< 23 June	25 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 redirect to List of symphony orchestras#South Africa. Sandstein 06:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestras in South Africa[edit]

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

Article is a linkfarm spam fork from List_of_symphony_orchestras#South_Africa Dlabtot (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:JUNK. This topic is not notable enough to have its own article. OysterMaster (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_symphony_orchestras#South_Africa as this is a plausible search term. -- Whpq (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect] to List_of_symphony_orchestras#South_Africa. A short list that can be covered in that article. --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you propose be merged? -- Whpq (talk) 10:57, 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 as a copyright violation. MER-C 03:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Inskeep manure spill[edit]

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

The article is not bullshit but it is about bullshit - two million gallons of it. Worst manure spill in Illinois history. Is it notable outside Illinois? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unclear how this event is notable. Of course there are news sources, since there was litigation. But there are numerous events in newtpapers of unclear encyclopedic value. Also it seems that the text is significantly cut and pasted from elsewhere, eg [1], i.e., it is copyright violation. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 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 22:01, 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) 00:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Wheeler[edit]

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

BLP fails GPG; no independent third party references in more than a year. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Tooga - BØRK! 12:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 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 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Even if someone added her IMDb page, it wouldn't make the article 100% better. I didn't find anything on Google or Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:17, 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) 00:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Shain[edit]

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

BLP with no independent references in more than a year and the link to his management is currently link dead Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even though he was a drummer in a band, the band itself is not notable, and therefore he doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. He further doesn't pass the significant coverage in reliable sources requirement in WP:GNG, or any part of WP:ANYBIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:48, 19 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 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:14, 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} 01:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Hussain Umrani[edit]

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

Seems to exist, numerous videos, etc., but a lack of reliable sources providing secondary coverage makes it difficult to evidence notability for this musician. Language issues may very well be in play. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 14:52, 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 21:58, 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. Also meets WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Progressive Spiritualist Society of Austin[edit]

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

Delete. Newly formed (2011) organization is not notable, no third-party sources are yet available. Does not meet notability requirements for organizations. Yworo (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 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 21:48, 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) 00:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akhbar e Khawateen[edit]

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

This article on an Urdu-language magazine was a disputed Prod. No indication of notability or references provided in the article. Google books and scholar searches reveal that the subject exists, but the name mostly appears in passing mentions or lists of publications. I found no "Significant coverage" focused on the subject. Dialectric (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 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 21:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I ran a Google Book search and the magazine is mentioned in several surveys of Pakastani media. This hints at possibly being a notable magazine. Interpreting the results of the search is problematic as most of the results are unavailable for preview to evaluate further. "Perspective Volume 5" shows a snippet summary of Some of them with wide circulations are "Akhbar-e-Khawateen" in Urdu, "Begum" in Bengali and "Women's World", "Mirror" and "She" in English. These and other women's magazines do not confine themselves to household hints, fashions and ... This would indicate that the magazine isn't some small minor publications. Given that there is no solid evidence that the magazine is notable, and the wikipedia article is a sub-stub, I see no compelling reason to keep this article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Google Books does indeed show that the magazine exists. Based on this, it warrants some notability; Mar4d (talk) 10:26, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Adamson (soldier)[edit]

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

Contested prod with no justification of BLP of soldier with no significant claim to Notability. Many individuals get gallantry awards, and only the highest award recipients are notable in of themselves per WP:MILPEOPLE Sadads (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Third-level gallantry awards like the MC are not sufficient on their own for an article, although multiple awards may be. Junior officer with no other claims to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 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 21:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with out question a brave soldier, but unfortunately the subject does not appear to have recieved "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Therefore it likely that he is not notable under WP:GNG. Regardless there is no reason why this infomation could not be included in another article, else where on wikipedia. For instance is there an article on the battle/action in which Adamson fought? Or even his unit? These might be suitable places to include this information, although care would need to be taken to not introduce undue weight to it. Anotherclown (talk) 21:29, 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 Speedy Delete - WP:CSD#A7 by Versageek. (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Davis Band[edit]

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

no sign of notability illogical pie^{(eat me)} 20:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bazemore Pharmacy[edit]

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

This article claims that Bazemore Pharmacy "was one of the most successful pharmacies in Albany, New York in the first half of the 20th Century," but, when searching the pharmacy on Google, this is the only page that comes up with original content. There are vague claims of notability, but there is not enough to make the pharmacy worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is unsourced, and I can't find any sources. All relevant Google hits appear to be mirrors of Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being the most successful pharmacy in Albany is not exactly a great claim to notability. I can find no sources to even verify it's existence much less support the claim ofnotability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. I couldn't even find an official website for them, didn't find anything on Google or Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's unlikely to have an official website as the article states the company wen t out of business in 1943 which predates the internet by a little bit. -- Whpq (talk) 00:54, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowbridge II[edit]

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

This game does not seem to pass WP:GNG, as I cannot find any third-party coverage of it, and there aren't any claims of notability in the article. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any notability-demonstrating sources. It's not an A7 candidate so it doesn't have to assert notability, but it does still have to be notable. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:19, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Romans[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur American Football club. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources found. Anthem 05:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anthem of joy has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per fact that the AFD user in this case is a sockpuppet. Also dont see any reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know anything about the user being blocked. And this article appears to be exctraordinarily well-written and looks really darn good. Wish I could put together articles that fancy! But the sources--please. Twitter, Facebook, and the club website don't work here. Find me some independent, third-party reliable sources and I'll switch my position faster than fast. But until then, I say it needs to go.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is quite a bit of coverage out there. A News Archive search shows quite a bit [2], for example: [3]. Oddly, I'm having a very hard time pulling up most of these pages. Some kind of network problem in the UK? Hobit (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources provided in the Google News search do seem to meet the general notability guideline. As an aside, I never knew they supplied Katy Perry's football shirt for the MTV awards [4] - it's amazing what you can learn during an AfD! —BETTIA— ^talk 15:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amateur sports club with no claim to notability. Fails WP:ORG. The sources available are incidental and don't deal with the subject as a whole or in depth. TerriersFan (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 20:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources + no specific claims of importance = no verifiability = might as well be false. i kan reed (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of pretty pictures of an amateur American Football club, but unfortunately no good sources at all, so not notable for our purposes. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Out of their substantial batch of GNews hits, four appear to discuss the club in detail: [5] [6] [7] and [8]. The trouble with these is that they're all local newspapers. Perfectly good for verifying information, and they do go some way to establishing notability, but WP:ORG suggests that a regional or national level source is required to make an organisation notable. An argument could possibly be made that icLiverpool is regional since it covers at least one-and-a-half counties, but it's not entirely convincing. On the fence for now. Alzarian16 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've trimmed the article, removing any extraneous details and weasel words. However, it's now barely a stub - while some notability is apparent, I can't say it justifies the existence of an article. I'm not going to close this particular AFD, as I'd like to see if anybody can build off of my trimming and rearrangement. m.o.p 01:02, 4 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. Michael Warren[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 5 years and edited almost exclusively by coi editors Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per lack of notability. He's mentioned here and here, but that doesn't establish 100% assurance. SwisterTwister talk 00:47, 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. The "delete" arguments are compelling in the light of core policy, WP:V. The only references in the article are "Archives of Agricultural Institute of Allahabad, Allahabad, UP, India", "Archives of Bikaner State Revenue Department" and "Communication with Thakur Mohan Singh, painter of Bikaner". A whole archive is not a verifiable source because a reader who wants to verify the article can't search through the whole archive, and personal communications are not reliable sources. The article can be recreated if it is based on reliable sources. Sandstein 06:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Dal Singh[edit]

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

Indian administrator. The references seem thin to say the least. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been badly written and needs a clean up. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep yes the references are thin, this would be a matter for an improvement notice and helping a new contributor with such improvements. The article may be suitable for deletion on grounds of notability but as BEFORE does not appear to have been followed here, I would rather see the benefit of the doubt for the creator rather than a poorly expressed nomination that may as well be I don't like it. Fæ (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references aren't "thin," they're non-existent. I rather expect that we can't get our hands on the "Archives of Bikaner State Revenue Department" or "Archives of Agricultural Institute of Allahabad." I'm not so much concerned with issues of notability (although that is an issue, because what criteria of WP:BIO does anyone claim this subject meets?) as issues of verifiability, because as it stands, there is none. I appreciate that the creator is new, but the creator must also provide references which we can check. If he cannot do so, WP:V explicitly holds that an article on this subject cannot be sustained. It's possibly indicative that a search on Google India for "Thakur Dal Singh" + Churu turns up just sixteen hits, all but a single personal website consisting of this article and various Wiki mirrors. [9] ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 06:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than assuming that sources that have been declared on the article are some strange fantasy, perhaps you could think of following standard guidelines and ask for verification. A simple search on Google shows these archives exist. There seems to be a lack of assumption of good faith for what appears to me to be an article created by a new contributor in perfectly good faith. Fæ (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: And no doubt the nom nominated this AfD in good faith as well, but you disparaged his action and charged him with misleading people as to the true nature of his objection. That being said, as far as your Google searches go, I just did one myself. There are four hits [10] and two hits [11] respectively, each and every one of them from this Wikipedia article or Wikipedia mirrors. Come to that, the "Agricultural Institute of Allahabad" itself only has nine hits [12], most of them mirrors of three unique hits, and the "Bikaner State Revenue Department" shares the same four Wikipedia hits as its "archives" do. (The degree to which they exist at all is one which begs an answer, seeing as the princely state of Bikaner was abolished over sixty years ago.) May I ask what manner of search for these sources you performed that returned anything other than this blatant lack of information? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point, before raising an AFD the consensus is to "make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." There is no evidence that this happened and I am under no obligation to fix the article or to do a full sources research before raising my opinion here. We have no guideline that suggest we should delete articles if nobody has been bothered to verify the sources yet. As for your interpretation of the wording of my opinion, you are incorrect. By the way, I am aware that the political and administrative organization has changed, I see no reason to doubt that many records of the period still exist and that the current administration that they evolved into maintain archives. This is a situation for improvement and verification, not deletion on the basis of assumptions and a lack of willingness to believe in records that cannot be checked via a website. Fæ (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A simple search on Google shows these archives exist" was your statement. I challenged you to reveal the results of your search. Now you claim you don't have to research anything before posting your opinion. Yes, that's indeed true; you don't, and apparently, you haven't. Fair enough, although laying a charge of bad faith in the same breath as a claim, which you now retract, that you'd researched the issue rings poorly. That being said, if the sum of your opposition is that you don't believe (based on what proof?) that the nom sufficiently researched this subject to find valid sources, I have put in a half hour of leg work, and I can find no sources. You do understand, of course, that it is not the job of those challenging an article's validity to prove that no sources exist, but explicitly the job of those advocating keeping an article to find ones which can be reviewed by other editors to ensure their validity. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 09:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an advocate, please do not marginalize me this way; I have only expressed an opinion in a deletion discussion. If you check the article history I have added some links to the article to show the organizations that hold these archives exist. As for the evidence that this is a poor nomination, I need only read the deletion policy and read the words of the nomination to realize this is the case. I have made no assumptions about what undeclared efforts the nominator might have made to address the deletion policy and not told anyone about, I can only go by the meaning of words "the references seem thin" which is clearly not an acceptable basis for deletion. Fæ (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one suggested that the Agricultural Institute of Allahabad didn't exist, and the second link you posted had nothing to do with the aforementioned "Bikaner State Revenue Department." ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 10:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the "Rajasthan State Excise Department" is not called "Bikaner State Revenue Department" as per your own point made earlier, it no longer exists, refer to History of Bikaner. Could you put the link back, it seems perfectly valid to me and deleting possible sources and then arguing here that there are no sources seems like inflammatory behaviour. Fæ (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current references are certainly thin, and I suspect that improving this article requires offline search in Indian newspaper archives. The fact that the state involved was abolished over sixty years ago may make things more difficult but can't alter the chap's notability, the important thing to remember is that the state existed when he was working for it. If "Overcoming institutional bias" means anything it is that articles like this need extra work to bring up to scratch, I note there have been proposals for the foundation to assist in the digitisation of reliable source info in areas of the world where our coverage is weakest, and I think that this is the sort of article that would benefit from that. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I admit I'm confused. Were I to cobble together a hoax article for a fortuitously foreign subject, claiming sources that just happened to be unverifiable, you'd advocate keeping it? How would you know, one way or another? To quote from WP:V:
Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ... Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source.
WP:V is one of the core policies of the encyclopedia, and cannot be handwaved. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 10:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can ask for verification, and anyone is free to contact the Rajasthan State Excise Department and ask to see the archives quoted in the article as a source. Verifiability does not mean that you personally must be able to access the records via the internet or even your local library. At the moment, nobody has asked the creator of the article for verification, preferring instead to just PROD and AFD the article of a long dead person, presumably as engaging in friendly discussion is too much hassle. Fæ (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, I appreciate all your comments concerning the piece on "Thakur Dal Singh" which is my first attempt. I am seeking your guidance in the matter of cleaning or improving it. Concerning the references and notabilty please see my comments as follows. Dear Wilbysuffolk. Thanks for your comments concerning the piece on "Thakur Dal Singh" drafted by me. You have stated it needs some clean up. This is my first attempt, can you please guide me. Concerning the issue of references raised by some people, I have original documents with me. Can I scan and show them to the people who have doubted their existence. About notability, the category is "People from Churu District" which is like a county in a state. Obviously, Thakur Dal Singh cannot be called notable in whole of India but he was notable in Churu where he did philanthropic work. I do not understand what can I do to prove he was notable in Churu. If we do not recognize people from Churu to be notable then we should remove this entire category of "people from Churu" or people from other small places. I would appreciate your guidance as to what I can do to counter the preceding comments on references and notability. Thanks. Pkandhal (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)pkandhal[reply]

