at the Chicago Board of Trade, 'there were three corners in wheat, two in corn, one in oats, one attempted corner in rye, and another threatened in rye.'").
- Eric N. Berg, "Chicago Board Acts on Its Timing", New York Times (March 4, 1989) (citing Markham as "a leading Washington-based commodities lawyer").
Cheers! bd2412 T 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep. GS gives an h index of 20 in a not well-cited field to pass WP:prof#C1. Please will the nominator explain why he discounted this issue? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: The GS h index, according to the citation metrics section of WP:PROF states: "Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used." If this is not a very well-cited field, as noted above, then the utility of the metric is even more limited. I also note that most of the "citation" listed above are, in fact, quotations. A quote from an individual in a news article is very different to a citation and also very different from the person being the "subject of" the article, as required by general notability guidelines. Markham is cited, but if you look at GS, you will see multiple self-citations as well as multiple citations from the same author. I don't believe any of this provides sufficient evidence of notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:01, 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 - T P 23:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references found by User:BD2412 and their context are compelling. One correction, though: Markman is not the former chief (i.e., chairman) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. He is former chief counsel of the commission's enforcement division. TJRC (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, that is an error of haste, and not an intent to mislead. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  - It never occurred to me otherwise; you did a fine job of documenting notability. I just wanted to get the correction into the record, both for purposes of this AFD and in case anyone uses it as the basis for updating the article. TJRC (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references found above allows article to pass notability guidelines.--EdwardZhao (talk) 16:05, 30 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. Courcelles 23:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motive Motion[edit]

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

Not satisfying any of the conditions in WP:BAND. Muhandes (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage for this band in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 15:47, 17 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 - T P 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. If by any chance it's kept then it needs major rewriting, as it currently reads like self-publicity. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 29 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. Courcelles 23:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murple (band)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. RJFJR (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched online and I found were Amazon and music download websites. Not to mention, if they released an LP in 1974, I think it's going to very challenging finding sources for that. SwisterTwister (talk) 21:09, 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, v/r - T P 23:22, 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. Courcelles 23:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAD's 20 Dumbest[edit]

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

Doesn't show notability; only interesting for MAD (magazine) readers. Possibly fancruft. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 17:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem important. No sources provided and list is incomplete anyway. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:19, 20 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 - T P 23:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and include in Mad's 20 Dumbest Wikipedia Articles - summaries of magazine articles are not normally considered suitable for an encyclopedia. Besides, it's much funnier in the original. Ma^t_chups 17:00, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dog Hut[edit]

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

While this doesn't fit into an A7 subject, I'm not seeing any evidence or sources of actual notability here. Maybe someone can find some, but all I can dig out is this place's own website. Courcelles 23:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may be a 'school' but it fails WP:ORG just as any accredited high street TESOL college, language, or cram school would. No sources found to assert notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a hoax, definitely unverified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and joke. It appears to exists as a dog-training centre, not the same as a college of further education. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a joke nor a WP:hoax. The organisation exists according to their website "Registered Company Address: Linden House, Linden Close, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN4 8HH. Company Number: 06972315 UKPRN 10030370", although their accreditation for the provision of City & Guilds programmes may be subject to further scrutiny. The article is most likely a creation made in good faith by someone who did not inform themselves first of our criteria for notability and the requirement for reliable sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I said -- it appears to exist and be a dog-training school. To describe a dog training school as a "college of further education", as this article does, is either a massive misunderstanding of the British educational system or a joke. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that they teach people to train and handle dogs - which is a profession. If they are misrepresenting themselves as a college of further education, that's their problem, but it's not ours to say it's a joke or a hoax. The article will probably be deleted anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not say that the organisation in question is misrepresenting itself -- that's a pretty serious accusation. I say that this article is mispresenting the organisation, and that this article is thus some kind of joke. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is misrepresenting them the way you say it is; it appears that it's not a dog-training school (i.e a place where dogs are trained) but a dog-trainers school - i.e. a place where people can take further education courses in Animal Care and and such. Still, probably not notable. MorganaFiolett (talk) 12:11, 29 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. Courcelles 23:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken string[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Non-notable neologism. Singularity42 (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tried doing a search-- some Newgrounds video, and e-how video on How to Truss a Chicken Without String, and other unrelated material. Not convinced this is notable. Whatever this is, it isn't. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As unverifiable. I can find no evidence for the existence of a chicken based food product similar to cheese strings. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Madeup. I also can find no verifiable source for such a food product. The article appears to be a creation of an SPA. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:50, 29 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Orange Bowl (tennis)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There is nothing here to suggest notability of this tournament. There are certainly a lot of famous names as winners, but notability is not inherited. The Dunlop Orange Bowl for 16-and-under and 18-and-under is certainly notable, but not this tournament. St Anselm (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the Junior Orange Bowl was renamed at some point as the Dunlop Orange Bowl. The Junior Orange Bowl should probably be merged into the Dunlop Orange Bowl since the past champions sections in both is not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnr7144 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's likely not true, and even if it were, since 1962 these have been clearly two separate tournaments that today go by these two different names (though it is confusing that the Dunlop Orange Bowl is a junior tournament and the Junior Orange Bowl is a youth one). Along the lines of this suggestion though, I think the past winners list for the Dunlop Orange Bowl should most likely include the prior to 1962 champions for U-13, particularly if this nominated page is deleted. Mayumashu (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is the leading tournament in the world for under-14s. I know that, and I'm neither American nor a tennis fan, just a British general sports fan. Alex Middleton (talk) 00:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 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, v/r - T P 23:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As nominator said, notability is not inherited. Even if there are elite players names connected to it, but still tournament itself is not notable enough. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:16, 29 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. Courcelles 23:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgid Nzekwu[edit]

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

Individual is a television presenter who has not achieved notability yet (despite co-presenting the news on Channel 4). Philafrenzy (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Sheng Jiao[edit]

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

The subject is not notable per WP:BIO. The only significant thing he did was save a child from drowning, and that event, while admirable, is not somehthing that is notable enough to pass the requirements. A Google search of his name only gives self-published sources, and only a few at that. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Nice story (despite the English). Korean War veteran. If the monument were a statue and if Korea and China consider him to be a national hero and there are references to back that up I'll change to "keep". The AfD link from the article needs fixing because it isn't linking to here. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems to be working for me. What's wrong with the link? Inks.LWC (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's working fine now. It was redlinked before. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:10, 9 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) 01:06, 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, v/r - T P 23:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have stated "keep" if more sources were provided. Anti Bullying Warrior (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An ordinary soldier involved in one incident of doubtful notability, and no other reason for being considered notable. Only one source, which is highly promotional and of doubtful value. In addition, the article is written to promote a point of view, telling us how Luo Shen Jiao was "a noble-minded martyr" and a "hero", and full of standard clichéd communist party rhetoric about how he did all the right things such as being a friend to the people in the land where his country's army was operating and suchlike. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject doesn't meet wikipedia's notability requirement. Keb25 (talk) 14:43, 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 per WP:SNOW. It might be possible to write an encyclopedic article about this subject but this is not that article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/Q[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Obvious violation of WP:NOTHOWTO, nearly no prose whatsoever. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'WP:SNOW Delete: for any number of reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a brief description of /Q. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is badly written, and wrong (paths don't use slash, they use backslash in DOS, it's called a "colon" not a Colin). 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- badly written, incomprehensible, unsourced and inaccurate. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for multiple issues, not the least of which is WP:NOTHOWTO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
/SNOW /NOTHOWTO /Q Delete - "'Colin' Represents The Colin ASCII Character" ??? also the article is incorrect, the flag is accepted as an argument by some programs and built-in commands in the MS-DOS system - although possibly just a translation/ESL issue. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why not speedy? W Nowicki (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined. And a PROD was removed. So here we are. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:44, 29 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. Courcelles 23:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sevananda Saraswati Maharaj[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability. No independent references. Mostly anecdotal stories. Dmol (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia guidelines, not to mention reliable sources mentioning this person. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:53, 16 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 - T P 22:48, 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. Courcelles 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acid soul[edit]

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

no references in >3 years, no edits in >2 years, no clear notability Stuartyeates (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. --Dmol (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 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, v/r - T P 22:48, 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. The article contains no claims of notability and nothing in it is reliably sourced. Fails WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Outing Club[edit]

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

Non-notable college club: only 1 chapter on a single campus, no national organization, no known notable achievements. Insufficient third party sources to establish notability. The Boston.com article is a guide for rock climbing in the Boston area, not an article on the MIT Outing Club, as required to satisfy WP:N. GrapedApe (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. tedder (talk) 14:20, 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, v/r - T P 22:43, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zac and Suellen[edit]

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

Notability in question. References provided are not good ones. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are self-published and mainly inadequate ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very clear-cut case to delete. Their main supposed claim to fame is having a web show on Youtube. There's no proof that the show is notable. Their most viewed video has less than 400 views in a year. The celebgossip site in the references appears self-published. It only has about 5 articles (multiple ones about this pair). The blog template (about section) isn't even fully filled out. Based on the user name of the article creator, this is apparently an autobiography. --JamesAM (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly gossip. It would have made a bit more sense if the article were about the show. But I suspect that's not WP notable either. I see only "celeb" gossip blogs cited. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:03, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luxtera[edit]

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

More tech company spam. Non-notable. —Chowbok ☠ 20:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -tagged for CSD G11. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 20:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I removed the G11 tag. The article's text isn't unduly promotional, and is largely supported by the sources given. I'm making no comment on the article's notability. -- Atama頭 20:42, 9 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, 16 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 - T P 22:33, 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. Courcelles 23:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cartoon Network programing blocks[edit]

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

Nominating myself for deletion, has only five sources and not notable enough. JJ98 (Talk) 18:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Article provides sufficient coverage of its subject material, of which some have branched off into their own articles. More sources are available as well, and all I really see that is needed here is a Refimprove tag. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my arguments on my nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicktoons Summer Beach House (2nd nomination) which dealt with this issue involving Nickelodeon programming blocks; this is of interest to only a select few, nobody beyond those obsessed with CN details really care one way or another, it makes obvious statements (you mean the "Wednesdays" block only airs on Wednesdays? My whole world has shifted on it's axis!), and speculates about a rights deal which won't be in effect for a year yet. Also, TV movies are not programming blocks. Nate • (chatter) 20:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note I am requesting for G7 myself for you Mrschimpf (aka Nate). Also note I removed all the Cartoon Network programing blocks in the main article since it is completely unsorced. JJ98 (Talk) 21:21, 10 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, 16 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 - T P 22:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Programing"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. (I was pleasantly surprised to see that "NOTTVGUIDE" really does exist.) I don't think that more references will help this, the list is more of a program directory than anything encyclopedic. -- Atama頭 16:57, 30 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 no consensus. I couldn't help but notice that that nominator says "the organization has only become less notable". Per WP:NTEMP if this organization was notable at the tima of the first AFD then it's notable now. Though the nominator later expressed doubts about the subject ever being notable, after 3 weeks there is only 1 "per nom" delete !vote so "no consensus" is the right call here. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In the four years since the last discussion, the organization has only become less notable. It appears to have been a one time industry initiative in 2007. Additionally, it is an obvious copyright violation. Thanks! -IchWeigereMich (ʎ /ʘ) 13:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick look at the history would reveal that the copyright violation was added in this edit on 24 May 2010, and the version before that appeared clean. I have reverted it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's one issue, though I think there are still questions of notability. In the previous deletion discussion, it was noted that Google has many results for "Health Mothers Healthy Babies", but looking closer, that search brings up very little that is related to this specific organization, and when it is, it looks like press releases. Thanks again!--IchWeigereMich (ʎ /ʘ) 20:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 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) 00:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--BristolRobin (talk) 13:52, 23 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 - T P 22:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The author may wish to retitled the article as "National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition" this appears to be the official name for the subject. Not only does this subject appear notable but it appear to have active local chapters in many of the 50 States in the U.S..--User:Warrior777 (talk) 01:25, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close to the Ground (Angel novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable novel based in the Buffyverse. Does not show any critical reception or sales figures worthy of an article, and is not by an author who is so important that all of his works are considered notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 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) 00:04, 16 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 - T P 22:25, 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 speedy delete. CSD G11. This isn't an article it's adcopy. If somebody not connected with this organization wishes to write a sourced neutral article on this subject then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manan Foundation[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any reliable sources at all on Google or Google News so the subject probably fails WP:Notability. Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was forced to remove some content from the article because it had been copied from LinkedIn. Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 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) 00:05, 16 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 - T P 22:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The AFD tag was removed on June 9, but restired, and again removed on June 10, but not restored. I have just restored it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As irredeemable spam, and violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 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. Courcelles 23:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parents and Children Together[edit]