Keep Though it needs a clean up it otherwise is notable and with some work and adding more refs. it should be good. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 20:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article almost entirely based on personal communication, which is not a WP:RS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see one reference that refers to a "Communication" which is marked as needing a citation. It's not clear if that is a personal communication or not, and this amounts to one paragraph out of six in the article, this is not the normal meaning of "almost entirely" but perhaps I'm interpreting your statement overly mathematically. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is deleted due to lack of notability, the category of "people from .......places" should be deleted entirely from the wikipedia especially those concerned with small districts (counties)throughout the world. This is because people from small regions are not being called "notable" by some commenters. India is not as advanced as other developed countries wherein people are computer savvy and one can get hits on the internet for specific subjects, if that is what is considered a proof of verifiability. In that case, developing countries are at a disadvantage because they cannot make such entries for the people from small districts, who otherwise may be notable and were long deceased.

About the references, if the author of this article can produce certificates to back the statements, how it can be done. To whom the scanned certificates should be sent. These are the questions which need to be responded. Thanks. Pkandhal (talk)pkandhal —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 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. Sandstein 06:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eisaku Kubonouchi[edit]

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

Not notable as an artist/animator. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's an archived interview with him: http://web.archive.org/web/20090204094602/http://www.mbs.jp/chocolat/interview1.html, why isn't he notable? Moscowconnection (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His body of work does not appear to me to meet the notability criteria for artists here: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals Illustrating a handful of Manga books and one interview on a web site (in Japanese) just isn't enough. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with Japanese? The web site is a reliable source. Moscowconnection (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the biography of Eisaku Kubonouchi. Case closed, I hope. Moscowconnection (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He simply hasn't created an important enough body of work to meet the notability criteria. Being interviewed once and illustrating some books just isn't enough per the guidelines. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Created a manga that was made into a 45-episode series. Must be a notable creation then, otherwise it would've have been made into that many episodes. And his first work was made into a movie. The Japanese article shows more information. [13] Wannabe was also made into a television series. So, two of his creations were notable enough to be made into television series and one was made into a film. Dream Focus 12:45, 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. No mainstream notability - I've looked through a few searches in my native tongue and also can't find any mention. Given evidence below, this doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. m.o.p 01:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Skip Day (film)[edit]

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

This is a straight to video movie. Although it has some notable people in it there does not seem to be anything that would make it meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). I can't find any significant coverage of it either so I don't believe it meets Wikipedia:Notability. Beloved Freak 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 16:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was first marked for deletion as "Can find no significant coverage in reliable sources"

1 - what kind of coverage is reliable enough ? The movie is already covered here : http://www.allmovie.com/work/187147 and here : http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/senior_skip_day/ what more external resources should i need to mark the movie as Notable ? 2 - Adding a plotline to the article would make it bettter though ? riddler (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Allmovie link above is broken (it goes to a different film) and the Rotten Tomatoes link indicates that this film has received no reviews from any critics that Rotten Tomatoes surveys. A lack of attention to this film from mainstream media suggests to me that it has not attained notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the right link http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/senior-skip-day-v430071

but i think it still would'nt make a difference since it still has no reviews at both sites so i guess it will be deleted, and i got the point now Delete riddler (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the film had a 2007 European release BEFORE the 2008 US DVD release, as well international releases, it will be neccessary to searh for non-USA reviews and commentary.
Hungary: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Japan: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The fat lady has not yet sung. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:08, 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, T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the article As for general evidences of its notability: a fact that the film is known at least in Poland (see interwiki) and was mentioned in local mass-media.

As for the other evidences of notability, its special merit is that this is a unique film that is dedicated to the phenomenon of Truancy, a serious and complicated issue in pedagogy. 93.80.100.2 (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "known" in any country does not mean notable. The article in the Polish Wikipedia, and the one that has just appeared in the Russian Wikipedia, don't seem to say how the film is notable either. Being a film about truancy also does not make it notable. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "mentioned in local mass-media", but if you have sources that would help demonstrate notability, please do add them to the article. If you're not familiar with wiki markup, you could always add them to the talkpage (Talk:Senior Skip Day (film)), so that someone else can add them.--Beloved Freak 16:37, 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, Sandstein 18:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep iMDB has links to 5 reviews. And.. Is this coverage? And this? ^^; Add these if you want to save the article. ^^; Moscowconnection (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't say I feel that strongly about this going, as is doesn't look like there's consensus to delete. I will just say though that I don't think those two links above are "significant" coverage of the film itself. Of the IMDb reviews, I'm not sure what criteria they have for picking them, maybe just any reviews they can find? I can't see how "Critical Critics" is reliable or notable - it looks lke anyone can write for them. 411mania - certainly a good lengthy review. I'm not 100% sure about notability/reliability of the site, but it looks better and might be one to add to the article. Dubbningshemsidan - really not sure what makes that a reliable source, to be honest. Seems to be a a self-published source, sounds like the guy may work in film dubbing, but no evidence of expertise (that I can see). Not at all sure what Filmstop is, but there's no coverage at that link anyway, just a list of films (not including Senior Skip Day unless it's under a different title). hometheaterinfo? Not sure if this is reliable or notable. Appears to be the work of one guy, a self-published source, with no evidence that he is some kind of expert. Scoopy.com - I can't tell how reliable or notable this is, it's certainly not clear form the site it is. So as far as the IMDb reveiws, the 411mania one may be useful, if it's deemed reliable. It's perhaps more telling that Rotten Tomatoes lists no reviews.--Beloved Freak 09:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've tried searching for sources in Polish and Russian (both of which I can read) and can find no reviews in reliable sources:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Rubin[edit]

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

Long-term unsourced BLP. WP:N unable to find reliable, secondary sources evidencing the notability of this "Ruv". However, it's quite possible I've missed reliable secondary sources because of language issues, additional sources as always, welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N, since there is really nothing notable about this person. Tooga - BØRK! 21:34, 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) 01:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tsvetelin Tonev[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who has not played in a fully professional league. Oleola (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the player may become notable like other players, this one seems like it is too soon. (I realize this policy is for actors and films, but it seems to fit this as well. The player has no stats and has no outside coverage by reliable third-party sources.) I Jethrobot (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 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 08:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without significant coverage, or fully pro appearances, he clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 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) 01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hristo Stamboliyski[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who has not played in a fully professional league. Oleola (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the player may become notable like other players, this one seems like it is too soon. (I realize this policy is for actors and films, but it seems to fit this as well. The player has no stats and has no outside coverage by reliable third-party sources.) I Jethrobot (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. This can be recreated if and when he actually starts playing for Levski Sofia. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without significant coverage, or fully pro appearances, he clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 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) 01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Mitchell[edit]

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

Basically a resume which appears to comprehensively fail the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. I've done a pretty extensive search under various forms of his name and can find no coverage that isn't self-published or trivial. Putative opera roles (not in citations given) are all in student productions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera and WikiProject Musical Theatre. Voceditenore (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom that looking at the resume, Mitchell would fail notability. Some regional theatre, student opera productions, a music single and Pro/Am dance competitions makes a talented person, but not notable. Bgwhite (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable per wikipedia general or music guidelines. There appears to be no significant independent coverage of any kind. He's obviously talented, and at some point may become notable. However, right now he doesn't meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and the article should be deleted. It can always be re-created later if/when more substantial coverage surfaces.4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This young singer has not performed in any notable productions. I see nothing that remotely satisfies the WP:MUS or any other notability criteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I didn't get any reliable sources on my Google and Yahoo search. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dog camp[edit]

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

~~Neologism being defined by original research. Singularity42 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete No sources at all; potential hoax at worst, original research at best. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 16:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely not a hoax or OR. The article needs cleaning up and sourcing, but a number of businesses identify themselves specifically as dog camps (as opposed to kennels):

Camp Dogwood, self-proclaimed "World's Best Dog Camp
What is dog camp?
Cape Code Dog Camp website
Liberty Dog Camp website I Jethrobot (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that there are multiple companies that call themselves a "dog camp". (I even used to take my dog to something call a "doggy day care".) But I would think we need something that can define it, or at least some reliable source that distinguishes it from a kennel. Singularity42 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not the best source, but a search on Google Books came up with this page on Dog Training for Dummies. It outlines a few common features of dog camps and why an owner might be motivated to bring their dog to such a camp. There are some pages missing, but I think enough information is there. At least this is better than a few businesses. --I Jethrobot (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just added a few references, but there is another issue here. The decent sources for dog camp seem to point to a different definition-- that is, it's a place where dogs and their owners go to practice training in different skills. Other than the business websites, dog camps do not seem to be true alternatives to kennels where owners can leave their pets while they are on vacation. I am reluctant to add the businesses as references, as they do not qualify as reliable third-party sources. I Jethrobot (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject. Agree we need to tighten idea of what exactly is a "dog camp" but this can be worked on in future; at present, the term dog camp suggests both the training aspects as well as the fun aspects.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator changes !vote to Keep. Based on Tomwsulcer's edits, I believe this article is now on the right path. More improvement needed, but it should not be deleted at this time. Singularity42 (talk) 20:25, 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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin "Bomber" Harris vs Colin "Bomber" Harris[edit]

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

Not subject to significant coverage in reliable sources ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 15:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've got a biography of Graham Chapman somewhere and if I recall correctly (and I can't say for sure that I do) it states in it that this was his standout sketch in his pre Python days that he kept honing throughout the 60s as well as the appearance at Live At The Hollywood Bowl. If I can find where on earth I've put it and cite a reference on it, that could give it notability and save the article. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and if you can't? ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like all of the other Python sketches, has been referenced plenty of time since its original performance, the only issue is finding and applying the right sources. Better search terms like these and these are helpful. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not subject to due diligence. Warden (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malaya Sadovaya street (painting)[edit]

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

We don't seem to have any specific notability guidelines for paintings, but from the references provided I cannot see how this is worthy of inclusion per the general notability guideline. If a painting was notable I would expect there to be critical commentary about it but I can find none - searching for ""Malaya Sadovaya" semionov" finds a fair few hits but nothing that passes as reliable commentary. The references don't look to contain any comment either, with three being exhibition catalogues and the fourth being a book written by the author of the article. All I see at the moment is that it has been included in several exhibitions - as most paintings have been. (Those commenting may also wish to know that the main author of the article has some relationship with the artist's estate, since they have OTRS permission to use the images). SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not much, aside from the author's advocacy, to support the work's notability. As already noted, conflict of interest issues. JNW (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claims to the article on the criterion of significance appear to be frivolous. Evidence the importance of the theme in the article shows, as well as evidence of admission of painting «Malaya Sadovaya street» in professional community. The article shows that the painting have been repeatedly mentioned in prestigious publications as in the artist's life and after his death, including before the book "Unknown Socialist Realism. The Leningrad School." They are available for viewing, authoritative and independent with respect to the subject of the article. Can this evidence be strengthened over time? Sure. And it is also interpreted the rules in favor of keeping the article. If a respected user SmartSE, or group of distinguished users (JNW, Modernist) do not have time, ability or desire to get acquainted with the sources, it can not be grounds for removal of the article, and even to this discussion. This article is a translation of an existing article in Russian Wikipedia, where its relevance and credibility of sources is beyond doubt. Obviously, users JNW and Modernist are more knowledgeable experts in 20th century Russian art and Art history. Only strange that trace their contribution to this subject could not be found, apart from the regular attempts to delete articles and even a mention of Russian artists. Leningradartist (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need to reiterate all that was said here [14]. Leningradartist's knowledge of Russian art is not being questioned; what has long been the issue is the appearance of conflict of interest, promotion of his publications, and perhaps even of individual artworks. The characterization of the Russian article as credible 'beyond doubt' is not objective; he wrote both versions. In blunt terms, the user is highly knowledgeable in his field, and is a persistent spammer across multiple language Wikipedias. JNW (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Comment Here discusses the importance of the theme of article “Malaya Sadovaya street”, as well as its reflection in sources. As seen from comment above user JNW would like to lead a discussion in another direction, namely to discuss person of Leningradartist as well as his own speculations. In case of user JNW has no arguments in this discussion, but he really want to delete this article by any means, he may try to open another debate. I wish him success. But please do not clutter up this discussion. In addition, this violates the rules of Wikipedia, governing the conduct of participants in the discussion. Leningradartist (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The direction is straightforward. Conflict of interest and promotional motivations are relevant when considering an article's status. Regarding other debates, yes, that option is worth consideration. Any concerns re: my violation of conduct guidelines may be brought to an appropriate noticeboard. JNW (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. According to references, the painting was mentioned in Saint Petersburg newspapers at the time when it was shown at exhibitions. Also it is indeed one of the best paintings of Leningrad School, and I think there would be no harm if at least one painting from that school has its own article. GreyHood ^Talk 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What's not clear though is whether the mentions in the newspapers constitute "significant coverage" as required for inclusion per the GNG. Many thousands of paintings are reproduced in newspapers each year, but very few are covered in sufficient detail for an article to be written. As for your "indeed one of the best paintings of Leningrad School" that's entirely your own opinion and holds no weight in this discussion. SmartSE (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Greyhood. As for the CoI accusations, an AfD isn't an appropriate venue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 15:04 (UTC)

Comment I think conflict of interest becomes relevant if it's a motivation for the article's presence--any article that is created and substantially written by a COI account is compromised. Per Smartse's comment above, has it been established that these sources constitute prominent mention, and that the painting's notability within the Leningrad school has been verified by reliable sources? JNW (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But does this particular article "advance outside interests over the interests of Wikipedia"? I don't see how. Sure, there is some benefit to the editor in the form of elevated exposure, but to me the encyclopedic part balances that out. I consider the sources being used right now as sufficient for establishing the painting's notability; hence my "keep". Whether the situation is different in other articles written by this editor is of no relevance to this one, and the COI itself can be (and, indeed, is being) addressed via the appropriate noticeboards.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 21:27 (UTC)

Where I think this gets tricky, beyond the referencing of a contributor's publication, is the appearance of a relationship to the artist's estate. If that's the case, as suggested by the original nomination for AfD, we've entered muddy waters re: motive, and outside interests become a very real concern. Usually, but not always, paintings that have their own Wikipedia articles are in public collections, and are not on the market; those are the only kind I've created articles about. When they're in private hands and become the subjects of articles here, they may well merit extra scrutiny. In this case, as noted, the primary author included the painting on the cover of his book, and initially included that cover in the article. Now everything here might be kosher, but it behooves editors to be conscientious in asking these questions. I think there's reason to ask them. JNW (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dismissing your concerns, lest you are thinking that. I'm merely saying that apart from being identified and mentioned, they belong on the COI noticeboard, not here, and that as far as this specific painting goes, I believe we should have an article on it whether there is a COI or not. It's not Rembrandt, but it's notable still. As for the articles about other paintings, I'm willing to consider them on their own merits; my "keep" here (and on Hoarfrost) should by no means be treated as a blank check.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 21:56 (UTC)

Understood, and appreciated. I'm not convinced re: notability, despite the fact that I very much like these artists and their work. JNW (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about references: the inclusion of a painting in a review for a group exhibition of art doesn't strike me as especially noteworthy, and falls more under the heading of WP:NOTNEWS as a fleeting mention. Nor does a work's inclusion in exhibition catalogues, which are often commercial publications, establish notability. If we hold a work of art to the same standards as other topics, we'd require articles about the subject, or prominent mention in monographs on the artist or museum publications. JNW (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This painting seems to have enough media exposure as well as decent exposure on the internet. I can't agree with the comment If a painting was notable I would expect there to be critical commentary about it but I can find none - searching for ""Malaya Sadovaya" semionov" finds a fair few hits but nothing that passes as reliable commentary.. For such test, try searching for the "Малая Садовая А. М. Семёнов" (Russian equivalent of the same). Cheers! Oleg Y. (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: internet exposure, the first several Russian sites are Wikipedia articles, written by Leningradartist, hence the 'circular' logic I've referred to. After that I didn't see any reliable sources--did I miss something? JNW (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Maybe 5 or 6 only :) Leningradartist (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is interesting and I have no doubt that Wikipedia will benefit from Leningradartist series of article. The subject is underrepresented and question of COI is irrelevant. Even if COI does exist, the rule Everything which is not forbidden is allowed shell still apply. As the user SmartSE says, we don't have any specific notability guidelines for paintings, and, at the same time Wikipedia is full of articles about third and fourth tier actors and sportsmen. Lets keep it and give Mr. Leningradartist a hand helping to proof-read and improve his articles. Fran-Soie (talk) 07:39, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Winter. Hoarfrost (painting)[edit]

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

We don't seem to have any specific notability guidelines for paintings, but from the references provided I cannot see how this is worthy of inclusion per the general notability guideline. If a painting was notable I would expect there to be critical commentary about it but I can find none - the only hits for "russian winter hoarfrost timkov" are on wiki or mirrors and the references don't look as if they contain any comment. All I see at the moment is that it has been included in several exhibitions - as most paintings have been. (Those commenting may also wish to know that the main author of the article has some relationship with the artist's estate, since they have OTRS permission to use the images). SmartSE (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks published scholarship. JNW (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claims to the article on the criterion of significance appear to be frivolous. Evidence the importance of the theme in the article shows, as well as evidence of admission of Nikolai Timkov painting «Russian Winter. Hoarfrost» in professional community. The article shows that the painting have been repeatedly mentioned in prestigious publications as in the artist's life and after his death, including before the book "Unknown Socialist Realism. The Leningrad School." They are available for viewing, authoritative and independent with respect to the subject of the article. Can this evidence be strengthened over time? Sure. And it is also interpreted the rules in favor of keeping the article. If a respected user SmartSE, or group of distinguished users (JNW, Modernist) do not have time, ability or desire to get acquainted with the sources, it can not be grounds for removal of the article, and even to this discussion. This article is a translation of an existing article in Russian Wikipedia, where its relevance and credibility of sources is beyond doubt. Obviously, users JNW and Modernist are more knowledgeable experts in Timkov art and 20th century Russian art and Art history as a whole. Only strange that trace their contribution to this subject could not be found, apart from the regular attempts to delete articles and even a mention of Russian artists. Leningradartist (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need to reiterate all that was said here [15]. Leningradartist's knowledge of Russian art is not being questioned; what has long been the issue is the appearance of conflict of interest, promotion of his publications, and perhaps even of individual artworks. The user is highly knowledgeable in his field, and is a persistent spammer across multiple language Wikipedias. JNW (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Comment Here discusses the importance of the theme of article «Russian Winter. Hoarfrost», as well as its reflection in sources. As seen from comment above user JNW would like to lead a discussion in another direction, namely to discuss person of Leningradartist as well as his own speculations. In case of user JNW has no arguments in this discussion, but he really want to delete this article by any means, he may try to open another debate. I wish him success. But please do not clutter up this discussion. In addition, this violates the rules of Wikipedia, governing the conduct of participants in the discussion. Leningradartist (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The direction is straightforward. Conflict of interest and promotional motivations are relevant when considering an article's status. Regarding other debates, yes, that option is worth consideration. Any concerns re: my violation of conduct guidelines may be brought to an appropriate noticeboard. JNW (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of references used in the article would indicate that the painting is notable. Now, I don't have access to any of those sources, but am willing to accept them on good faith, unless someone else can voice valid and specific concerns regarding their authenticity/applicability.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 14:58 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see why this article should be deleted. Seven references are not enough? How many do we need to keep it? Since AFAIK it's not currently clearly defined, for me seven are enough. Moreover, if one makes search (in Russian) on an artist you can see quite a lot of exposure. In regards to: Those commenting may also wish to know that the main author of the article has some relationship with the artist's estate, since they have OTRS permission to use the images - I always follow a rule of "an innocent until found guilty" and try to think in a good faith. Provide me tangible evidence that the author of the article has bad intentions and I'll be the first to change my vote. Until then my opinion is "keep". Oleg Y. (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is interesting and I have no doubt that Wikipedia will benefit from Leningradartist series of article. The subject is underrepresented and question of COI is irrelevant. Even if COI does exist, the rule Everything which is not forbidden is allowed shell still apply. As the user SmartSE says, we don't have any specific notability guidelines for paintings, and, at the same time Wikipedia is full of articles about third and fourth tier actors and sportsmen. Lets keep it and give Mr. Leningradartist a hand helping to proof-read and improve his articles. Fran-Soie (talk) 07:44, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atif Ali Khan[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Claims "earned world-wide respects from local and international music circuits and bands on his acute rendering of Michael Jackson's vocals" but there is no source to support the claim. v/r - T P 15:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable musician, fails all criteria at WP:MUSICBIO, no references from reliable independent sources. WWGB (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who's he? Mar4d (talk) 10:23, 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 speedily deleted as a copyright vio. TN X Man 17:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Globalist Manifesto[edit]