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

Unsourced article about regional organiation that does not meet requirements of WP:NONPROFIT. GIS indicates there are scores of organizations in many countries operating at state, provincial, municipal or other levels using this same name. The website for the subject of this article confirms its regional nature. No notable news coverage is apparent for this org. Possibly a self-promotion page, as it was originally a re-direct to another organization until changed by User:PACTcharity, which is that user's only contribution. If not deleted, it should be changed back to its original version as a re-direct to its original target. Agent 86 (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 9 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) 00:05, 16 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 - T P 22:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:ORG as a regional organisation that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The name of the organisation is common as mentioned by the nominator which confounds the search. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Rodrigue[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:09, 16 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 - T P 22:21, 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 no consensus. I don't detect a great deal of enthusiasm for this page but equally there is no consensus for deletion. There is obvious overlap with Paramore discography but, as has been pointed out, the scope of this page is broader. A reasonable next step would be for concerned editors to start a merge discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paramore songs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A discography already exists for the band. Article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Previous AfD was withdrawn without results. SpigotMap 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to discography. --Anthem 17:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [2]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that it might be indiscriminate, but I don't think the article is redundant of the discography since it covers all songs as opposed to the albums and the singles alone. Also, I know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the category mentioned at the first AfD [3] does bring a whole lot of other crap. I'm not sure it is possible to assess this article's validity without taking those into account - frankie (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I didn't look at that list of lists before... That is a lot of crap. Regardless, the validity of this list is obviously voided by the discography. What is the purpose of having so many song lists... This list, The discography, and the Album pages all have song listings. SpigotMap 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The unreleased songs and covers are not listed in the main discography. In addition the note details are not available anywhere else. Therefore removing the page would reduce the amount of information available about the band which would seem to go against the whole idea of wiki. Perhaps the details could be added to the main discog however I don't recall any other discog pages that have sections for unreleased material etc. As such I would argue that the page isn't surplus in that the details contained would not fit into the standard format of other listings of the bands work, namely the main discography or album listings. --PilotDave (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it is an indiscriminate collection of information that doesn't fit in anywhere else..? SpigotMap 12:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a collection of information that is useful and informative which does not fit into the standard layout format of the other pages of the discography and thus requires its own dedicated section - which it has. Deleting the page would remove information that is not accessible elsewhere - how that can be advantageous is unclear to me. PilotDave (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the songs didn't fit the guidelines and style for inclusion in the discography so a loose list of songs with some random facts was put together? This is a list of information that is useless for the average fan or reader looking in to the artist, so how about we merge the information in to the artist's discography? That would be a happy medium. SpigotMap 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an average fan I would disagree with your comments as I found it very useful as it has allowed me to find information on songs that I didn't know existed from reading the main discography. By all means if it can be integrated into the main discog, as I mentioned in my first comment, then that would be a suitable solution. Perhaps a subsection in the main discography could be created for the unreleased materials i.e. the demo's and cover versions would suffice.

My main objection to the outright deletion of the page is that information that is not currently available elsewhere would be lost.

PilotDave (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too trivial to mention all of their songs, someone can simply look through their albums. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, there are songs in the list that you can not find if you "simply look through their albums" as they are not detailed anywhere else except on the page in question. PilotDave (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is a different item from the discography and it serves a different purpose. It could be included on the discography, but that may be bloating an article with information that is beyond its scope. The information is redundant when presented like this, but it is inevitable that any list will replicate information found elsewhere, since its purpose is to centralize such information for better access by the user. Lastly, I don't think that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is much of an issue here, as the songs is the lowest point we can get to in terms of coverage (I think we would mostly agree that List of Paramore Verses is over the top). The notes section of the table looks like original research, so it should either be sourced properly, or be dropped - frankie (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paramore discography. Track listings should be covered on the albums' pages; information on them can be added if they're not Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:11, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 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 - T P 22:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No section of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here, nor does it violate the spirit of WP:NOT. It's not a plot description, a lyrics database, or a collection of stats. Since this category demonstrates that a vast amount of other crap exists, we can call this precedent instead of labeling it crap. That's precisely why the first AfD nom was withdrawn. User:Frankie correctly points out the dearth of sourcing in the important notes section is a problem (rendering it WP:CRUFT to some readers). I notice that on the List of The Beatles songs, a similar lack of sources for notes is a problem. THAT list is clearly useful (and the notes section as well). BusterD (talk) 12:22, 2 July 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) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Merlino (doctor)[edit]

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

While highly accredited and accomplished, little notability has been established. Also, aside from an external links section, article is unsourced. Ted87 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Of insufficient notability. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 21 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 - T P 22:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a worthy person but notability cannot be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:40, 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. Courcelles 23:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WBAN-LP[edit]

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

No source to indicate actual operation (yes, a license to cover was issued, but for low-power stations that only goes so far). The FCC canceled the license — in 2008 (after it expired in 2007), so don't go looking for it in TV Query. Yes, I realize that I actually created this page back in 2006 (and for a variety of reasons G7 doesn't apply here), but I have far higher standards these days, and what is clearly a non-station doesn't meet those standards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the CW comfortably placed on WABI-DT2 and the license long expired, there's no way this station ever comes to the air at all. Since it never did, there's no history and no need to keep it here. Nate • (chatter) 05:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 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 - T P 22:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. The station never went to air and the license has been canceled. A Google News archive search appears to pull up nothing. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 30 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. Courcelles 23:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordian Farahani[edit]

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

Non notable Canadian soccer player who is playing for a USL PDL club which doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michae (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the USL PDL is not fully pro, he fails WP:NSPORT and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 19:00, 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) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cabalaza Records[edit]

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

Non-notable (possibly non-existent) record label. All references provided are false links.

A search for this subject on the Puerto Rico Daily Sun website turns up empty.
The existence of the Paradise Art Space Magazine cannot be verified.
The existence of a publication of any nature by the title of Transatlantic Submarine Trade and Silent Spring cannot be verified.

Based on the group's homepage (a Youtube channel with random, non-musical videos), and the fact that the article's primary author is a confirmed sockpuppet, I really think this article can be classified as a complete hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any clear evidence of its existence, let alone notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:47, 20 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 - T P 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pronto per WP:SNOW. This is definitely a hoax. I can't find any evidence of notability, let alone whether this record company even exists. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-verifiable at best. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:32, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juan & La Borrega[edit]

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

Article is completely unsourced (you cannot cite IMDb as a source) and requires much cleanup. —Croisés Majestic ^{(sur nous mars)} 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, a stub by a new editor often requires "cleanup"... but using the proferred IMDB external link as a starting point, such things can be done Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because an article is unsourced and requires cleanup doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 00:31, 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:00, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Cub (Music Group)[edit]

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

Article appears to be a non-notable musical group. The article does have coverage in a reliable source, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which appears to have written several articles on them. However, there doesn't appear to be any other coverage by non-local newspapers. I believe this article fails to meet the notability guidelines for musical groups. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:55, 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 Time of My Life (album). Courcelles 08:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every Time You Go (3 Doors Down song)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. CycloneGU (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Time of My Life (album) The song may be notable due to its rank, but there isn't enough about the song right now to merit an article. Notability criteria for songs states that high rankings national or significant music charts are probably notable, but a separate article is only warranted when there is other information worth saying about it. The ranking of the single can be integrated into the album. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would be a suitable result if there is content to move. A redirect is the other option. I'm not insisting we blank it and redlink it because someone looking for the song can indeed locate the album by doing so, and that is more sensible. CycloneGU (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a little new to afD discussions and still warming up to what is most appropriate to do for a given article. Thanks! I Jethrobot (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - we all learn somehow! We agree there isn't enough for its own article, but that a redirect would be appropriate. That's the main thing, and pending any other opinion suggesting otherwise, the most appropriate result. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. Despite the single's initial performance on iTunes, the graph provided on the linked site only shows a bump within days of release, and it's most recently only in the 60's. I'm not seeing any independent coverage which would signal inclusion. Maybe it will become a classic, and we'll be wrong. For today, based on sources available, merge to notable album and redirect to that target. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the parent album as per above. Coverage for the song in reliable sources seems to be limited to trivial mentions within album (p)reviews. I can't find enough material for the song to support an individual article at this time; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J T Jayasingh[edit]

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with the general or topical notability guidelines for authors or academics. I have been unable to locate independent sources. Books and poems are all self-published. Cind.amuse 13:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hits on both Yahoo and Google. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 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 - T P 21:50, 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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology of the SS[edit]