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

A google search of this neologism presents multiple, undefinable meanings to this phrase. This article presents one scholar's meaning of the word, and does so in a manner not consistent with WP:NPOV. I cannot see how this article can be re-written to make in in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Singularity42 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously, I am just a beginner on this stuff. And I hope to make this my first article published in the Wikipedia, if the community will allow me. I am a doctoral student in Public Administration and encountered Globalist Manifesto in my review of literature concerning the global external environment of a city which is a subject of my study, which influences their outcome based on System Theory.In fact, their local industry was affected by the global events, one of them is globalization. I googled Globalist Manifesto, deep search to be accurate, and it gives me 16,500 results which probably speak of the relative weight of the concept. I must admit though that I was not able to read all the results listed by Google but the reason why I picked the discussion of Avner Falk, to start the article , because he seem to be credible and his book is being managed by Google Books, which somehow add to the credibility. Because Wikipedia is a reader - edited encyclopedia, I am expecting that people who read the other articles about Globalist Manifesto will try to contribute and improve the article. Frankly, I have no idea to where the article will lead and whats the final form and substance of the article, but , maybe, it is better to start with an article written by a scholar and see how it will progress through time. For one , I still have to learn a lot of Wikipedia system. Sorry for my naivety on Wikipedia system and I wish to learn slowly but surely. Thank you. respectfully your.12jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12jewish (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete, weakly, or perhaps move to the actual subject. I find this article confusing. It actually seems to be about a book, Islamic Terror: Conscious and Unconscious Motives. To the extent that this article mentions the title "Globalist Manifesto", it seems to cast it in a harsh light: Yet the idealist Globalist Manifesto, created in the Philippines, is a paean to peace and prosperity. It paints an idealized picture of our world. It is wishful thinking at its most glaring. While I haven't formed an opinion about whether the book it's actually about could support its own article or not, an article titled "Globalist Manifesto" ought to tell us more about a Globalist Manifesto and what it says. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Hi Ihcoyc. Good day to you. Regarding your opinion: "an article titled "Globalist Manifesto" ought to tell us more about a Globalist Manifesto and what it says". We agree with you. Maybe one future reader or contributor of the proposed Wikipedia article Globalist Manifesto may soon post something about the ideas expounded by the manifesto. Definitely not now because the article has just been published, but in the future. I have seen lots of articles in Wikipedia which started short and stub but eventually evolved through time. With this observation, we think that we may decide to keep the article to let the others the opportunity to contribute to the article and pretty soon we will be able to see in the article what the Globalist Manifesto is saying, as you rightly pointed out. Regards. 12jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12jewish (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You are free to reply to other users and make comments. But please only !vote once. Singularity42 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a neologism that is mainly promoted by one source. Not notable enough for WP. Angryapathy (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation. See [16] -- almost the entire text of this article consists of seven consecutive sentences quoted from Avner Falk's book (see page 45). Although the book is cited in this Wikipedia article, the quote is not identified as a quote, and even if it were, Falk's argument is very difficult to follow here in this Wikipedia article where it has been removed from its context. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:52, 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) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Brown (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (I cant find much info on him apart from profile pages and youth match reports) and also fails WP:NFOOTY as he has never played a senior game. LiamTaylor 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails both WP:GNG (no "significant" coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (hasn't played in a fully-pro league). Giant Snowman 13:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without fully pro appearances or significant coverage, he clearly fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 18:58, 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) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Norrick[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher who is no longer with any affiliated team (according to MiLB.com, he is "released"). Statistically, he did nothing really to merit an article - at the minor league level, he went 23-18 with a 4.10 ERA. Alex (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Yankees10 22:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BASEBALL/N and all coverage is not significant (just run-of-the-mill), so doesn't pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 14:33, 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) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Nestor[edit]

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

Non-notable (former?) minor league baseball player. He is no longer affiliated with a major league team. Statistically, he did nothing really at that level to merit an article. Alex (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 22:56, 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hisae Iwaoka[edit]

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

Previously proposed for deletion by another editor, the only improvement has been the addition of a primary source. Not clear how this person might meet WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. No claim of notability. RadioFan (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 13:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge. I don't really have time to go through or cleanup my CSE hits, but I note that http://www.sigikki.com/creators/hisaeiwaoka/index.shtml says "A noted artist and illustrator, her installations have been displayed internationally in the group show “Tokyo Girls Bravo,” curated by Takashi Murakami", and this seems to be true http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/arts/art-in-review-tokyo-girls-bravo.html "Hisae Iwaoka creates stuffed bears and oddly doglike cats worthy of A. A. Milne." --Gwern (contribs) 15:17 24 June 2011 (GMT)

Comment the sigikki.com reference appears to be this artist's publisher so promotional language such as "a noted artist" isn't unexpected and doesn't do much to establish notability. The NYT reference is interesting but the exhibit described there doesn't seem like a substantial part of a significant exhibition that WP:ARTIST is looking for. Also not seeing references that help this article meet WP:ARTIST which looks for evidence of the artist originating a significant new concept , playing a major role in creating, a significant work, --RadioFan (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They created a notable series, Saturn Apartments, so they are notable. Having her work notable enough to be part of an exhibit that gets news review adds to her notability. Dream Focus 23:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability isn't inherited though. Sounds like a merge to Saturn Apartments might be most appropriate.--RadioFan (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Iwaoka has had three other works recommended by the jury of the Japan Media Arts Festival, in addition to her work on Saturn Apartments. --Malkinann (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there a reliable source to support that?--RadioFan (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Japan Media Arts Festival site (in English, too!) - I added it to the article before I voted here. :) --Malkinann (talk) 01:57, 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) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Bover[edit]

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

No substantial evidence of notability. I don't think presidency of a local Chamber of Commerce is sufficient. Conflict of interest suspected. Article was created by new user adding only article about this company's officials. Was listed for speedy but was declined. Dmol (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. I didn't find any sources for him except for small websites focusing on his career, no hits on Google news either. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 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) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Chatelain[edit]

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

One-line WP:BLP of questionable notability and very dubious sourcing... — Scientizzle 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 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) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Walters[edit]

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

PROD contested without explanation. Article contains a claim to notability but subject seems to fail WP:GNG. XXX antiuser ^eh? 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; Myspace and YouTube are not RS, no other coverage. Yunshui (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. I didn't find any sources on both Google and Yahoo except for a Facebook page. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no coverage in reliable sources to suggest the subject meets WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 20:31, 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Steer[edit]

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

Contested prod. As a Norwich fan, I'm sad to nominate this, but he doesn't pass GNG or WP:Athlete as he has yet to compete in a notable match. I look forward to restoring it on the day he makes his debut. Dweller (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not quite enough for GNG yet. Probably worth putting it in someone's user space? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd happily host it - it can replace the article-in-waiting I wrote on Sam Habergham that I deleted from there this week. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 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 08:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG, and since he has not played in a fully pro league, he also fails WP:NSPORT. No objection to userification as stated above if someone want to hang on to the content. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. at present 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 speedy delete (A7) by Peridon. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Afzal[edit]

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

PROD contested. Article contains a claim to notability but subject seems to fail WP:GNG. XXX antiuser ^eh? 09:41, 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) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Splinter[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails Wikipedia:Notability. I didn't find anything on him when I searched Yahoo and Google. The history suggests a conflict of interest and sole promotional reasons. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:51, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feet Touch the Ground[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Charted on the ARIA Singles Chart and hence is notable enough. I've recently supplied a ref for this claim.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this song has charted. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep song is notable as it charted (as per shaidar cuebiyar's comments). Dan arndt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 04:11, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Leave[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not transitive, and article makes no claim of why the subject is notable. i kan reed (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability due to charting on ARIA Singles Chart, ref now supplied.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep song is notable as it charted (as per shaidar cuebiyar's comments).Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this song has charted. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 04:11, 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) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October (Jebediah song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSONGS. another promotional single that has never charted nor received significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 04:12, 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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N.D.C.[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable (on no charts and won no awards). Lachlanusername (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charted on ARIA Singles Chart, ref now supplied.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep song is notable as it charted (as per shaidar cuebiyar's comments).Dan arndt (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as song that has charted. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 04:11, 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) 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raka dey[edit]

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

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

Strong Delete violates just about every inclusion guideline going. Should have been speedied. Yunshui (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I declined the speedy deletion nomination. There is a claim of being a published author, which means it should be discussed here instead. TN X Man 15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Utterly non-notable. Fails WP:N big time. Even in Bangladeshi media / sources, the subject is not notable at all. (Please do note that "published author" means nothing, as it takes only about $100-120 to self-publish in Bangladesh or India (it may even be cheaper!!). So, anyone can have a book published via vanity press.) --Ragib (talk) 21:45, 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) 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buxx Banner[edit]