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

This was a split off article from SS involving a large amount of material from a single source from 1968. I thought there might have been some hope for this, but there is no getting around that this is pretty much fringe research and a lot of opinion. The article relies entirely on a single source and deals with a very subjective subject, mainly the motivations and personal feelings of SS members. There is really nowhere to go with this and this will probably never be more than, at best, a research essay with numerous factual source issues, heavily burdened by OR OberRanks (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Saying it is "fringe" is perhaps going a bit far. I am sure there are many scholarly works about the motivations and ideology of the SS, they just aren't represented. If they aren't soon, delete. (Hohum ^@) 22:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With all due respect, the essay that I used was based upon the work introduced by the historians associated with the Institut für Zeitgeschichte that was presented as evidence at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials; if that qualifies as "fringe research", then Wikipedia is in a lot of trouble. Indeed, one can take this further and if the essays in the book The Anatomy of the SS State are "fringe research", then presumably the people convicted at the trial at Frankfurt on the basis in part on the evidence introduced by the experts from the Institut were clearly wrongly convicted. I'll not saying that the essays from The Anatomy of the SS State are perfect, but they are based on documents that were meant to be used in court by the prosecution, which must had meant that they were written with the expectation that defence lawyers were going to try and take them apart. As it was, the court accepted for the most part the prosecution's arguements. But here in Wikipedia land, this is all fringe research that should be rejected. I think there is a misunderstanding here on the part of OberRanks, in that I was not trying to say that is all how SS men thought and acted in the manner proscribed by the SS ideals. Rather I was attempting to describe the ideals that the SS were supposed to live up to. In fact, most SS men did not live up to these ideals, but nonetheless these ideals did influence the behavior of the SS. For an example, the SS ideal was to be "hard" with no soft emotions like love was an ideal that SS men were supposed to live by, but clearly that was not the case as a great man SS men did love their wives, girlfriends, children, etc, etc. Having been accused in the past of adding too information, so I chose to omit the next paragraphs saying that this was an ideal only. I would not disagree that this is a somewhat subjective subject, but if that qualifies an article for deletion, then a great deal of Wikipedia articles really should be deleted. By the same logic, all of the articles explaining why for example the Jews were expelled from Spain or why people in early modern Europe liked to burn women as witches, both of which are dealing with similar subjective issues ought to be deleted. One of the major, if not the main reasons why the southern states secedeed from the Union in 1860-61 was the widespread belief that the incoming Lincoln administration was about to unleash hordes of John Brown-type abolitionists on the South to stir up slave uprisings. A totally erroneous belief, but a major cause of the American Civil War. If I were to add that, should that be deleted because it deals with a subjective issue? The fact is that the SS did have a distinct ideology, and that did influence the behavior of its members, at least some of the time, which is surely something germane to the topic. If one wishes for some sources, I can supply them, but since I'm somewhat busy at present, it might be best to give me a few weeks as I'm rather busy right now, and I'm not dropping everything just because somebody is accusing me of engaging in OR. The earliest I can to the library is next week, and then I'll bring in some more info from some additional sources. If somebody wishes to beat me to the punch, then check out The Order of the Death’s Head by Heinz Höhne, The Nazi Party : a Social Profile of Members and Leaders, 1919-1945 by Michael Kater (that deals with the N.S.D.A.P. in general, but has a lot of info on the SS), The SS, Alibi of a Nation by Gerald Reitlinger and some of the essays in The Holocaust and History The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed and the Reexamiend. Thank you all for your time.--A.S. Brown (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of order per AfD guidelines regarding article creators and major contributors. A.S. Brown is the main contributor to the original material for the article. The material was removed from the main SS article into its own article after agreement on the SS article talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My main point has always been that it relies too heavily on one historian's view and opinion. I did some edits which helped in that regard, however, as I said before, the article needs to be re-written, to be objective; it would be much better with additional info. from other reliable sources (especially more current research/books) to further confirm or add to the points being presented. Like others, I have not had the time to work on it more. I would concur with Hohum, above; if not improved very soon then it should be deleted. Kierzek (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Since this is a legitimate content fork from the SS article and is a sufficiently notable topic in its own right, I don't see a valid reason to delete it. The ideology of the SS seems an essential aspect in terms of understanding the historical motivations and behavior of this organization. The article is already tagged appropriately for the single source concern, which will warn future readers and encourage the issue to be addressed. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep legitimate content fork. Having a whole book devoted to the subject indicates independant notability anyway. More sources would be nice. Content issues are not usually a reason to delete. Agathoclea (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other sources out there that go into this to some degreen (Hohne's book has some coverage, as does Padfield's biography of Himmler).Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And expand on why the SS viewed murder as essential part of its mission.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:12, 30 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tunde Aderonmu[edit]

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

Delete − The subject does not meet the notability criteria set forth in WP:NSOCCER

The subject has never represented his country in an officially sanctioned senior international competition − that fails Criterion 1
The subject has never played in the Premiership, Championship, League 1 or League 2 (See WP:FPL) − that fails Criterion 2.

Therefore the subject fails all criteria from WP:NSOCCER, and so does not pass out notability guidelines. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Played for and quit a step 6/level 10 English league team. That is waaay down the food chain. Bgwhite (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt Delete − Very good footballer, i follow his career. He was with England & Fulham but kept on getting injured. • Sneakyt2010 (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2011 Sneakyt2010 has no edits other than attempts to prevent this deletion.

The fact that you personally regard him as a "very good footballer" does not confer notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having never played above level seven on the league pyramid, he quite clearly fails WP:NSPORT, and due to the absence of significant coverage, he fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seconding Sneaky2010 statement. Also the fact that he was competent enough to be taken by England and Fulham should show that he indeed deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Anti Bullying Warrior (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that the editors calling for keeping above claim that this player was either "with" or "taken by" England and Fulham. It would be helpful if they could clarify what those claims mean and provide reliable sources for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Casuarina Tree[edit]

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

Non notable poem Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 19:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE would have been helpful here. This is a famous poem by a notable 19th century Indian poet. As borne out by the hundreds of hits at GBooks[4] and the dozens at GScholar[5], this poem was often anthologized and is discussed extensively in secondary literature. A couple of examples: One of the poet's biographers called it "surely the most remarkable poem ever written in English by a foreigner".[6] The author of British And Indian English Literature: A Critical Study called it a "beautiful symbolic poem combining both matter and manner in proper proportion" and went into a detailed analysis[7] There's plenty more. This article needs improving, not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Arxiloxos. This is notable enough to be inflicted upon successive generations of indian school kids in our English syllabus (along with another famous poem of hers called "The lotus")--Sodabottle (talk) 05:39, 17 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 - T P 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been amply demonstrated above. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 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 (speedy). The subject of this article is a fictional school within a play which already went through AfD and has been found to not meet the notability requirements; I am therefore speedying this page as a form of recreation of a deleted page. Thanks --Neutrality^talk 19:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pigfarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry[edit]

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

~~Disputed PROD. This is a plot-only description of a fictional place. Singularity42 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

As a result of recent changes to the article, I am changing my reason for nomination, but I am still nominating this article for deletion. The reason I am nominating this article for deletion is that this is a fictional place from a play that was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Very Potter Musical, and endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14. If the play was not notable, then the fictional locations in the play are not notable either. Also, as per comments below, this comes awfully close to WP:CFORK in relation to the deleted page. Singularity42 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(The following !vote has been copied from various other talk pages, and re-formatted to display the !vote correct, in order the author of the article who is a new editor.)

Keep The page on Pigfarts may be a description of a fictional place, but so is the page on Hogwarts. Both are fictional, so both should have their own pages. It is not a strictly plot description, as information on the professors, location, and means of transportation have been provided. I included information given in A Very Potter Musical, and described all that is known about Pigfarts. I don't see what is "plot-only" about it, so if you could please explain that would be delightful. RedVinesFTW (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC) REDVINESFTW[reply]

Hi there, RedVines. Two points:

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pigfarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, so you should really join the discussion there.
This is clearly just a lengthy plot-description of this fictional place. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a helpful argument. Singularity42 (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I had responded here. But, you have still not pointed out what exactly is a "plot-description" of it. Repeating the fact that it is is not very helpful. I see that there are maybe one or two things in it that could be considered strictly plot, but the rest is actually a description of the school. The joke about Harry Potter and his money would be one of those things, and I can easily take that out. The other that may qualify is where I said that Draco and Luna talked about transferring to Pigfarts, but that is information on the student body. So, if you could actually explain why you consider it a lengthy plot description, that would be a bit more helpful. RedVinesFTW (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)REDVINESFTW[reply]

99.9% of this article reads as if this is a real school - i.e. this article seems to exist in the same fictional world of the school, rather than being about the piece of fiction. That is what is meant by WP:PLOT. I would also point out that a location from a somewhat non-notable play should probably not have its own article. Singularity42 (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-Notable, possible also encroaching upon WP:FORK. -OberRanks (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Something in a musical which has alreadt been deemed non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xoy Ceremony[edit]

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

Part of a walled garden of entirely unverifiable articles created by Tamsier (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sererism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laman Jegan Joof, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thiemassassians). There are zero Google Scholar or Google Books hits, and what Google web search results there are seem to be forum-type pages, some of which also originate with a person identified as "Tamsier", e.g. [8]. I'll stop individually nominating these articles now, as it appears increasingly likely that a centralized discussion to nuke this editor's entire contribution history will be required. Sandstein 20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that you have nominated my articles for deletion, i.e. Laman Jegan Joof, Xoy Ceremony etc. You also seems to accuse me of other things which I shall not go through here. I am just wondering when you where planning to delete the Laman Jegan Joof, Xoy Ceremony, and Sererism articles whether you have thought about other possible variations of the name or at least consult me? As I have told you in the Laman Jegan Joof talk page, there are differences in the French spelling and the English spelling depending on whether you are Anglophone or Francophone. You also appeared not to have done your proper research. Had you googled Xoy Ceremony it would have taken you straight to atleast Pometra International. Eventhough there are variations of spelling "Xoy" had you googled it, you have seen your prove. I have better things to do with my time and effort than to waste all my time and energy producing these articles if I didn't have verifiable sources for them.

It is now obvious to me what is going on here. Certain people within Wiki do not want to see anything published about Serer religion, history etc. I would rather you tell me and other Serer people so that we can stop wasting our time rather than nominating Serer related articles even after sources have been provided. There is a difference between asking for a clean up and nominating something for deletion or speedy deletion. Had you asked for clean up etc rather than nominating it for deletion, I would have valued that more, but these nomination for deletion about all Serer related articles shows what is going on here. I am far too old than to be playing games particularly, religous and historical games. I thought Wiki had more interity than that apparently not.

Tamsier (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here wants to suppress any information about your people. In fact, we have too little coverage of African society topics and need more of it. But we do need to be certain that our information is true, by providing reliable sources that allow readers to verify it. By "Prometra International" you mean this page? It does at least verify the existence of the ceremony, although I'm not sure how reliable it is as a source; it appears rather self-published. Are any other spellings that lead to more sources, or can you reproduce a few quotations from the offline sources you cite in the article to allow us to check how they describe the topic? Sandstein 05:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Xoy Ceremony is also spelled Khoy Ceremony. This year's Xoy was only the beginning of this month. As for reading your comment on the Laman Jegan Joof talk page, I couldn't stop laughing. As you rightly saw from Jstor, or its equivalent, it will only give you a preview unless you buy it. In any case, it proved my existence of Jegan which you accused me of fabricating. He came from Lambaye and he had to leave with his brother Ndick because he was loosing lot of cows from his relative the King of Lambaye. Sandstein, you can delete all the articles if you think it is right and proper. I do not have time going back and forward. It will be just like the Thiemassassian article where I have provided not just reliable links but historical and archaelogical evidence but you still went and delete it. I wasted my time doing that and showed you prove after the accusations. Never again. If the nomination for deletion tags you left on my articles are still there by tonight, I will save you the trouble and delete the articles myself. Please don't take this as an ultimatum or psychological game. Far from it. I'm far too old for that. I've spend hours researching and writing as well as joggling that with trying to get the hang of Wiki. Since I've written them, at least I should delete them and save us all from this agro. Thank you.

Tamsier (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. There are no Gbooks hits for Xoy Ceremony or Khoy Ceremony. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Prometra International is a reputable organisation with links to UNESCO, World Bank as well as Procter and Gamble and have delegates throughout the world. This ceremony is also well covered online. It certainly does exist. Once this article is developed I think it will make a valuable resource for anyone interested in African religious ceremonies, traditional/alternative medecine and so on. Anti Bullying Warrior (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Anti Bullying Warrior (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - New and verifiable sources with external links have been added to this article, backing up what the original author [my father] had already written. Xoy is also spelt "Xooy", this has also been added. We are all here to contribute and share our knowledge. No one should have to feel they are being made a fool of or have their character assassinated especially if their intentions are honourable and are only trying to share knowledge. Wiki is not the place for such things.