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

This biography almost seems like a hoax, including the details about the bands that he created, for which I cannot find anything on Google. For that matter, putting in his name on Google only reveals this article as original content. The IMDb entry does not work anymore, which makes this person's existence questionable. All in all, the biography basically fails WP:GNG with no third-party coverage and only passing references of notability, to the extent of minor roles in movies, which are probably hoaxes as well. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely to be a hoax (have found evidence for most of the other people and media mentioned), but still fails NOTABILITY quite miserably as it stands. Yunshui (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes numerous(very weak) claims of notability, but no reliable sources support the existance of the subject. i kan reed (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. I didn't find any except for a Facebook page and of course his IMDb profile. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 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. Overall consensus is for keep, with arguments of satisfaction of WP:NOTE through appropriate source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri)[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage of reliable sources to demonstrate notability either as a congregation, organization or architectural achievement. Basket of Puppies 05:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep because, rather than writing a nomination statement specific to this case, which would include an explanation of what is wrong with this source, for instance, Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) has written a generic, copy-pasteable WP:JNN argument which doesn't directly address the article in question at all. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 12:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there are also sources such as this and this and this and this and this and this and this out there. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and this and this and this – pretty lame nomination, all in all. ╟─Treasury Tag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 12:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BUILDER for my rationale. It might be a notable congregation, but in the current form it is entirely unencyclopedic and does not overcome the notability threshold. Basket of Puppies 12:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I genuinely think you don't understand the concept of notability. Just because the "current form" of an article doesn't demonstrate notability (although it actually does in this case IMO) doesn't mean that the topic is not notable. The threshold for notability is "receiving significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" – nothing about the current state of the article. I should also point out that WP:BUILDER is just an essay, and a fairly poor one at that, and trumps neither WP:NOTE nor WP:BEFORE. ╟─Treasury Tag►Boothroyd─╢ 13:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully and completely understand notability. Thank you for your concern. Please see WP:BUILDER for my deletion rationale. As well, this article still does not demonstrate notability. Anyone not seeing this AfD would wonder how the article passes WP:N in its current form. Basket of Puppies 13:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote to me the section of WP:NOTE which says that an article's current form must demonstrate notability? ╟─Treasury Tag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 13:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. I really do. I am not an eventualist, however. Just because there are references somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight does not mean that the article is in an encyclopedic form. If the article in question does not use reliable sources and does not demonstrate notability then WP:BUILDER recommends deletion. Basket of Puppies 13:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you are an eventualist is not the point. The official notability requirements are very clear on this point: either a topic is notable or it is not, and that is independent of the current status of the article. If you disagree with the policy, by all means propose changes. But as it stands, eventualism is the standard required. WP:BUILDER is not a policy. WP:NOTE is. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely willing to be educated and change my ways if you can properly demonstrate to me that I am misinterpreting policy. Are you claiming that an article can pass the notability threshold even if the article in question is not citing a single reliable source and is no more than a single line long and does not assert notability? I recognize that the article in question might have dozens of reliable sources to indicate notability, but for the sake of this scenario we agree that the article does not list a single one. If you can demonstrate that policy allows the keep of these forms of articles then I promise to immediately withdraw any AfDs that fulfill the scenario. Basket of Puppies 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you want me to do to "demonstrate" it. To me, and to every other editor commenting on these many AfDs, the policy position is clear. No part of WP:NOTE says that notability is dependent on an article's current state. (New articles are created every day: before they exist, they obviously demonstrate no notability, because they're just a blank page. Do you really think that the subject suddenly bursts into notability the moment the first editor hits 'save'?) ╟─Treasury Tag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 13:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article would be a good example of my scenario. I look forward to your reply as it really will clear up confusion on this issue. Perhaps the best place to continue this discussion is on the appropriate policy talk page? Basket of Puppies 13:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and I think you understand mine, so I don't quite see what the issue is here. See WP:FAILN: that says that if the only problem is that an article doesn't currently demonstrate notability, then deletion may not be appropriate. First one should look around to see if sources exist that would make its notability clear, and only if none can be found should it be nominated for deletion. On this page, if you'd done that (looked for sources before nominating for deletion) then you'd have found the sources that I found. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 13:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we simply have a difference of opinion as how to approach and deal with articles such as Lincoln Park Jewish Center that do not assert notability, have no references and are extremely short. I subscribe to WP:BUILDER which suggests that the article be deleted until such time that it can be appropriately developed while you seem to subscribe to the theory that the article can be kept despite the deficiencies. I don't think either opinion is backed up by policy or consensus but is rather judged on a case-by-case basis. Are we agreed on this? Basket of Puppies 13:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to have to take this tone with you, but I am going to stop replying after this one, because I think you just can't or won't get it and it's a waste of my time continuing. My points are as follows: One—WP:BUILDER is not a policy and is thus more or less irrelevant to this. Two—articles that do not assert notability may still be notable, and should not be nominated for deletion without a decent attempt to find sources for them. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to see that you will refuse to continue this discussion. I really thought it was going rather well and we were doing an excellent job of finally understanding each others' opinions. Basket of Puppies 13:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, and trout to the nominator. The subject is clearly notable, per sources provided by TreasuryTag. If the nominator is unhappy with the current state of the article, the proper thing to do is to improve it, rather than to delete an article on a notable subject. Nsk92 (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nsk92, did you even look at those "sources"? At least one of them is referring to a synagogue in Texas. Another says only that a community meeting was held there. Others are routine press releases.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought you'd be along. Just to be clear: you think the article should be deleted because one of the ~10 sources I produced in a hurry mistakenly referred to the wrong synagogue? Because the others look like they cover the synagogue, and particularly its board/management, in some detail. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 14:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it should be deleted because it's two sentences, and nobody's offered sourcing that would allow it to be expanded beyond that. A press release about the current management is not generally encyclopedic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So that we completely understand one another: you are saying that these articles in an independent newspaper, which are about the synagogue's decision not to merge with another nearby, is not significant coverage? And you are saying that this article in a different independent news source, about the recruitment process for and background of, their new Rabbi, is not significant coverage? (Incidentally, if this is the one you think is about Texas, check again, because it also covers Missouri.) Are you saying that this article in yet another independent news source, covering the organisation's environmental stance, is not significant coverage? Or are you just following me around Wikipedia spuriously disputing everything I do? ╟─Treasury Tag►Odelsting─╢ 14:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rabbi Joshua Taub, pictured in the Sanctuary, is the new rabbi at Temple Emmanuel in Beaumont."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read on. It gets onto Missouri. ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder I missed it. "In 2003, he transferred to the 275-family Temple Emanuel in St. Louis, where he served until recently." That doesn't establish notability either. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Community uniting to reverse sprawl trend in Winston-Salem"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're only interested in (attempted) point-scoring against me, so I'll withdraw from bickering with you after reminding you of what I said above. I pulled up about ten sources in a hurry. Perhaps some of them were mistaken. Others definitely weren't. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 14:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And I'm up to _three_ of the sources being in other states, now that I'm reading them in detail. All the testl.org PDFs are local coverage that does not establish notability. The two Jewish in St. Louis links are about the correct temple are press releases, and do not establish notability. One of the STLToday links merely reproduces one of the press releases. The other merely mentions that Temple Emanuel didn't choose to merge with the subject of the article -- again, local coverage that does not establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you to remind me which part of WP:N says that what you call "local coverage" does not count towards notability? Because I was under the impression that WP:GNG said, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG -- "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't have to meet the topic-specific standard of WP:ORG. WP:GNG is adequate, as per Wikipedia:ORG#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the search is frustrated by pay walls, I find sufficient evidence that the building is an architecturally significant work by an important St. Louis architect, William Bernoudy. [17] For example, it appears to be the first building mentioned in his obituary.[18], and (according to the excerpt at GNews) the author of a book about Bernoudy (which, unfortunately, does not seem to have excerpts available on-line) has lectured on the importance of the temple to his work[19]. Another St. Louis Post-Dispatch article refers to it as a "St. Louis classic".[20] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that's an interesting line of attack. "Two institutional projects that do survive are the barrel-vaulted gymnasium of Thomas Jefferson School in Kirkwood and, perhaps the best known and most admired of the firm's institutional work, Temple Emanuel. The Reform Jewish temple on Conway Road in Creve Coeur has a dramatic, steeply pitched and faceted copper roof, now a soft green. Its steep pitch makes it reminiscent of the tents used by the ancient Jews for their places of worship. Its six sides form a Star of David. "Riley, Marianna (30 Jan 2000). "WILLIAM BERNOUDY BROUGHT HOME THE LEGACY OF FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT: [FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION]". St. Louis Post - Dispatch. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the large number of GNews and GBooks hits to sort through on a basic search for the name and city, the nominator's boilerplate dismissal lacks credibility. Moreover, the subject appears to have an entry in a third-party specialty encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Jewish institutions: United States & Canada, which to me is sufficient to tilt the balance absent a refuting analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient RS coverage to indicate notability, as is indicated above. I'm going to assume that nom, as he has indicated was the case elsewhere, did not do a wp:before search here. I'm encouraged by his indication at another AfD that he hears the community reaction to that, and will do so in the future. That, of course, will save the community a good deal of time that would otherwise be spent indicating lack of consensus for AfDs such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In its current state, the article clearly demonstrates notability. Once again, Epeefleche has rescued a synagogue article from the chopping block. Congratulations, Epeefleche. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Had the nominator made a quick check of the first 10 entries on Google search, he would have found the first of many references for this notable congregation. The page's current reference section is more than adequately sourced. Yoninah (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the onus is not upon the nominator but rather upon the article's content contributors. While it is a good practice to investigate before nomination, it is by no means required. Basket of Puppies 10:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And your reason for not carrying out the "good practice" in this case was? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 10:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not required. See WP:BURDEN. Basket of Puppies 10:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you think it's not required. I know that because you wrote it in the comment to which I was replying. My question was that, since you admit it is "good practice" (your words) to perform a check before nomination, why you chose not to follow that good practice. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 11:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See above. It's not required before nomination. Basket of Puppies 11:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both know that you aren't answering the question. Let's say we both agree that you don't have to perform a check. I'm now asking why you didn't choose to, of your own free choice. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 11:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not required. Basket of Puppies 11:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the only reason you chose not to do something which you admit is "good practice" and a good idea is that it wasn't explicitly required? Sounds pretty POINTy to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►Osbert─╢ 11:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of violating WP:POINT? Basket of Puppies 11:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 11:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to ANI we go. Sigh. Basket of Puppies 11:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete As observed by SarekofVulkan there do not appear to be any sources that establish notability. As I said at ANI one could find similar such reports for locale village halls. Upon reflection one can also find similar sources for Working men's clubs, and Little league teams. John lilburne (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you think this article should be deleted, because a similar level of sourcing also exists for some other institutions which you think are inherently non-notable? ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 11:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say the sourcing to establish notability is slight. Take for example "the exhibition of black and white photographs" - The exhibition is notable the building that housed them for 10 days not so, is this a recognised exhibition centre of photography? The building itself is an example of the work by William Bernoudy who is probably notable (at least locally), but there is nothing in this article that establishes this as a notable example of his work. In both cases notability is being inherited. The rest is a sequence of press releases, and one wouldn't establish notability simply because from time to time a community was mentioned in the press especially when each reporting was about some different event. One would want to establish why this group is notable in its own right. John lilburne (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the architecture-related parts of the article to William Bernoudy, delete the rest. The architecture of the synagogue building seems to be notable, so it could be effectively covered in the article about architect Bernoudy. Otherwise, I don't see evidence of notability for the synagogue. I've looked at all of the "sources" cited in the article and I find that many of them are merely directories of synagogues -- listing in a lot of directories does not make this synagogue notable. Other than the architecture, the only possible claims of notability here are (1) the sourced indication that the temple conducts most of its services on Sunday morning, which turns out not to be true -- the website shows services on Friday evenings and religious education programs on Sundays, and (2) providing a venue for an interesting photo exhibition (that's more about the photography than it is about the synagogue -- notability is not inherited). Most of the article is trivia that should be expunged. --Orlady (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question. What is this synagogue notable for? It is a place of worship, and as such notable to its congregation. It may even be notable to the Creator. For the rest of us, a claim of 'notability' tends to imply the existence of a reason for such. So: "This synagogue is notable because..."? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A response. It's notable because it meets the GNG. "Notable for" might be a useful concept for pigeonholing, but it's meaningful mostly for applying SNG's, not the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh?. That isn't 'a response', it is an evasion. How does it meet the GNG? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Earlier on this page, Hullabaloo referred to this snippet, which purport to be an encyclopedia entry, but looks to me more like a directory listing. Inclusion in that kind of volume doesn't meet the GNG, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree w/Hullaballoo. The only meaning of notability that is relevant here is the wp usage. That refers to "being noticed" by RSs. As the guideline puts it, "noticed by people outside of the organization". Not to being famous, as in the typical dictionary defn of the term.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Qui? - This fails "Significant coverage". There are a handful of one off events, none of which are particularly significant in themselves, and even when combined provide no significant coverage of this institution. John lilburne (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. If this was a pub, rather than a place of worship, and had similar coverage, would it be 'notable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask the same question as to a high school. Or a college. Or a country. But I think we are moving far afield, and discussions like this are better for the talk page, or pump, or the afd talk page. Otherwise, they could easily lead to red herring conversations that are off-topic.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared ... see below. Looks to me like a red herring conversation, that threatens to shanghai this AfD, which per wp:notaforum may perhaps not be the right place for this highly general discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, circumstances mean that this isn't just another AfD, and it is getting closer scrutiny than many. This may or may not be the best way to deal with issues, but if a 'highly general discussion' leads to specific questions being asked which are of direct relevance to the subject, it would seem only sensible to at least attempt to answer them - so does this article meet WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, question three: Can anyone give an example of a non-notable place of worship - with an indication of why it fails to be notable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a more general point, we have very specific policy guidelines regarding organisations - WP:CORPDEPTH:

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.

Depth of coverage

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.

Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage...

...

Audience

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.