Son of Tamsier (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC) — Son of Tamsier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Son of Tamsier, a new account created the day after Tamsier was blocked, has made no edits not related to this article created by Tamsier (except for creating a user page). This appears to be either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no evidence of any attempt to make anybody seem a fool or to assassinate anybody's character. Are you are sure you are not taking personally things which were not intended that way? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Son of Tamsier and Anti Bullying Warrior have been blocked as sockpuppets of Tamsier. noq (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this in Google Books. So, with one of the various spellings provided, we (might) assume it is real. However, this ceremony does not meet WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 00:06, 1 July 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sererism[edit]

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

This article is unverifiable or original research. There are zero Google Scholar or Google Book search results for "Sererism" or its possible variants (Seererism, Seereerisme). The Google Web search results seem to be mostly or wholly from Wikipedia mirrors. I am not minded to assume good faith in the provided offline references, given that the article's creator, Tamsier (talk · contribs), seems to be in the habit of creating unverifiable articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thiemassassians and now also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xoy Ceremony‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laman Jegan Joof). Sandstein 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident that there is a religious and historical politics being played here by certain Wiki Administrators. Not all, but some. All Serer articles with the exception of few (their choosing) will be nominated for deletion even if you follow the rules laid out in Wiki and provide reliable sources. It is irrelevant to them how many sources you cite, they are trying to block any article related to Serer religion or history. If anyone wants to know what is going on here and why these people keep nominating Serer related articles for deletion, visit the following links where I have signed my name underneath my responses. I was going to add more sources in each of my articles and cleaned them up a bit, but I will not be adding any more, because no matter what I do and how many sources I have added etc, these people will still nominate these articles for deletion.

To find out what is going on here, see the following links:

This link will take you to the Laman Jegan Joof talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laman_Jegan_Joof

This link will take you to the Xoy Ceremony talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xoy_Ceremony

Maba's Talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maba_Diakhou_B%C3%A2

Tamsier (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what we need are reliable published sources that address the topic of "Sererism". Can you reproduce a few verbatim quotations from the offline sources you cite in the article to allow us to check how they describe the topic? Sandstein 05:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Delete - In its current state, the article is unencyclopaedic, however, a Google scholar or book search for Serer animist or Serer animism, which appears to be what this article is about, returns a number of sources, I am not sure if the subject meets the notability guidelines yet. If so, it would need to be moved to Serer animism, because that is what all of the sources I have seen call it, it also would need to be heavily cleaned up. Quasi human | Talk 11:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all rather weird. There is a (unsourced) section at Serer people#Religion (shorter in the pre-Tamsier version) that describes this people's traditional beliefs, apparently in a god called Roog. Nothing of this is in the current Sererism article, which seems to have no actual content beyond reiterating how ancient and orthodox and awesome this faith is. The Google search results mostly seem to tell us that the Serer are animists, but it's not clear that there are (accessible) sources describing their version of animism in particular. Sandstein 11:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the sources I have found so far seem to give very trivial coverage, and maybe the right place for this info is on Serer people, which needs attention itself. I'm not ready to drop the provisional from my delete yet, as I would like to do a little more research. Quasi human | Talk 11:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interestingly, this book covers the Serer people in some detail, and also uses "Roog" as the name for the deity, although it doesn't have very much content on the religion of the Serer. I'm not convinced that a separate article for this is merited, the amount of verifiable information available on this would make for a very small stub, and would, in my opinion, be better contained within Serer people. Changed my !vote above. Quasi human | Talk 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on Sandstein and Quasihuman's research, this article is not only unsourced, it appears to disagree with what reliable sources are available. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to ask for this article or any Serer related article to be kept or deleted. Previously, I was going to add more with sources. As any one can see, the articles were never finished, but adding more with sources would now be a waste of my time. I've stopped asking for their acceptance once I realised what is going on here by certain Administrators. To be frank, I now careless whether they are kept or not. We all know Serer related articles are destined to the rubbish bin. All Serer related articles will be deleted no matter the number of sources etc. A good example of this is the Thiemassassian article. In that article, not only did I use historical sources, but verifiable archaelogical findings. If these people can over rule professional scholars, it just goes to show you the type of people administering Wiki. Personally, I will be closing my Wiki account and would urge all Serers to refrain from contributing to this so called encyclopedia [Wiki]. This is an encyclopedia administered by group of people with an agenda. They protect the articles of certain members within this so called community. Do not be fooled, articles are not accepted based on merit or any of the rules stated on Wiki. Even if you follow the rules to the hilt, Serer related articles will be deleted.

This brings me to another point. Normally I would not concern myself with such things, but for the purposes of neutrality etc, I think certain Administrators should declear their religious affiliation before being made Administrators. To be frank, I am quite suspicious about the motives of both Noq and Edward321. There are others but these two in particular are everywhere you see a Serer related article being nominated for deletion. Sometime it is them particularly Noq who instigate it. I challenge anyone to look at the history section of all Serer related articles deleted or pending deletion and you will find Noq there. You will also find this character called Edward321 who normally comes in at the end and follow what someone had said. By the way, just because someone call themselves Edward does not necessarily mean they are Christians. His name is probably not even Edward. If these people identify themselves as muslims, though I doubt they will state their true religion, but if they are muslims, then they are sympathetic to the muslim cause and as such, they are the least credible to participated in any Serer related article nominated for deletion. Personally, I don't care now, because I will not be contributing to Wiki and I will ask for my account to be deleted, but it would have helped me had I known about their true affiliations. Tamsier (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not an administrator, I have no power to delete any articles. I do new page patrolling and when I find an editor creating multiple new articles - many of them identical - and not sourcing those claims and I can find nothing on google to verify them myself then I will nominate them. I will also follow that editors contribution history to see if there are other articles with the same problems I will nominate them - that is why you saw my name a lot on those articles. My religion or lack of religion is nothing to do with it. noq (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I typed the above and went to check on the Maba article see [link below] where I had laid my concerns about the neutrality of that article few days ago [see the talk page]; asked for assitance about my concerns of that article from a particular administrator; invited T L Miles a major contributor to that article to a discussion and was told that he was only a translator not the author, having given it few days, I placed a neutrality template on it followed by speedy deletion. One of the administrators decided may be the speedy deletion was inappropriate but left the neutrality there, which I would have been quite happy with. However, after I finished the above entry, Guess who had taken out the neutrality template from Maba's article? Yes, Edward321, with no regard for the issues I have raised on the talk page. If you want to know who truly Maba was, go and read his talk page. In short, he was a muslim jihadist in the 19th century. Assume good faith, yes, but the actions of certain people are always questionable. Thank you Edward321. Give a man enough rope...

This is why people chosen to administer this site must be chosen very carefully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maba_Diakhou_B%C3%A2

The following is a link to an administrator I contacted for advise when I first came upon Maba's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Belovedfreak#Maba_Diakhou_B.C3.A2

Tamsier (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamsier - I can see no evidence of a conspiracy against Serer related articles, If you believe that there is sufficient evidence, the appropriate place to report it is WP:ANI, not here. It is worthwhile for you to add more sources to the article, If you have sources that cover this subject in more detail, you should at least mention them here. This AFD is by no means a foregone conclusion, it has plenty of time left, and the consensus could change if evidence of notability is found. Also, if you mention a user's name in connection with some wrongdoing, it is considered courteous to inform them on their talk page, I have taken the liberty of informing User:Noq and User:Edward321. Quasi human | Talk 11:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Noq - You have misrepresented the facts as you always do. I have provided sources to every article I have ever written here on Wiki no matter how small the article. Do not play your games with me. I have neither the time nor the inclination to play your games. You have allied yourself with certain people here to delete certain articles no matter how many verifiable sources are produced etc. Lets not forget you were the first one to nominate an article I had produced within hours even though it was in its infancy. Another editor and I have expressed concern to you over your inability to give new articles a chance before nominating for their speedy deletion. Don't come here playing almighty when your intentions are less than noble. As for Edward321 - a member of your ilk, he went to Maba's article [see link above] and undone the neutrality template I put on it without any comment on the talk page where I had laid several concerns of that article with sources. Does this seem like the kind who respect Wiki's policy? Absolutely not.

These are the kind that have penetrated Wiki and use it as their battlefield in order to advance their selfish objectives. You may fool other editors but you will never fool me. Even to address your lame excuses which you have presented as facts as you have always done, is a waste of my energy and time. Well done for succeeding in the deletion of Serer articles. I take my hat off to you. Though remember one day you will met your match. Nothing goes on forever. You will one day meet an editor who has the same level of patience and cunningness that you have displayed here, and will contribute to your downfall and humiliation in this so called community -, detailing everything that you and others have been up to since the moment you start contributing to Wiki. The only regret I have is that, I will not be able to witness your ultimate downfall and humiliation. Enjoy your victory. I have nothing else to say to you.

Tamsier (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in agreement with Quasihuman to some to some extent. This would be better contained in the Serer people religion section. I think many of the article's content could be extremely useful if added to the Serer people religion. Therefore rather than completely deleting the article, why not consider adding this material to the serer people religion section. Anti Bullying Warrior (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Anti Bullying Warrior (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Anti Bullying Warrior has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Tamsier. noq (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of the content is salvageable. A major problem with this article is that there are no inline citations, so it is hard to tell the original research, which is undoubtedly present, from the valuable content. Just to clarify, when I said that the best place for the content was on the Serer people article, I was talking about content that cites reliable sources. Also, a merge, which is what you are suggesting, in my opinion, should involve the deletion of Sererism after the content has been merged, because it is not a plausible redirect, as no sources have been found that use that word. Quasi human | Talk 22:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ignoring the diatribe on administrators above, the content of the article seems largely unsubstantiated by independent sources and because current sources above do not provide enough detail to merit an entire article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:56, 30 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laman Jegan Joof[edit]

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

This article about an alleged eleventh century nobleman is unverifiable. There are zero Google Books or Google Scholar search results for any of the given spelling variants of his name. None of the alleged sources are online and a Google Web search produces only Wikipedia mirrors and random forum-type websites. I became aware of this article after examining the contributions of its author, who has written another article deleted as unverifiable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thiemassassians, and now also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xoy Ceremony‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sererism. Sandstein 20:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that you have nominated my articles for deletion, i.e. Laman Jegan Joof etc. You also seems to accuse me of other things which I shall not go through here. I am just wondering when you where planning to delete the Laman Jegan Joof, Xoy Ceremony, and Sererism articles whether you have thought about other possible variations of the name or at least consult me? If you asked me, I would have told you that, the surname "Joof" for instance, is the same as "Diouf". Joof is the English spelling and Diouf is the French spelling. The same is for Djegan/Djigan. Since I speak and write in English, I have to use the English spelling (Jegan) and not the French spelling(Djegan/Djigan). You said there is nothing on Google. This is the same thing I have been accused of by certain Administrators even after providing sources. Even after citing "The state must be our master of fire" in the Jegan Joof article, that is still not enough for you. You said there is nothing on google. Have you tried googling:

Djigan Diouf

Please stop jumping to conclusions and accusing people of things. I have better things to do with my time and effort than to waste all my time and energy producing these articles if I didn't have verifiable sources for them.

Tamsier (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there are two or three Googleable sources about a person called "Djigan Diouf". But the Google preview of the book "The state must be our master of fire" that is cited in the article does not support the extensive contents of the article. Rather, it mentions Djigan Diouf as a hero in oral history who lit a fire to found a village; there's nothing about Serer royalty, him ruling a kingdom etc. This still makes the substance of the article unverifiable. Sandstein 05:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Edward321 (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Edward321.

For those Serers who wants to know who this person is and why he always nominate Serer related articles for deletion, take a look at the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sererism

Tamsier (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source provided by the author is the same source cited by Sandstein which in fact justifies why this article should be kept. Also the article did state he had some form of argument with his relative the king and had to leave Lambaye. For me, this undoubted give credence to the fact that he was indeed a noble. Anti Bullying Warrior (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Anti Bullying Warrior (UTC).[reply]

So we have a source which says that he had "some form of argument" with the king and had to leave, but does nothing to confirm anything else in the article. That seems to me to be a rather thin reason for keeping. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Bullying Warrior has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Tamsier. noq (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can produce verifiable sources that support a significant part of the content of the article, which has not been done yet. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to back-up the majority of content in the article. Delete per WP:OR. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:58, 30 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sumo TV[edit]

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

Unremarkable television channel. Apparently there isn't much to say about it, could easily be covered in the Cellcast Group article. I am certain it will not pass WP:Broadcast either Ruth-2013 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 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, Sandstein 19:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received news coverage [9] [10]. Catherine Schulz (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Might of received news coverage but if you can only find two sources that is not enough. also the article clearly does not pass WP:Broadcast and even if it did the article is not of sufficient length to warrant its own article and any information that is needed on wikipedia could quite easily be covered in the cellcast article. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:36, 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. Courcelles 23:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome About and Chrome URLs[edit]

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

The text that makes up this article was split from deleted text that had been used in Google Chrome. The text was deleted from that article by talk page consensus in March 2011 because it consisted only of instructions and "how to" information and thus was non-encyclopedic under WP:NOTMANUAL. As a separate article the content is still an instruction manual, non-encyclopedic in nature and therefore Wikipedia should not have an article on this subject. Ahunt (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTHOWTO. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Many of the URLs listed aren't specific to Chrome anyway. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikibooks for a Google Chrome book. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is not encyclopedic. Its content is not a summary of information, but a complete list of all internal Chrome URLs accompanied by descriptions that are detailed enough to be considered manual-like. Wikipedia is not a manual per WP:NOT. The tone of some of the URL descriptions qualifies as instruction. Per WP:NOT, such content is not encyclopedic. I don't see how this content can be edited to comply with the policy. Even if it were possible, the article will very likely to fail WP:N. Rilak (talk) 07:10, 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 Withdrawn -- Those .bg sites don't show up on google for me. Thanks, guys. Cheers. -- Selket ^Talk 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)))[reply]

Milen Tsvetkov[edit]

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

No sources in the BLP article nor can I find any. The first few pages of ghits are the article itself and some social media sites. It's too old for BLP-Prod, but if someone can find some reliable sources I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Selket ^Talk 15:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC) -- Selket ^Talk 15:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He does seem to be somewhat prominent TV personality in Bulgaria. His name in Bulgarian is Милен Цветков. I've checked around a few national websites (*.br) including the TV Station he has been on. There are a few traces here and there (I've been looking on Bulgarian websites with the URL *.bg and on international newspapers), though nothing substantial:

Milen's temporary departure from NOVA TV in 2005

Events website bio (hah, he has the same birthday as my brother)

A few things from NOVA TV, the Bulgarian TV station his shows are broadcasted:

The Hour of Milen Tsvetkov

Milen Tsvetkov became part of the team "X Factor" in Varna I Jethrobot (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's among the most notable TV hosts around here. Here are some nation-wide media reporting on his professional development: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. In total he yields 337,000 ghits in Bulgarian: [17] — Toдor Boжinov — 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added some of the sources above to this BLP, I believe it should be fine now. — Toдor Boжinov — 20:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references found. Catherine Schulz (talk) 19:36, 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. I know it's a bit early, but there's no way any of these could conceivably be kept right now. m.o.p 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Alabama, 2014[edit]

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

I'm also nominating the following related pages:

None of these articles have a single reference. My argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate election in Illinois, 2014 applies equally here: that while these will all be worthy of an article in the future, for the moment there's nothing we can verifiably say. – hysteria18 (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Crystal. It is way too early to have a page for any of these elections. Lets wait until there are any major developments. America69 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. These articles will come about in due time. No need to jump the gun.--JayJasper (talk) 03:50, 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. Courcelles 23:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natal Philharmonic Orchestra[edit]

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

no sources, no indication of notability Dlabtot (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a professional symphony orchestra, the KZNPO must pass our notability criteria, but the article needs a major re-write with proper sources. --Deskford (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional symphony orchestra, the KZNPO must pass our notability criteria - simply untrue. Being 'a professional symphony orchestra' is not part of our criteria. Please base your arguments on the actual notability guideline - WP:MUSIC. Dlabtot (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is wholly inappropriate per Deskford, but yes it needs a good sorting-out. DBaK (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query: it's at the wrong name. Is it bad to move it during a deletion discussion?? DBaK (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave it where it is until the deletion discussion is closed, but then move it to the current name. --Deskford (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible, thanks. DBaK (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above. --Klein zach 02:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Coverage in reliable independent sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the notability guideline, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but looking at the sources that allegedly establish the notability of this topic:

1. A speech by a politician presenting the arts and culture budget which makes mention of the orchestra - a trivial mention in a not-independent source which does not address the subject directly in detail. [18]

2. An article about soprano Renee Fleming, which mentions that she will be singing with the orchestra - a non-trivial mention which does not address the subject directly in detail. [19]

3. An article about the opera, Winnie the Opera, which mentions the orchestra only in this sentence: Winnie the Opera mixes classical and African music performed by the KwaZulu-Natal philharmonic orchestra. - a trivial mention which does not address the subject directly in detail. [20]

If someone can make a convincing good-faith argument that these constitute significant coverage directly of the orchestra in detail I would like to hear it. Dlabtot (talk) 17:10, 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. Courcelles 23:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mononuclear oncogenesis[edit]

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

A new concept of carcinogenesis. Little better than original research. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability and OR guidelines. Apparent COI based on editor account name.Novangelis (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Also no Google books/scholar hits under the Russian name (Мононуклеарный онкогенез) of this theory, except for one hit to the monography itself on Google books. A case of "too early"? Concurrently nominated for deletion on the Russian Wikipedia. --Lambiam 07:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure original research.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 18:57 (UTC)

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 WP:SNOW v/r - T P 21:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging (travel game)[edit]

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

Possibly fractionally more real than the average made-up game we delete. But still absolutely no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have sex with a foreigner and steal their flag!Curb Chain (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Oral sex, handjobs, and dry humps do not count as sex; hence they do not count as flags either. This statement violates my Constitutional rights. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Discarding the unreliable source, we are left with a mention of this 'game' in the context of a tv series episode and with a three-page report in a Norwegian men's magazine. That's not quite the coverage in multiple reliable sources that we require, and given the unencyclopedic nature of this attempted hype and the spammy feel of the article, I am not disposed towards making any concessions here. Hans Adler 17:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -Most funniest article nommed for deletion ever! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing isn't there yet. Frighteningly, I suspect it will be in a year or so... Hobit (talk) 19:17, 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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaarei Tefillah[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Despite the many notable attendees of the congregation the synagogue itself does not appear to be notable. Basket of Puppies 13:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Article has sources explicitly noting that the shul in question is unusual in the large amount of female participation and the large number of scholars involved. (Sources are not online so I'm working here on presumption that the descriptions are accurate). JoshuaZ (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The synagogue's claim to fame is its membership, a fact which is adequately sourced in the lead. I formatted all the references to give you an idea of where these claims are being published: Yale University Press, Brandeis University Press, Henry Holt and Company. This page should not have been nominated for deletion; all it needs is a note to the page creator to include page numbers on some of the sources. There should also be a citation for the list of notable members. (As an aside, I think the page should be renamed Congregation Shaarei Tefillah, Newton, Massachusetts, as there are plenty of other Congregation Shaarei Tefillahs out there.) Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not received enough significant coverage to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a reasonable number of reliable sources that explicitly state what makes this synagogue notable (in particular, the unusual involvement of women, and the unusually large numbers of notable/scholarly members). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above arguments, and because this is simply a notable and important synagogue. IZAK (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals. IZAK (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the Fishman and Goldstein sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please point to where these sources mention this synagogue at all? Because I searched for it using Google books' preview and couldn't find it anywhere in these sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes this particular synagogue "important" as Jayjg asserts and why is is the answer to that question not explicated in the entry? WP:NOTINHERITED makes it clear that the fact that many of the members are notable does not cut it. There is mention of reliable sources above, and indeed they are cited in the entry, but despite several such sources there is next to no information in the entry. It is hard to believe that any of these sources have more than trivial or passing mention of the congregation.Griswaldo (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until these questions can get answered I'd have to vote ~~Delete~~ myself. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gris. I'm not sure if you based your !vote on a review of the sources you could find for yourself, or only depended on those that were already reflected in the article. But IMHO, if you look at the sources now reflected in the article, you will see sufficient RS coverage, which is far above what was initially in the article, and includes entire articles in RSs, as well as pages-long detailed treatment in a 2003 book.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eppefleche, I've struck my delete vote based on your editing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, - adequately sourced and clearly passes WP:N based on the sources provided. Nsk92 (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires "significant independent coverage or recognition," and per my comment above I fail to understand how any of these sources satisfy that. Could you please help explain. I'm happy to change my vote if this can be established.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google Book Search isn't bringing up "Shaarei Tefillah" in either the Fishman or Goldstein sources, and those are the only sources for the unusual level of female participation. As for the notable members, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In performing your gbooks search, did you perhaps come across the heavily detailed, pages-long description of the synagogue, its history, and its membership in The Lord's Song in a Strange Land: Music and Identity in Contemporary Jewish Worship, which is # 2 in the results of this search? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article currently appears to have adequate sources, but that appearance is misleading. The Tye book (source [1]) is a reliable source and has a paragraph about this synagogue. Source [2], for the rabbi, is a page on the synagogue's own web site and while it is adequate for verifying the fact it sources it is not useful for notability. Sources [3] and [4], the books by Barack Fishman and Goldstein, appear not to mention the synagogue at all and should not be used in this article. Source [5], the faculty profile for a purported member of the congregation, also does not mention the synagogue. There are many mentions of Shaarei Tefillah in Google news archive but I didn't find any that provided a nontrivial description of it rather than merely mentioning that some person or event was associated with it. With only one nontrivial reliable source, it does not seem to pass WP:GNG. And the argument that it's notable because it has notable members is even more unconvincing than usual because of the lack of sources for those memberships. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Have you looked for sources on your own? For example, the second gbooks source that pops up in a search of the synagogue is The Lord's Song in a Strange Land: Music and Identity in Contemporary Jewish Worship, which has quite significant coverage of the synagogue.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read my comment very carefully, did you? I did look for sources in Google news and didn't find much. But the article now has two nontrivial reliable sources (the Tye and Summit books) and a lot of sources that don't seem to cover it in much depth (directory entries) or that don't rise to the level of conferring notability to me (local newspaper stories about a zoning dispute). So I'll change my !vote to neutral for now. If you can find a third nontrivial reliable source and cut some of the fluff sources, I'll probably be willing to change again to keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't, but I re-read it carefully just now. I could not discern whether you did a gbooks search. When I performed one, the book in question was # 2 in the results. And that book has impressively robust coverage of the synagogue, its history, its membership, its breakaway, how it differs from Beth El, etc. With the coverage of its dispute regarding the purchase of its first property (some RS articles devoted to that), as well as the other coverage, I'm thinking at this point that there is sufficient coverage to pass GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to your assessment of The Boston Globe as just a "local newspaper", I wonder whether that is perhaps a just a bit of an exaggeration, in describing a newspaper that has won 21 Pulitzers, and has the 25th-largest circulation in the United States. (and 20th-highest on Sundays ... which the 1 article I checked appeared on).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe is certainly not just a local newspaper. If they were writing stories about a Chicago-area synagogue I'd take it as much stronger evidence of notability. But it is a local newspaper when it prints stories about zoning disputes in its area of local coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It is a major national paper, writing about a local event. That is far, far different from, say, the Newton Weekly Gazette, circulation 333, writing about the event. The focus of the guideline is on whether the paper is local, not whether the event is local. (BTW -- I double-checked, and in any event you did above refer to it as a "local paper"; perhaps you are saying that you mis-spoke).