Since a synagogue clearly falls within the remit of WP:ORG, this is the accepted notability standard to apply. Can anyone provide evidence that this article meets the standard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... you do know that it only needs to meet one of WP:ORG and WP:GNG, don't you? They're interchangeable. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 08:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? This would seem to render much of WP:ORG entirely redundant. In any case, I've yet to see a clear explanation of what it is about this synagogue that makes it pass WP:GNG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a slightly counter-intuitive situation, but the official line is that so long as an article meets a notability standard (either a topic-specific one such as WP:ORG or the GNG) then that is adequate. See, for instance, WP:ORG#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations: "Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements [...] the general notability guideline." ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 13:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage of this organisation. What we have is a series of press release, and directory entries. Notice that X is holding meeting does not make X notable. If it did we could lump together notices of births, Bar Mitzvah, Bat Mitzvah, and weddings to make anyone with 3 kids notable. John lilburne (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mis-characterization of the refs, as anyone going through them can see.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT!!!!!!!!????????????? The first reference (used 6 times is a contact page), reference two is a directory entry, 4 & 5 are about past activities that do not appertain to the present, ref 6 is another directory entry, 7 is a mirror of 6, 8 another directory entry, ref 9 used 5 times is self published:

Here is a forum where our community’s stories will be shared through historical sites identified by each cultural group, enabling the group itself to determine its most significant contributions in the development of St. Louis and its own individual community.

ref 10 (used 3 times) is press release on a 50 year celebration. That leaves us with ref 3 which is about the architect of the build. John lilburne (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite certain how you came to characterize, just for example, the following as consisting of "press releases and directory entries": Kassander, Jill (September 19, 2006). "Temple celebrates half century mark". St. Louis Jewish Light; Matthew Hathaway (March 6, 2008). "Two Reform Jewish congregations may merge". St. Louis Post-Dispatch; Sherwin, Mike (March 12, 2008). "Temples to consider merger". St. Louis Jewish Light; Kassander, Jill (May 1, 2008). "Temple Emanuel discusses options for future". St. Louis Jewish Light; Kassander, Jill (February 11, 2009). "Temple Emanuel looks to its future". St. Louis Jewish Light; Kassander, Jill (May 7, 2008). "Vote favors stand alone option at T.E.". St. Louis Jewish Light; "Temple Emanuel photography exhibit highlights Albania, living with "besa" or "word of honor"". St. Louis Public Radio; Baugher, David (October 13, 2010). "Photo exhibit focuses on Muslims who saved Jews during WWII". St. Louis Jewish Light; Kassander, Jill (April 29, 2008). "Rabbi Taub opts not to renew contract". St. Louis Jewish Light; "Temple selects Lowenhaupt as board president". St. Louis Today; "Retelling of Temple Emanuel Story Starts with Bernoudy-Mutrux-Bauer". St. Louis Post-Dispatch; "Temple Emanuel looks to its future," Jill Kassander, St Louis Jewish Light, February 11, 2009. And that's without even touching the other refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... It seems that Epeefleche has significantly revised the article since some of us reviewed it for this AfD discussion. (Almost none of those references were there yesterday, when I !voted.) I, for one, find it helpful when participants in these discussions point out the major changes they have made. I haven't yet studied the changes. --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly routine press releases, and local WP:NEWS stories. Each year the local round table committee organizes a firework party which gets a lot of local press coverage each year, they also do other things that generate local news stories, these in the last month it doesn't make them encyclopaedic. If a group celebrating 50 years is encyclopaedic then so is a 50th wedding anniversary. John lilburne (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience when an article is at AfD, it is helpful to watch the article if you are involved in the AfD discussion, as it is normal course for editors to work on the article during that time. As to John's (again) calling these "press releases", perhaps he has a different understanding of the term than some of us have. As far as them being local -- of course, houses of worship, being local, will naturally attract mostly "local" coverage. When the coverage is as significant as here, especially -- with many of these articles focusing primarily on the house of worship -- we have the indicia of notability that we are seeking under wp guidelines. John's "example" of a fireworks display is of course strikingly different that the coverage I point to above, as anyone reviewing those articles can plainly see.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TT is completely correct -- they are clearly either/or requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment on Epeefleche recent expansion of references *sigh* A few miles from where I live is a row of cottages designed by Edwin Lutyens but one wouldn't write an article on 32 Main Street no matter how many references one could find for the fact that Lutens was the Architect. Similarly even if there were a 100 references to the Mike Waterson and Peter Bellamy singing in Bacca Pipes folk club in the 1980s that does not make the Globe pub in Keighley notable. John lilburne (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Notability for wp purposes has a distinctly different meaning than the dictionary definition. It refers to being "noticed", as reflected by multiple (usually) refs. As the guideline puts it, "noticed by people outside of the organization". Not the dictionary definition, which refers to a degree of fame. You seem to -- understandably, for a relatively new editor -- taken the term notable at its dictionary meaning. That's not correct, in the usage. Otherwise, we would not (as we do) consider all colleges and (nearly?) all high schools notable -- they would have to instead indicate that a cure for cancer or the like had been arrived at there; and we do not require that houses of worship be ones at which Moses descended with the tablets. We follow the wp notability guidelines, which focus on coverage, and on "being noticed". --Epeefleche (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is handily established, satisfying requirements of WP:ORG and WP:GNG by multiple Reliable sources of non-trivial nature. A little silly all this comparison to entities that are far afield from the topic of this discussion. We are discussing a synagogue, which is a Jewish house of worship. It would be OK if some of the comparisons shed light on this topic, but I don't see the farfetched comparisons as illuminating. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone actually going to answer my question? What it is about this synagogue that makes it pass WP:GNG? Simply stating that 'it passes' isn't sufficient. If it is notable, it is notable for a reason. What is it that has been found in 'reliable sources' that specifically makes it notable? We have sources that show that it exists, that it functions as a synagogue etc, but unless it is being asserted that all synagogues are notable, this is insufficient. If someone wishes to propose that by policy places of worship be automatically considered notable, then fine, we can have that debate elsewhere, but until this policy is established, notability for this synagogue will be determined on the basis that it is notable for something beyond mere existance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's answered your question, but a few people have explained why it's irrelevant, and I'm afraid I'm going to join their number. Our notability policy is not predicated on things being notable "for a reason." It is predicated on whether or not "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." By adding an additional criterion that the topic must have some abstract 'reason for fame', you are setting the standard higher than it should be. (This comment put it more eloquently than I did, though.) ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 15:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... From which it follows that if I can find sufficient articles mentioning the pub round the corner from here (I'm sure I could), that would be 'notable' too. That should be good for a free pint or two. I'd better start Googling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think you're using a reductio ad absurdum but you're actually not, and you are absolutely right. If your local pub "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then it indeed passes the GNG and is indeed 'deserving' of an article. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 15:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad adsurdum it is! Here's an article about three kids in Missouri who opened a lemonade stand. It's been carried all over the United States: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and many more newspapers. I believe that the theories of notability being espoused by some "keep" voters on this page would also make this lemonade stand notable. --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady—except that we are not talking about lemonade stands and pubs. An apt comparison might be to a Christian Church or a Muslim Mosque. I think some of the more farfetched comparisons are less than completely constructive. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. WP:ORG should apply to lemonade stands and religious organizations alike, but it has been argued on this page (see TreasuryTag, above) that GNG trumps WP:ORG, and that any topic that "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (with "significant coverage" apparently being defined as any article of more than trivial length) is notable. By that reasoning, the lemonade stand would be notable (and if Wikipedians decide that's what notability means, Katy bar the door -- there's an onslaught of cruft a'coming!). --Orlady (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither guideline trumps the other. As with all matter-specific wp notability guidelines, they are "either/or" methods of demonstrating notability. Once can demonstrate wp notability either by applying GNG, or by applying a matter-specific guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you say, "…notability for this synagogue will be determined on the basis that it is notable for something beyond mere existence."

Incorrect. You are apparently of the opinion that every question that you can raise has to be answered. This is not the case. Wikipedia editors do not have to answer your questions as to why something matters. Reliable sources determine notability, and reliable sources serve to an extent to indicate relevance. This means that if reliable sources have in multiple instances, in a non-trivial way, seen fit to mention Temple Emanuel, or a given aspect of Temple Emanuel, we at Wikipedia have been given a tentative green-light to include an article on Temple Emanuel in our encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly are the 'non trivial' sources? What 'non trivial' details do they give, beyond telling us that the synagogue exists? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bus stop. Notability is established with the additional refs added by Epeefleche. The notability guideline should be interpreted with latitude when it comes to synagogues, churches, and other places of worship. (And if your corner pub is mentioned in reliable sources, then please feel free to write an article about it). --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The notability guideline should be interpreted with latitude when it comes to synagogues, churches, and other places of worship". Not without an explicit policy that states this, it shouldn't. There is no such policy. If you want to propose this policy change. then do so - but you can't do it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is where I see the possibility for latitude. Does it mean 10 front-page articles in the New York Times are required, or a scholarly tome by an established historian? Or, can it just mean a few mentions in the local newspaper? I answer, obviously, the latter. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. But we shouldn't be garnering notability on a handful of one event reports over a 50 year period. Particularly when those reports are from the equivalent of a Trade Magazine. John lilburne (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John -- Your comments throughout this AfD seem to be marked by a measure of hyperbole. This article reflects amply what wp:gng calls for. If you don't like the wp notability rules, its possible that a better place to address your concerns might be on the talkpage of the rule itself. Because as you can plainly see, your preferred view as to what the rule should be is not the consensus view at this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John lilburne—the subject of the article is a synagogue, which is a house of worship. There is no need for any sources beyond those that are already in the article.

This is non-trivial coverage for a synagogue. The rabbi of Temple Emanuel at that source speaks about how he envisions that institution functioning in relation to the surrounding community that it serves. It is a synagogue. It functions well when it functions uneventfully.

This web site describes itself as being: "Developed by the Missouri Historical Society in collaboration with members of the communities featured here, this web site explores significant locations in a particular group’s history and examines the cultural landscapes that together make up this place we call St. Louis."

The above website explains the origins of Temple Emanuel. It highlights major developmental points of that institution up to the present. That is non-trivial coverage for a synagogue. This is a house of worship. It is functioning as it should when sources merely acknowledge its existence. A synagogue is not likely to "be garnering notability" for anything other than the above if it is functioning smoothly. It is a house of worship. It is supposed to function uneventfully. Bus stop (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, once again you are suggesting that an exception needs to be made for places of worship, and that mere 'existence' should be a sufficient criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. This isn't current policy. I have already pointed out to you that if you wish to propose a policy change, you should do so in the appropriate place - but for now, we must assume that the closing admin will note that your 'keep' !vote isn't based on existing policy, and discount it accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and by discounting it, that's seriously going to affect the clear balance of consensus here, right? </sarcasm> ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 14:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—I provided examples above of 2 sources here and here. They are necessary to support the existence of the article. Without reliable sources the article should be deleted. Do you find the above 2 sources deficient in any way as concerns supplying the necessary justification for the existence of the Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri) article? Address the sources. Do you find fault with the above 2 sources? If so, in what way do you find the above 2 sources lacking? Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your attempt to reinvent policy on the fly. If you are suggesting that the article conforms to existing notability requirements, then why are you arguing for a change in policy? (and in response to your question - the articles you link confirm that the synagogue exists - but nobody is disputing that. What we are debating is the concept of notability) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another example—consider this PDF, containing the following:

"There was one congregation, however, which instituted Sunday services as late as 1958." Temple Emanuel in St. Louis included a provision for Sunday services. These services are still held today, but an occasional Friday-evening service has been added."

The above is a reference to Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri), it is non-trivial, it is found in a scholarly article about "The Sunday-Sabbath Movement in American Reform Judaism". Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were about 'Sunday worship in Reform Judaism', it wouldn't be trivial. Here, it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you say "If the article were about 'Sunday worship in Reform Judaism', it wouldn't be trivial."