And of course coverage of a synagogue is almost always going to be a local event. But to be notable a synagogue has to be covered in RSs -- it does not have to be famous ... if we were to only include religious institutions covered for non-local doings, we would strip nearly all out of wp.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I "voted" to Keep. However the article is of no interest except to "insiders." It also reflects poorly on the congregation of the Temple, since it has an air of self-importance which many people find (if not exactly offensive) at least a little silly. Please write articles on the great things members of the congregation have done for society, as I'm sure they have. Or for that matter write articles on the great features of the Jewish faith itself. Almost no one cares about the details of one synagogue. Borock (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per RS coverage, reflecting notability under GNG. This synagogue has (as indicated above) an extremely detailed, pages-long treatment in the above-indicated Oxford University Press RS book, as well as (for example) entire articles in The Boston Globe devoted to issues such as its zoning tussle over its first (hoped for) permanent site. The GNG test instructs us that an article is notable if the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." IMHO, that is the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of the source added to the article demonstrating the notability of the congregation itself, its members and the interaction of its members with the congregation all go well beyond the minimum to establish notabilty. Alansohn (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a topic of wide interest, but enough well-sourced material to keep the article. Borock (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are indeed many references, the context of most is not in a way that supports notability. Several, like this one are just travel guides providing incidental information, a large fraction are simply web flotsam, again incidental to the institution, for example one of the Rabbis' personal web page, and some are newspaper arts that again make mention in just a very trivial way, e.g. this one. I agree with the above that the coverage for zoning is in an entirely local context. Even the Summit book mentioned above is really about music and only seems to mention this congregation in passing: "Then I enjoy going to Shaarei Tefillah, where a friend recently..." – quite a stretch, I would say. While the numerical count appears to give strong source support, the overall result is actually very weak. Incidentally, I don't intend to respond to the inevitable nitpicking I expect will follow. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 29 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 Withdrawn by nominator. v/r - T P 01:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollandse Synagoge[edit]

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

Notability not established per GNG. Chesdovi (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The synagogue is known by different names, making looking for sources harder, but it has an entry with picture here, and gets attention on page 83 here and an entry in the French language "Guide to the architecture of Belgium" here. It has been a protected monument since 1976, but that in itself is only alimited indication of notability, as Flanders alone has some 60,000 protected monuments... It isn't all in all very notable, but sufficient to be kept in my opinion. Fram (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost fell of my chair when I red this AfD! Why? Visit virtually it and you will understand: Synagogue 360: 360° view of the interior of the Hollandse Synagogue. I wish a could get access to it and expand the article. I agree information about it is scarce. From the architectural point of view, it is a vivid testimony of a time when Jewish orthodox communities were building their first open synagogues in Continental Europe (then in the USA) inspired by cathedrals (with a basilical plan, organs, stained glass, ...) but decorated like Arabic/Ottoman constructions in clear reference to 19th century Palestine, like the Great Synagogue of Budapest or the Sofia Synagogue. Or even more strikingly, the octogonal Rumbach Street synagogue built as an homage to the style of the Dome of the Rock Muslim shrine in Jerusalem. In today's world, it is something worth not to forget IMHO. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability assessment:

- 19th century Jewish architecture: yes

- History of the Jews in Antwerp before/during WWII: yes

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable institution, backed by reliable and verifiable sources that are integrated into the article, with additional material that can be readily added to the existing sources that establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of references. Catherine Schulz (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retract nomination in face of responses above and expansion of article to include RS. Chesdovi (talk) 22:01, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anahata Yoga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems like another commercial yoga school, and as such, has ~~not~~no indicia of notablity.Curb Chain (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to yoga. Unsourced material and I cannot find any sources to support what the article claims apart from the official website of the Yoga club. So, I suspect advertisement. Anyway, as it was said in the previous nomination for deletion, this topic is not notable enough to have its own article. Kathryn.boast (talk) 19:34, 29 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 WP:SNOW v/r - T P 01:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luckysort[edit]

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

The only reference is apparently a WP:PRIMARY source, the NIST guy that wrote the entry (Paul E. Black). Not every joke in a computer science reference is notable. I'm not seeing secondary coverage here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I just did a search for several of these ineffective sorts while working on the afD for bogosort. I was unable to find any notable usage of Luckysort in actual programming or educational materials outside of the NIST entry as well. I Jethrobot (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No decent source and not notable and not even interesting. Dmcq (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources (I found 0 more). Clear case. Widefox (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the NIST entry is adequate by itself for notability, so unless other sources turn up (and I searched Google books and Google scholar without finding any) I think this should go. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an inside joke that's not really funny, and certainly not notable. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 23:59, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ghanem[edit]

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

WP:N Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which cover this poet, theologian and font designer. Without an Arabic transliteration of his name it's quite possible I'm missing sources. There is an MP of the same name which also makes searching more difficult. Additional sources would be greatly welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: مشاهدة النسخة كاملة in Arabic. One source, a forum, from which the bits in the article are partly a Copyvio. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Google translates that Arabic as "view full version". ;-) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Maybe I should have done a backtrans. Never mind, I think this article will probably have to be deleted anyway. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:19, 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, Sandstein 06:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 14:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- When I typed his name into Yahoo and Google, I didn't get anything reliable except for a Lebanonese politician named Robert Ghanem. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 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 merge to Long-term effects of alcohol. m.o.p 00:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol and human physiology[edit]

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

Essay that duplicates information already in Ethanol and Alcoholic beverage Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The main rivals actually seem to be Short-term effects of alcohol and Long-term effects of alcohol. It's not clear which of these titles we should prefer but, per our editing policy, reorganising this material seems to be best done by ordinary editing rather than deletion. Warden (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination; a redundant content fork, as well as an opinion piece apparently advocating the position that drinking's bad, m'kay? For thousands of years humans have been consuming Alcohol with notable effects to the function of the body. Each system of the human body responds to alcohol in a different way. By breaking the effects up by different system, I hope that the information on this page can be applied to answering some of the many questions about alcohol. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. This "article" reads as if it were written as an essay by a high school student eager to impress adults - I remember writing a similar essay back in the Paleolithic Era. But like all essays, it's nothing but original research and personal opinion combined with subtly selective uses of sources to prove a point. Even as an essay it doesn't succeed. It certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --NellieBly (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like a content fork. If this is kept, somebody needs to take a meat cleaver to the unencyclopedic FAQ section at the end. Carrite (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the whole lot into health effects of alcohol. Risk of significant duplication. There is certainly material that could populate this kind of article (e.g. the fact that alcohol is a vasodilator and has diuretic properties), but this is not it. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 21 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, Sandstein 05:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge material into the two target pages of health effects of alcohol - the actual merging may be a bit fiddly but not too difficult. This is a needless reduplication of pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Long term effects of alcohol. The content is very similar. As has been mentioned, references/citations should be made where needed.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all sourced material with Long term effects of alcohol per the Colonel above. Other targets not optimal, IMHO. Might in fact be significant amount of OR here. BusterD (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, CSD G4 (reposted material). Future attempts to have this this article restored should take place at deletion review.--Bongwarrior (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Massey ("lollip0p")[edit]

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

The material presented does not amount to notability. User talk:Agentostrich shows prior attempts to create the article, which is presumably an autobiography. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what the claim to notability is Porturology (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go the references one-by-one and see how they shape up:

Geekwire Q&A establishes her job title and the NerdTrivia ownership and at least hints at its popularity. Geekwire seems sufficiently independent, and while not the most notable publication, it's at least a start.
Major Nelson Radio Broken links to the show itself and a mention of lollip0p as the co-host. Not thrilled with this one. Moving on.
Engadget recommendation] Engadget basically endorses Massey, among others, on twitter who they claim to be "the best and most knowledgeable" for others to follow about Microsoft, and it's correctly cited in the article. While it is a blog entry, it is from one of Engadget's editors, and I feel like Engadget has more than a little notability when it comes to tech news.
Gamer profile No. Just no. Gamer score does not provide any notability, and the rest of the gamertag shouldn't be used as it is user-created content.
Laura does the robot YouTube is user-submitted content, and therefore unreliable. Also, that's not The Robot.
Creative Development Team for XBox Live Parties from XBox.com Massey nor lollip0p isn't mentioned in this. It only discusses how XBox Live Parties work. In the words of Sonic the Hedgehog-- That's no good.
Massey and Nerd Trivia This one is a pretty substantive interview with Massey about the Nerd Trivia game on Twitter. I'm not very familiar with bnbgaming.com, so it is perhaps not very notable, but the interview along with the 1st Geekwire source corroborates the NerdTrivia info.

I'm deciding on a delete. Many of these references have major notability issues. There is some independent coverage here, but a game on Twitter and a recommendation on Engadget does not a Wikipedia entry make. I Jethrobot (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, maybe a speedy deletion? I just came across this deletion review citing the following: Laura Massey – Deletion endorsed; recreation not permitted. Should this article have been created in the first place? I Jethrobot (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been deleted 8 times see [[21]] Porturology (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only claim of notability I see as being part of an Engineer is that "Massey is a member of the development team responsible for creating and implementing the Xbox Live Parties feature included in the New Xbox Experience." But the source that clarifies the statement is a blog, which raises questions as to whether this is a reliable reference or not. Claims of importances about an engineer should be accompanied by news sources, and I don't see that here at present, which is the reason why I decided to vote delete. Minima © (talk) 06:14, 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. Courcelles 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Luxury Spot[edit]

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

Unremarkable website. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources - most coverage is trivial mentions. No significant or reliably sourced claims of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads like a press release, and doesn't have any sources cited to assert its notability. Cactusjump (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 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. Courcelles 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alif Alif Atoll Hospital[edit]

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

not all hospitals are notable and this one fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews. and google just reveals directory listings, no indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:45, 29 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. Courcelles 23:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Andorrans[edit]

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

Inclusion criteria of "List of Andorrans or celebrities related with Andorra" are vague. The entire list is original research, and there are many red-linked entries. If all unreferenced entries were removed per WP:LISTPEOPLE, the page would be empty. -- Selket ^Talk 03:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC) -- Selket ^Talk 03:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom makes good arguments. excessive red links in a people's list is not advisable, not to mention do we now create List of Chinese? LibStar (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No we don't, LibStar, because China has had a lot more people. By contrast, if somebody were to create, say, List of people from Suzhou, that would be just fine. Morenoodles (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly speedy keep. I'm very confused by this nomination, and I fail to see any valid deletion rationale here. Are you claiming that it is unverifiable whether anyone is an Andorran or not? Unsourced at present ≠ OR, particularly not when the information may be sourced in the subjects' own articles, just not in this list at present. The standard is verifiable, not verified. Red links are for entries that merit articles but do not have them, so their presence is not a reason for deleting the list, but one of the base functions of lists. And do you intend to eventually nominate for deletion the Category:Andorran people category structure, and all articles in Category:Lists of people by nationality? I'm aware of no consensus against these, nor any discussion establishing that the proper way to fix such verifiable lists is to blank them and/or nominate them for deletion, but given Selket's recent contributions, it seems like he's starting a broad campaign against indexes of article subjects by nationality. To what end and purpose, I cannot tell. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't typically respond to prevent back-and-forth type arguments, but you asked some good questions. I have no problem with the categories as each entry in the category must be backed up by a reliable source on the subject's page. I plan on nominating only those lists that have no sourced entries. Those that have sourced entries I've been leaving. For example, see this edit where the sourced entries remained. I'm only nominating those that have no sourced entries whatsoever. Entries must be sourced or they are WP:OR -- this is especially problematic for lists that contain links to real people. Finally, classification of redlinked articles as "Andorran" cannot be backed up by a source on the article, because there isn't an article. -- Selket ^Talk 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there's no problem with the categories, then there shouldn't be a problem with the lists, because if it can be verified within a subject's article to justify a category tag, it can be verified within a list to justify the article link. I'm not going to quibble over whether or not it's sufficient for a list's entries to only be sourced within the articles listed rather than in the list itself (I've seen opinions both ways), but obviously if the articles have sources verifying their nationality, those can simply be migrated over to the list.
    Regarding redlinks, some recent discussions I've seen have held that at most, redlinks should be removed only if there is no source for it. I don't think the usefulness of redlinks for identifying needed articles can be overestimated. If you're confident that a redlink is not for a notable person, or a person who fits the list's inclusion criteria, then by all means remove it. But if you simply don't know, then leave it be, search for a source, or maybe move it to the talk page for consideration. But I see no compelling reason to blank redlinks from lists of people by nationality. If they're living, a statement of nationality is at least not ordinarily a BLP concern, and if they're dead then we can take our time no matter what.
    "Entries must be sourced or they are WP:OR"--that's simply not true at all. Whether a statement of fact is original research is not determined by whether it is presently sourced or not, but by whether it can be sourced, and it's definitely not true that it is OR to repeat a statement in a list that is sourced in the linked article but not in the list.
    So again, I see no valid deletion rationale. All of the problems you have identified are fixable. postdlf (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly reasonable list. Any issues around verifiability can be fixed by editing.--Michig (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A perfectly appropriate list for which clear prior consensus is that retention is appropriate. The underlying articles appear to have appropriate sources that can readily be added to this article. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course, as Michig says. Snowstorm coming? Morenoodles (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as already shown there is no valid reason given for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Keep Is Andorra a notable place? Definitely. Are there notable people from there? Sure. Maybe there are people on the list who are not, but that does not mean the article needs to go. Eauhomme (talk) 15:50, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaredian[edit]

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

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and apparently non-notable code/language game. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, in fact, ЗТзлзд No independent non-trivial sources Porturology (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any indication of notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:58, 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. Courcelles 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark MacDonald[edit]

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

Delete – Subject does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL.

A "Regionalliga" is a a regional team (see de:regionalliga), not a national team — that fails Criterion 1.
He only ever played for a university team in the US; so he wasn't selected in any rounds of the NBA draft — that fails Criterion 2.
He didn't play in the CBA or the NBA D-League — that fails Criterion 3.

Therefore he fails all three criteria from WP:NBASKETBALL. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fly By Night. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fly By Night. Yonskii (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion Information
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 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 per consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas M. Charles[edit]

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

The article looks like a resume. It has no notability tag since 2009, and since then has not received any improvement in that aspect. —Fitoschido // Leave me a shout! 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. I didn't find any pertaining to him on both Yahoo and Google. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per same as above. There can't be a Wiki page for every professor -- and most have authored books. Cactusjump (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Miniscule cites on GS. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 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 and redirect. The consensus was for deletion with the article attracting no support. Fails WP:GNG. I have created a redirect to a page where its ownership is described. Redirects are cheap and potentially useful. TerriersFan (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germantown Indoor Swim Center[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. The citations provided are to the county's pool schedule and indoor pools pages - not enough to determine notability. As a matter of full disclosure, I am a regular user of Olney Indoor Swim Center, another Montgomery County-operated pool, and I don't think it would pass notability, either. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete coverage only confirms it exists and hosts some events but that in itself does not mean it meets WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:59, 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Marie Brown[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Unable to locate reviews for any of the named books in reliable sources. The book Silence in the Mist is said to be award winning but I'm unable to locate precisely which award was won. Article is entirely sourced to blogs, youtube, on-line forums and deviantart. No published interviews with the author appear to exist. Fails WP:GNG. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 9 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) 00:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 17 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) 01:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. I didn't get any results on my search either. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 29 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bălănescu[edit]

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

Does not pass our notability guidelines for diplomats. He has not played a significant role in items of diplomatic importance. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 9 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) 00:03, 16 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) 01:34, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humble Tip[edit]

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

From the article and written in 2009, Humble T.I.P "is an unsigned Christian rap artist" and "is currently working on a masters degree in Health and Wellness at Liberty University." I can find two albums on Amazon that was published by Strictly 4 Jesus. I can find nothing about the publisher except one other unknown rapper did a record for them and they are from Lynchburg, Virginia. Lynchburg is the home of Liberty University. Bgwhite (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:06, 9 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) 00:06, 16 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) 01:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep: I am new to wikipedia but have added some sources and may add more info to this page as I learn wikipedia better. Please keep this as Humble Tip is a great budding rapper and is gaining increased recognition daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reesrodgers (talk • contribs) 04:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I will give the article and the article maker a chance.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I'm finding a big fat goose egg at gnews and the one possible supersource listed in the article is dead. He may be notable one day but he's not there yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't find anything past a local interest peice. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronx Company[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability threshold; URL to official website is a deadlink. The founder of the company is notable, but the organization itself does not seem to have significant external coverage to merit an article. The official website of the founder (Kevin Collins) doesn't mention the company even once, as far as I could tell. Neutrality^talk 03:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 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) 00:07, 16 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) 01:30, 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 speedy delete. CSD A7. No credible claim of IoS. I probably should have rang this up after week 1. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saieb Alsafi[edit]

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

speedy removed by IP (i'm guessing sock). Notable? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 9 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) 00:08, 16 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) 01:30, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomy Thomas[edit]

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

Too common a name for me to feel comfortable PROD'ing, but I was unable to find anything in the way of reliable sources covering this journalist to evidence notability under the general notability guideline. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources, Notability - fails both as of now. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:16, 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Heron (presenter)[edit]

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

No third party references in more than a year. No claim of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:05, 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Heller (computers)[edit]

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

No independent references in > a year. no claim of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authors of multiple books, published by reliable houses, are automatically notable.Wjhonson (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I read WP:AUTHOR. Is there consensus on this? As an inclusionist with a tangential interest in the topic, I'd like to keep this article, but cannot find any satisfactory basis for doing so. -- Visviva (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:03, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Hanson (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player Neonblak ^talk - 11:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Adam Penale (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alex (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alter (small business entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Spam/vanity. BLPE1. Should be speedied, but was instead deprodded by somebody. Speciate (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)2011 June 23[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:25, 16 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) 01:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is briefly quoted in Washington Post and a few other newspapers as an expert on stories that are not about him. If these were more numerous, I'd be inclined to think he is a notable expert, but as the article currently stands, it fails WP:GNG, with no in-depth coverage about the subject in independent sources. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:10, 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Khabibulina[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources that would prove Khabibulina meets WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 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 without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Can be recreated with sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Jose[edit]

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

WP:VANITY; no indication of notability; probably created by Roberto himself to see his name on Wikipedia. I considered a speedy deletion on this, but figured it probably didn't quite qualify for that. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unsure~~Strong keep. I dunno if this was the Bobby Jose. If he is (and looks like it), he passes WP:ATHLETE having played in the Philippine Basketball Association. (PS If it does turn out to be him, this should probably be moved to "Bobby Jose". –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:33, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- This guy is the Bobby Jose professional basketball player, so he meets WP:ATHLETE. –H T D 13:00, 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) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrova, Desislava[edit]

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

I've tried to search with her name in Cyrillic and using Chrome to translate, but can't find evidence she meets our notability criteria (maybe the 'Grand Prix' thing qualifies her, but I can't verify it. Note that her article on the Bulgarian Wikipedia [22] has no sources, despite an AfD going on (for reasons other than notability it seems). The actual text in the article looks like machine translation and probably copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with kudos to nominator for doing good legwork to show she does not appear to be notable. Note its a self-created article, as she identifies herself as the author of the bg-wiki article in that AfD discussion. I agree its likely a machine translation as "his" will usually show up in such translations from Bulgarian (among other languages) even when talking about female subjects, as it does here. Though, my favorite mysterious line is "Manipulation is her amploa." I think "amploa" is someone's attempt to fix up "амплоа", which means talent in Bulgarian.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A note of caution for those searching in Cyrillic with out being able to read Bulgarian: there are several people with the name Десислава Димитрова who turn up much more often in searches than the article subject, including an ethnologist and a deputy health minister. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Manipulation is her amploa. is one of the classic lines at AfD... And I'm saying that because of the dexterity of her hands, not the sexy look. This is pretty clearly a machine translation that needs work. And Wikification. And sourcing. One would think that to find what's out there in terms of sources, one needs to look up the Cyrillic translit of "Sheharazade." But I can't even spell that in the Latin alphabet. I'll see if I can work that out... Carrite (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Десислава Димитрова Шехерезада. Carrite (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's NOVA TELEVISION with a bit from the "първата българска жена-илюзионист" (First Bulgarian Female Illusionist). Carrite (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if BulFoto Internet Photo Agency counts, but THEY'VE GOT PIX of Димитрова-Шехерезада doing her amploa. Carrite (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching MACEDONIAN TIME MAGAZINE'S website for "магия" generated a link to the Nova Television bit with the URL above. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarian WP AfD relates to lack of sourcing on a BLP, which I suppose is a valid rationale here as well. It also seems to be a Conflict of Interest situation in terms of authorship. Carrite (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - I think with sufficient effort there may well be enough sourcing out there to defend this, but my Russian is bad, which makes my Bulgarian comical... This article is a catastrophe in terms of style. The easy call is to delete it as an unsourced BLP with self-written overtones, which is the way the Bulgarian Wikipedia is handling the thing. On the other hand, I do think that Dimitrova-Shekherezada verges on being a public figure in Bulgaria and that if sources aren't extant currently (they may well be), there are apt to be independent and substantial sources out there soon. A deletion now shouldn't preclude a new page at that time. This is a really close call on notability. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, the article needs a Rename.Curb Chain (talk) 13:27, 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Health & Care[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, sourced mostly to press releases and investment info. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable third-party sources to authenticate the organisation, and coverage from Proactive Investors is perfectly justifiable. Please identify any problem items that you believe are not fully verified so that this may be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El-jahrousse (talk • contribs) 09:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Reliable sources for more information on what we're looking for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All these sources are reliable and comply with the 'identifying reliable sources' page. Please specifically identify any problem items so this may be resolved. El-jahrousse (talk) 09:23, 20 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) 01:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another IT management systems supplier for urgent & unplanned care, homecare, residential care, hospices, mobile information for community carers and back-office management systems for NHS trusts, local authorities and care providers advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ostlund[edit]

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

Not a particular notable former minor league baseball player. The first half of his references have to deal with his amateur career and the other half are WP:ROUTINE. In fact, at least one of the references mainly focuses on another player and mentions Ostlund in just a little blurb. A large chunk of his article focuses on his high school career, and his high school career isn't notable enough to merit an article, in my opinion (his amateur career takes up about half the article). The article as a whole doesn't really establish notability. Alex (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, fails GNG. Sourcing exists, but it is routine in nature. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's my understanding that minor league service doesn't make a person notable, and there's nothing else here. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:56, 29 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. With a note that a future page documenting the entire history of members of the body at this title would be very welcome, should anyone ever endeavour to create one. Courcelles 23:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Louisiana House of Representatives[edit]

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

Out of date and largely repeating information in Louisiana House of Representatives#Current membership. Very few, if any, other states have split this into a second article. Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ and expand to include membership from throughout its history, with sortable columns for name, party, date served, seat held, etc. There are currently 327 articles on members of the Louisiana House of Representatives, obviously more than just the currently elected body of 105 seats. We need more coverage of state governments, not less. postdlf (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that this is at present only a list of the 105 current members, and it would have to be completely reformatted to incorporate all members who ever served, might as well delete without prejudice. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 30 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) 01:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment - This needs to be dated. Members of the LA House as of what date or which session? Other than that, clearly notable and worthwhile as a navigational device and source of information, both.~~ Carrite (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - D'oh, I should read the nomination, huh? Yes, this is a content fork. Carrite (talk)

Delete as an unjustified content fork. TerriersFan (talk) 16:10, 30 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. The subject has clearly been influential in important software development with the claims backed up by sources. However, the issue is whether the coverage is significant enough to meet our notability requirements, in particular WP:BIO, and the overwhelming consensus is that it isn't. TerriersFan (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Huckaby[edit]

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

Does not justify inclusion on wikipedia Reichsfürst (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added a published work section and more references such as PCMag & eWeek

Steve Ballmer introduced Tim Huckaby as he speaks on technologies to find cancer cells. ^[1] Huckaby has been a speaker at DevConnections ^[2] Tim huckaby is focused on NUI. huckabry has worked with surface. Here is a MSDN source: Huckaby is a speaker on MSDN's Channel9. ^[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Softdevusa (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Tim Huckaby was the Microsoft Regional Director of the Year in 2003 as stated in the Wikipedia article. Softdevusa (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, this entire article basically sounds like one big promotional page for Huckaby, and it is entirely written by one user, Softdevusa. Second, most of Huckaby's notability claims comes from within Microsoft. Although Huckaby is head of a separate company (InterKnowledgy) that received recognition from Microsoft, I'm still not sure that Microsoft is a suitable secondary source for claims of notability. --I Jethrobot (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Microsoft (2007-02-26). "Steve Ballmer: Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Conference 2007". Microsofthttp://www.devconnections.com/shows/mobile/speakers.aspx?s=166&sp=1789de connections huckabry. Retrieved 2011-06-16. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
^ DevConnections (2011-04-21). "Huckaby speaker bio at DevConnections". DevConnections. Retrieved 2011-06-20.
^ Channel9. "Channel9 Speaker". Channel9. Retrieved 2011-06-17.((cite web)): CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 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, • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability. I acknowledge that his company is a recognized Solutions partner of Microsoft. On an unrelated note, this article is a mess. DevConnections is a non-notable conference and its bio of Huckaby as a speaker there is not entirely independent. This article does not even mention him, though it is cited to say that Huckaby has trained many in .NET. Huckaby is only briefly mentioned in this PC Mag article and videos in the Channel9 forum are not inherently notable. --I Jethrobot (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated eWeek Link to correct article where it states his company was hiring many people & they would train them. Also removed the Devconnections reference. Is there a list of notable conferences? Softdevusa (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ added Notable conferences Huckaby has presented technical presentations at Tech·Ed North America and Europe. He also spoke at MIX10 Added two more references from CRN & InformationWeek. Softdevusa (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 more References USA Today & CNET Softdevusa (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These two sources reflect the same article and it is only a single-sentence statement by Huckaby about a new laptop's use of the Windows platform. The article itself is not at all especially about Huckaby and more about the Longhorn delay. I Jethrobot (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment improved readability of the first few sentences of the stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softdevusa (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only person to say keep on this is the page creator, who has done it twice - and now a user named 'Timhuckaby' has started editing the page. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I've stricken the second "keep" !vote above to avoid confusion. -- Atama頭 23:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A user named 'Timhuckaby' who editing the page may have a vested interest in stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softdevusa (talk • contribs) 18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough non-trivial coverage in third-party materials. Writing a few books and appearing at a few conferences and whatnot doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Primary sources, e.g., Mr. Huckaby's blog comments, are not useful. Interviews with him could be used to help establish the notability of the things he talks about but not him. Msnicki (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A few of the sources used are impressive, but they only give a passing mention or a short quote from Mr. Huckaby. -- Atama頭 23:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources do not rise to the level of significant coverage required to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 14:16, 30 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. Those arguing in favour of keeping this article have provided no actual evidence that he is worthy of inclusion. Once again, it is not simply enough to say "oh, he's got a book, and that book got press coverage"; you need to show evidence of that book and press coverage. The standard at AfD is "who can provide supported evidence to back up their argument?" not "who can provide the most spurious, unsupported evidence to back up their argument?". Ironholds (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Coudrille[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:ARTIST. He's created a number of non-notable works, but I can't find much RS coverage. Sources seem to be direct "press releases". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The mis-labelled "press releases" are published articles and reviews from national UK newspapers such as The Guardian and various trade journals and their source and dates are given clearly. We have corrected the heading to this section to end the confusion, and also deleted some laudatory adjectives and phrases from the text above. We have also updated some information and added a couple of external links. ▫ VigilantA 00:35 23rd June 2011 — VigilantA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As it is apparent that you aren't a regular editor here, I've flagged the article for ((rescue)). Hopefully some editors will be able to help in cleaning and sourcing the article. I personally do not feel that the subject comes near our inclusion threshold outlined at WP:ARTIST, maybe others will disagree. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:44, 23 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) 01:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this to prove a point or something? If you don't believe an article should exist, you want it deleted, then why tag it for help rescuing it? Dream Focus 05:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These editors believe it should be kept, but do not have wiki experience. I have seen the press and do not find it significant, but I do not want the article deleted simply because I have more history than these editors do. I would not do this if more experienced editors were involved, but I don't want anyone to feel picked on for being new. I would like for other editors to participate in this discussion if they feel it should be kept/deleted, and there have been no other edits. Sorry that it seems like bad faith. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Just with the recent discussion going on at the Rescue template talk page, seemed a bit odd. Never saw this happen before. Dream Focus 05:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, my intention was not to say that I want this article rescued, but that the two editors of the article do, and likely don't know how to do it. This does not change my stance on the article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes #4 of WP:ARTIST. He has a work in the permanent collection at Falmouth Art Gallery. Plus he's been in various notable exhibitions. Dream Focus 05:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense: the Falmouth Art Gallery is not a 'notable gallery or museum', let alone the "several" of them required by WP:ARTIST criteria 4. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many newspapers don't allow their content to be viewed that far back. The Guardian won't allow searches for anything before 1998. All of the news about this guy was written before that. I assume whoever added that to the article knows or is him, since otherwise you'd have to have a lot of very old newspapers lying around. Dream Focus 06:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, I am Jonathon X. Coudrille (correct spelling); I hope I broach no protocols by appearing here. Charles Thomson of the Stuckists wrote to inform me of my impending deletion, (as he wrote a few years ago to tell me of my inclusion). For the record I found the article both embarrassingly florid and unlikeably gloating in tone (It appeared to be an agglomeration of old articles focused on my life rather than my work, and the Bignose phone-photo is a stinker) but I was very honoured to be included. Having been made aware of this correspondence, I asked a young friend to look at things for me and she says she's done what she can, over to me. As it might do me professional damage to be removed, am I allowed to speak on my own behalf? I have been a professional artist since before my first solo show at the first Harrogate festival in the nineteen sixties, and had already exhibited at the Penwith Society and Newlyn societies alongside Peter Lanyon, Karl Weshke etc. as a student. My late first wife disliked and helped to destroy most of the work from this show and period and there are only a couple of extant photos, none of the destroyed large political paintings. Re Press, there are a fair amount of later articles (1/3rd of a page with photo of a nude portrait in the London Evening Standard Friday 15th June 2001 and plenty of locals right up to last month, many of which seem to have recycled the Wiki profile despite having conducted time consuming interviews) and there is also a television interview with John Nettles that was shot for and televised on Channel 4 Arts and includes much of the current work. I do not have an international reputation (not for want of trying; I was disabled for a while by a road accident in the 70's that set me back hugely but led to the books) but I am not unknown in my field, and was invited to Russia as a guest of the Moskvarechie realist painting school in 1991. on my return to Cornwall I was a founder member (with Barry Cook and Vince Tutton) and first chairman of the unimportant Peninsula Fine Arts Society, now re-branded as 'Lizard Arts' and continue as an academician of the South West Academy. I was due to be featured in and was working towards the Falmouth Gallery Surrealist Show that was scheduled for 2013, but the tragic death of the late curator Brian Stewart renders this exhibition unlikely now. I am however shown alongside Roland Penrose, Lee Miller, Miro, Picasso and my contemporary Andrew Lanyon in the gallery publication 'The Surrealists in Cornwall'. I had a parallel career for 20 years as a professional musician, but have earned my living as an artist all my life. If I have ensured my deletion by speaking in my own defence, so be it. My (disputed) place in Wikipedia has, as I said, been an honour. My email address is coudrille@gmail.com should anyone wish to quiz me or notify me of my final deletion. Regards, Jonathon C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coudrille (talk • contribs) 11:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with speaking on your behalf as long as you announce your identity. Your about page on your official website has a copy of an older version of this Wikipedia article. Whenever you are mentioned in the news media at all, you should write it down, and if its online anywhere link to it. Good way to promote yourself, and help build an article here with. I doubt your article will be deleted, since you have gotten news coverage, and are in the permanent collection of at least one notable Gallery. Do you have a list of every permanent collection you are part of? Dream Focus 12:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dream Focus; I'm in a number of private collections of course (Marquis of Bath, Perry Montague-Mason, Abel Herrero-duCloux, Mustak Musa and the like) but no major public ones beyond Falmouth. 'Stripping the Queen' was tipped to join the collection at Southampton, but crucially the city fathers decided to SELL £5,000,000 worth of art to fund a 'Disney style Titanic Attraction', I withold my opinion of this piece of corporate good-taste. Falmouth would have probably acquired more in 2013 if their award-winning curator hadn't come off his bicycle on the ice. (Now there's a man who deserved an entry in wiki: Brian Stewart. any editors have the time to do this for him and his heirs and the wonderful thing he made of Falmouth Gallery?) I'm transiting what will probably be my last decade as an artist (or living being!), but if I get to complete my 'Zeitgeist Gallery' series, (2 and a half down, around ten more to go; the paintings feature nude spectators in a gallery viewing very recognisable works by famous artists; so far, Tracy Emin, Brancusi, Picasso and Whistler, raphael on the way...) then I may well die happy and, 'recognised'. Regards, Jonathon C. 14:05 23rd June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coudrille (talk • contribs) 13:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be no reliable coverage beyond a single article in the Falmouth Packet -- the local weekly newspaper of a small town in Cornwall. No evidence that the topic meets WP:ARTIST or WP:MUSICBIO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE me please and get it over with. Regards, Jonathon Coudrille. But no need to be offensive. These are living people as well as ill considered entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coudrille (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on his book A Beastly Collection and the associated press coverage, for being at an exhibition at the Walker Art Gallery and in the permanent collection of Falmouth Art Gallery (which seems to be a reasonably important regional gallery) and the associated publications of those shows. I'd like to see more recent sources and the article is badly in need of clean-up. His music on its own may not pass WP:MUSIC but as notability support for his art and publications it seems to have some merit. I'm amused that the Bank of Nova Scotia purchased his painting--they hold my student loan, so I'm always keen to know what they do with the money they earn off my significant interest payments. freshacconci talktalk 22:50, 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.