I don't think this is true. The reason a reliable source such as this scholarly article sees fit to mention the Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri) is because of its stature among similar houses of worship. We depend on reliable sources to provide us with good quality information. We can safely assume, based on its mention in this reliable source, that the Temple Emanuel is a noteworthy institution. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the 'reliable source' say that Temple Emanuel is a noteworthy institution? No. Does it say anything about the 'stature' of the Temple? No. Please do not misrepresent the content of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I'm getting a feeling that you're so busy writing long posts, that you may have missed what others have said. The criterion is not (apologies to others for repeating this) that the sources "say that x is noteworthy". The criterion is that x be "noticed" in the sources. That is what makes x notable, for wp purposes. In any event, I hope that you will take to heart the rather dramatic difference between your understanding and the consensus understanding here, and allow that to inform your understanding in the future -- inasmuch as consensus is a key foundation of the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what constitutes 'noteworthiness' for the purposes of Wikipedia (and opinions of this clearly differ), I'm fairly sure that consensus is against the misrepresentation of source content - I am expecting Bus stop to respond, either by redacting his claims regarding the source he cites, or explaining how he arrived at the conclusion he did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—sources rarely say explicitly that something is "notable". Similarly, sources rarely say an entity has "stature". Examples are given by good quality sources because they are good examples. Good quality sources have criteria that are similar to our own. They too look for notability; they too look for stature. Why would you assume that a good quality, scholarly source, would be providing as an example an institution that is not notable, or that is of little stature? The name of their article is "The Sunday-Sabbath Movement in American Reform Judaism: Strategy or Evolution?" Bus stop (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of Temple Emanuel in the article seems to be in this paragraph:

There was one congregation, however, which instituted Sunday services as late as 1958. Temple Emanuel in St. Louis included a provision for Sunday services. These services are still held today, but an occasional Friday-evening service has been added. In addition to Emanuel in St. Louis, Chicago Sinai has remained faithful to the cause, holding services on Sunday morning instead of Saturday morning. Others have services both on Saturday and Sunday. The Sunday liturgy, however, does not differ from any other daily morning service held in Reform congregations throughout the country.

So where does it state that the Temple is 'notable'? Where does it say anything about its 'stature'. It doesn't. You misrepresented the source. (p. 84) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not use any adjectives for T.E., but in the context it could be said that it was mentioned almost as a footnote, since it added its Sunday service some 30 years after the Sunday-Sabbath Movement died out. Please also note that the article is about 30 years old, so its contents should not be discussed as if they were current information. --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady—I don't think it matters that "it added its Sunday service some 30 years after the Sunday-Sabbath Movement died out." Why would that fact detract from the notice that a good quality scholarly source pays to the subject of this article? It is the same institution. It hasn't changed name. It has a history. It was a latecomer to the practice of holding Sabbath services on Sunday. The point is that a reliable source is taking notice of this institution. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you refer to "noteworthiness for the purposes of Wikipedia".

I think noteworthiness for the purposes of Wikipedia is not all that different from noteworthiness for the purposes of most good quality reliable sources.

You say here: "So where does it state that the Temple is 'notable'? Where does it say anything about its 'stature'. It doesn't. You misrepresented the source."

Let me try to explain this again. The value in a good quality source is that when they provide an example of something, they are not going to provide a non-representative example. That implies stature. What good would it do them to argue a point based on the examples of insignificant institutions? Significance implies notability.

A good quality source has criteria that do not differ all that much from Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utter garbage. You made a false claim about source content, and are trying to wriggle out of it by telling us what you think the author of the article would mean by the words 'notable' and 'stature' if he/she had used them. Either redact your misrepresentations, or I will take this up elsewhere. I've had just about enough of your nit-picking trivia, endless wilful misinterpretation of policy, and general attitude that Wikipedia is only here for the purposes of boosting your ethnoreligious obsessions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you say "Bus stop, redact your false claim, or this goes to AN/I".

Redact what "false claim"? Please provide a link to my supposed "false calm". Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diff: [32]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The source cited does not state that the Temple is either 'noteworthy', nor that it has 'stature' - that is your spin, nothing more, nothing less. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now raised Bus stop's misrepresentation of sources at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misrepresentation_of_sources_and_other_disruptive_behaviour_by_User:Bus_stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "Notability of a lemonade stand." The internet hols vast amounts of infomation about any odd thing. We need to clarify what counts as "notable" for synaggoue. I am also against each and every school having a page just becasue it exists and has been reported in some local online papers. Chesdovi (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi—you say, "We need to clarify what counts as "notable" for synagogue." Indeed we do. That is a priority. I can tell you right off the bat that virtually all synagogues should be considered notable. These are estimable cultural entities. I am using the word cultural in the broadest possible sense. It defies logic that Wikipedia could deem an expression of human culture on par with a house of worship non-notable once reliable sources have established its existence. We have articles on junk art. We have articles on works of graffiti. (Be sure to view these cultural treasures at full resolution.) Please don't present me with the untenable argument that many synagogues can be considered non-notable. This is equally applicable to Christian Churches and Muslim Mosques. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then propose this change of policy in the appropriate place. Until such changes are made, this AfD will have to restrict debate to current policy, not what you "tell" us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—there is no need for a "change of policy". Sources exist in abundance. Those sources establish that this is a viable institution of some stature. Many particulars of this institution as an individualistic entity are highlighted by sources. That is all that should be required of a house of worship. I think already-existing policy would be in support of such an approach to this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about synagogues, but I've never seen one in the shape of the Magen David. That alone might make it notable. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a source that says this makes it notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenatipo—I think many things are of interest about this Jewish religious institution. These are factors—some of them anyway—that tend to lend to its notability, and these factors are confirmed by sources. For instance we find that the "leader of song or hazan" is not Jewish. I think that is unusual. In this source we find: "Another unique feature is Malachi, the African-American who is non-Jewish and is our leader of song or hazan." I don't think this alone establishes notability but I think it would tend to contribute to notability. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Jayjg says it is forbidden in Jewish law, whilst others say its common. Which do you want to go with? John lilburne (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John lilburne—I think this is a "progressive" Temple, even by the standards of the liberal end of the spectrum of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must be Jewish for the service to be valid says User:Flourdustedhazzn. Surely the article should be making more of the fact, if true, that the synagogue has been conducting invalid services, not burying it right at the end. John lilburne (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John lilburne—we don't know that "the synagogue has been conducting invalid services". We only know that one editor asserts this. Bus stop (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember also that Jayjg said it was forbidden in law. If either of those opinions are true, then you have notability. So why not confirm that either of the two editors are right? Should be simple for one with your knowledge. Is it common, or contrary to law? John lilburne (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John lilburne—you say "Should be simple for one with your knowledge."[33]

I only adhere to reliable sources. I don't rely on my own knowledge. That is original research. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what Jewish law says, that statement about "Malachi" gives me the creeps. (Am I the only one who feels this way?) When "Malachi" is identified only by that one name (presumably his first name) and is described as "African-American" and "non-Jewish," I get a disturbing image of a black "boy" putting on a minstrel show for white folks. If the rabbi can't be bothered to describe this man with his full name, the encyclopedia should not repeat the indignity. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady—I'm in partial agreement, though we don't know all the facts. Perhaps it is the hazan's choice to go by one name. I think the name "Malachi" and the identity of "African American" can be left out. The article could simply state that the hazan is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the 'reliable source' (yeah, right...) can't even get his name right (two different spellings in two sentences), I'd be inclined to agree... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—my guess (just a guess) is that Malachi relates to Melech which means king in Hebrew. Not exactly an undignified name. Bus stop (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Bus "I only adhere to reliable sources. I don't rely on my own knowledge" stop, I'll take your word for it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—please don't alter other editor's posts as you do here. Your response is time stamped 2 minutes after my post, I did not see your post, you did not respond to my post, and my addition to my post is completely irrelevant to your subsequent post. Also note: WP:REDACT: "Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission." Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with your original statement: that "the article could simply state that the hazan is not Jewish". You edited your comment by adding "this would more appropriately be discussed on the article's Talk page". This is a clear change of meaning, in breach of WP:REDACT guidelines. Either take this to AN/I, or apologise for distorting my response. I see no reason to discuss such meaningless trivia anywhere, regardless of how much you'd like to carry on with your nitpicking, POV-pushing bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how tenuous the basis for this factoid is, I don't think it belongs in the article in any form. (But, then again, it's no less tenuous than the basis for most of the rest of the article.) --Orlady (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady—I think the name of the individual is of secondary importance. Also I think his being African-American is of secondary importance. Of greater importance might be that he is not Jewish. But I think this this would more appropriately be discussed on the article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Malachi Owens, per his biography at the Temple's website[34]. His career and unusual role are discussed in several independent sources. According to these sources, he's been with the Temple since 1977, and also has been a Baptist minister since 1998. He's also an electrical engineer and artist. Rather a fascinating story, and certainly sufficiently sourceable to include in the Temple Emanuel article. "Dual life: Baptist minister also serves as Jewish cantor", KSDK, October 13, 2009. "The Electrical Engineer That Could", Washington University in St. Louis Magazine, Fall 2005. -Arxiloxos (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Arxiloxos, for finding a source and fixing that item in the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenatipo, in answer to a question as to whether the shape of the Temple makes it 'notable', it took me 5 minutes to find another one in the shape of a Star of David - on Wikipedia:

A synagogue in Karlsruhe, Germany, with the outline of a Star of David

How common this shape is, I've no idea, but unless we can find sources that state that the Temple is notable because of this, it is irrelevant to an AfD debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sourcing for notability. The basic deletionist line of argument here and more generally is that the GNG is the standard , except when the GNG leads to a result that is not liked, in which case ignore it. I've always thought that the GNG puts us at the mercy of what the Googles happen to make accessible, for that's the usual depth of Wikipedian research, As I asked very early in my first year here, why do we have such a rule unless we intend to use it? DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability indicated by (among other things) large number of WP:RS that discuss it. Kudos to Yoninah and Epeefleche for improving the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the article now clearly has enough non-trivial reliable sources to prove its notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the present form of the article demonstrates that many reliable sources have covered its subject. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment If so then why has one of the adders of these extra references spent a large part of the last 24 hours on my talk page, trying to convince me of their worth, and latterly making comments that perhaps I'm someone else? John lilburne (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps he, recognizing that you were were one of the very few delete !votes in the face of 13 keep !votes here, was trying to explain to you the rationale of the overwhelming consensus of editors on this page, and to encourage you to be more accurate in your representations at AfD. Had he been successful, that would have been a service to the community. Certainly he was not doing it to ensure the result here, which is obvious from the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think what is "obvious from the above" is that if sufficient partisan editors pile into an AfD, they can make anything 'notable'. "Oh look, I've got 16,000 Google hit for my pub!" It must be notable - it serves beer, and the Ancient Egyptians invented that. And the local cycling club meets there. Oh yes, its on a Bus Route too, and we know how notable they are... Welcome to Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia that anybody can fill with trivia if they can find it on Google. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do videos count? I can source numerous local press reports, city council minutes, it was one of the prtestige projects for the Job Creation Schemes of the mid 1980s, there were references on BBC radio and TV, plus a few mentions in the national press. But this was in reality a playground and a duck pond. There are larger groups like this one that had major local council support. There are 120 similar groups and a 1000 odd community garden projects too. All of which will have extensive local coverage. I doubt that many are really encyclopaedic but they'd all soar over the hurdle presented here. John lilburne (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not explain coming on to the talk page and making accusations of flip-flopping. Then asking whether I might be someone else, then re-asking, then re-asking for a third time. Someone that does that isn't explaining anything. John lilburne (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy and John -- I understand that the two of you share a desire to beat this dead horse of a conversation to death, and both of you do seem to have a penchant for repeating yourselves here (which I regret to say I have been guilty of doing as well, in response), and both of you think this synagogue is the same as your pub, and both of you dislike the overwhelming consensus at this AfD, and both of you dislike what GNG says. I'll bow out, though, and let this be closed, as I don't see how anything I can add--or that the 13 of us have said--will help address these issues for the two of you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that a synagogue is like a pub. What has been said is that the use and type of references in this article to establish notability, can equally be found for establishing notability for a pub. As I indicated with the community project I can find plenty of similar sources to make that org encyclopaedic too. And if I chose to put my mind to I could dredge up similar stuff for the drinking club behind it too. John lilburne (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and no, I haven't !voted before - I came here to see how 'notability' was defined with regards to synagogues, and now I know, I can't possibly support it. Apart from anything else, it trivialises people's religious beliefs and heritage to assert that their place of worship is 'notable' because it got talked about in the local papers or whatever. Still, publicity for the cause is what matters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claims of notability in the article are backed by dozens of the reliable and verifiable sources needed to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 05:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Andy has been blocked for edit-warring and personal attacks here, and Bus has been blocked for edit-warring, so if anyone is awaiting a response please understand that it will have to wait until their unblock.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: The current article is cobbled together mainly from passing mentions in small, local publications as well as few other sources, like publications on architecture in the St. Louis area. According to Wikipedia's current policies, however, this article probably does meet the threshold of notability if defined as information being available in reliable sources. What this says, I think, is that anyone who is good at datamining from the deep web (finding information that doesn't show up on Google searches) or has the time and resources to access obscure community news publications, trade journals, or niche-market books, could probably write an article on just about anything, including the proverbial lemonade stand. If this is what Wikipedia wants to be, then that's fine. The question is, is this what Wikipedia wants to be? To the closing admin, you get to decide in this case. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've followed this debate in recent days and have seen how this article has grown. I am saddened by the heated words that have been exchanged here and respect the arguments and the contributions to this encyclopedia of those who advocate deleting this article. However, I have concluded that the article as it now stands deserves to stay, because of the references provided. One lesson that I draw from this and similar debates is that rapid-fire mass deletion nominations too often cause an excessive amount of controversy. A slower and more judicious approach is a wiser approach, supplemented by the recommendations of WP:BEFORE. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. Peace to all. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Virtually none of the material on the synagogue is notable in itself - what we are left with is a group which has gotten enough mentions of a non-notable institution to become "notable" by the Wikipedia definition. In fact, almost everything other than its architecture appears to be no more notable than hundreds of other synagogues ("300 families" is not a notable attribute. Really.) Most of the article is organizational puff of the first order. Keep the architecture stuff, remove all the puff. Including size of a non-notable congregation, and the fact that it even holds religious services. Find me a church which would not hold services <g>. No notable rabbis. Nothing much notable, in fact, at all. Collect (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment as With Cla68 and Collect, I see an article that is a compilation of low grade material supported by independent sources. I've been following arguments and it seems borderline notable. Perhaps better guidance on notability will come out of this. It would be good if recent effort expended on this and similar articles as a result of the attention brought by this AfD continues and the article(s) develop further. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. And big fat fishy slaps to any editors responsible for raising the heat here. And I agree wholeheartedly with Cullen328. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for being a fairly large (300 families) for a Reform Jewish temple, and because of its architectural significance (both in design/shape and notability of the architect - and yes, this is another exception to WP:NOTINHERITED). Those are the two most used reasons for claiming notability of houses of worship. I added "The Temple is notable not only for its size, but for its unique modern architecture." to the lead. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If we took all synagogues and listed them in order of importance or notability I think this one would be slightly above average but not in the top 10% and certainly not the top 1%. Keeping an article with this level of referencing and notability is close to saying that all synagogues should have articles. And hence, of course all churches, mosques etc. I'm not saying that is an indefensible position, it isn't much more extreme than saying that all High Schools are notable. But my reading is that the wikipedia consensus is that the bar isn't quite that low. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether all synagogues would have articles or high schools or mosques or whatever else you're speculating about. The question is whether or not this article meets the GNG or not, and you need to address that in your response. ╟─Treasury Tag►contemnor─╢ 18:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be aggressive, there's far too much of that on this page already. My opinion is that the subject of the article does not meet the GNG, but the standard cannot be anything but subjective and different people have different thresholds. It may help to think about what threshold to use on a particular subject by thinking how it would apply to other subjects. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment clearly wasn't aggressive. It was simply intended to point out that your line of reasoning (that we might potentially end up with lots more articles on similar subjects, or on different subjects) was not a relevant one, since the sole standard to be applied here is GNG. ╟─Treasury Tag►contemnor─╢ 21:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dingo. Welcome. Two questions. One is why, given that GNG instructs that an article is notable "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources", you think this does not meet the GNG standard. Second is why, given your focus (which I find laudatory) on "what consensus is", your comment does not accord with the community consensus as reflected on this page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think it comes down to how significant the coverage is. It's a subjective standard, and the majority of people here think it meets that standard. I think it's below but not way below, hence the "weak" delete. On consensus, I was thinking of the general view on what subjects should have articles rather than the consensus on this particular page. We try to have some consistency in our criteria for keeping articles and to do that we have to compare within subjects (such as all synagogues) and between subjects (such as mosques and high schools). I won't be upset if this articles is kept, but I just wanted to add my opinion. Regards, Dingo1729 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. This page is clearly notable and well sourced. Need I say more? Come on. Tinton5 (talk) 19:38, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the Mythological Inferno[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book. Rogem Press is evidently owned by Jorge H. Moromisato, the only other author I can find with this imprint, and published from his home [35] (a Google search on the address makes it clear this is a private house). Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator says, this is a non-notable self-published book. I thought Wikipedia didn't have ads? Angryapathy (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self- published works can still be notable, but there is no evidence this is one of those exceptions. Edward321 (talk) 02:06, 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 redirect to Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. Sandstein 06:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell 6[edit]

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

This article does not cite any sources, so it does not establish it's notability and is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Plus it is a one line stub without any significant information on the new game. chris †ianrocker90 04:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the series article Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, like how sequels usually are when they don't yet merit an article. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete by the time there are verifiable sources the subject of this article will have a different name. i kan reed (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. There is currently not enough information available on the sequel to warrant it's own article.Dylan2448 (talk) 00:47, 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. Sandstein 07:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 140[edit]

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

This is a future sports event that currently fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:FUTURE. The article points out the event is "far from signed" and "not officially announced" which indicates a rather non-encyclopaedic topic more suitable for a fansite. Fæ (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Google hits for the event all say the same thing, the event is expected to happen Dec 10 in Canada. I don't think it's enough to deserve an article. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article UFC 139 was recently deleted as an exercise in crystal-ballery, which makes this one even more crystally, which is not to say more ballsy. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - UFC 139 was deleted due to the fact that it wasn't announced and didn't have a date or venue. However, UFC 140 has both and has been announced by the UFC themselves as well and has the appropriate references and resources.BEDofRAZORS666 (talk) 28 June 2011
Keep There have been fights mentioned then confirmed to not be on this date. I think the information is relevant. UFC 140 is a confirmed event — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.141.172 (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the first ref makes it clear that the date is not definite and the second ref makes it clear that the venue is not definite - so how can we have a page? TerriersFan (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost all the sourcing says when this event will not occur and who will not appear. Not every sporting event is notable and very few are notable before they actually occur. Exact reason we observe WP:CRYSTAL. BusterD (talk) 17:09, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unicon Roleplaying Convention[edit]

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

Game convention of unclear notability. Article is unreferenced (besides primacy sources) since 2005 and I am unable to find significant coverage in third party sources. Google search for "Unicon Roleplaying Convention"-wikipedia brings 56 "unique" results, mostly Wikipedia scrapers and metatag stuffers. Prod was contested. ... discospinster _talk 03:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 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) 01:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Patrick O'Malley[edit]

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

Non-notable urban legend about a man who whizzed on the third rail. Of the 5 sources listed in the article, he's only named in 2, and the second references the first (Straight Dope). Wikipedia isn't Snopes, and this article has little chance of being anything more than a short stub about a fake man who didn't electricute himself. Jayron32 01:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom; the man is non-notable and the article is very unlikely to be improved beyond its current stage--GroovySandwich 03:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a Mythbusters fan, and perhaps the topic of the risks of urinating on an electrified 3rd rail could be dealt with encyclopedically. However, not by an article about an imaginary person and an imaginary incident. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 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 redirect here. I've merged any content that felt substantial - people are welcome to change my edit. m.o.p 01:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COSBI[edit]

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

A research centre at the University of Trento. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An otherwise indistinguised research center of which there are several at every major university in the world. --Jayron32 01:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to University of Trento#Research departments. This will fit nicely in the target which badly needs content. The partnership with Microsoft is important and is easily sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to University of Trento#Research departments as per TerriersFan. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is NOT part of the University of Trento is an indipendent Research centre half Microsoft Research, half University of Trento. Cosbi is one of the Collaborative Center of Microsoft Research as INRIA and the Barcelona Supercomputing Center. Both of them have a Wikipedia page so I don't see why COSBI shouldn't have one. User:bfordb —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 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 Withdrawn per improvements. It's nice to see that every once in a blue moon, people who say "keep but improve" actually follow through on the "improve" part. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of relationships[edit]

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

Very small, almost content-free "outline". Content is fine at relationship and almost 100% redundant. I see no way to expand this without being redundant. It was pared down from a linkfarm in 2009 and almost entirely untouched since. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete.The Wiki is not a dictionary (WP:NOT). Nor does the article provide verifiable (WP:VERIFY) sources of reference and or citation. The article appears to be original research of little notability (WP:N). An online search for the topic shows scant material on the subject nor does it appear to be obscure information of notability. This stub (WP:STUB) has remained relatively the same since 2008 (local date is June, 25, 2011). I would recommend WP:EAD :) . --User:Warrior777 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article has undergone extensive revision since it nomination for deletion by Transhumanist making its relevance more clear. In its original form it was vague at best [36]. I get it. The Wiki however is not an index but I'm sure the content might be included elsewhere.

Keep But rename to List of types of relationships. Obviously there is ample coverage about relationships. And this is a fine list article since it links to various other articles about relationships. Dream Focus 08:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 10:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and please keep the title. This outline is part of the set of outlines at Portal:Contents/Outlines, one of Wikipedia's content navigation systems. The Transhumanist 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the outline has been overhauled. Here is what it looked like before. The Transhumanist 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the outline's scope includes all aspects of relationships. If the page is renamed, the content will most likely be altered to fit the title. That is, all the non-type sections would probably be removed by someone - those sections make up almost half the outline. The Transhumanist 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I agree with Warrior77. it's not properly verified and doesn't look like it'll pass notability.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a navigation page. See Portal:Contents/Outlines. The subject is "relationships", which is obviously notable. The words "Outline of" aren't part of the subject, they are just a format designation, like "List of" or "Index of". It's not an article about an outline, it is an outline article, about relationships. Outlines are a type of list, the guidelines for which are presented in WP:LIST and WP:STAND. The Transhumanist 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per The Transhumanist - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 12:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been substantially improved since the nom by editor The Transhumanist. This outline format seems a most excellent way to present wide fields of knowledge, making it far easier for our readers to navigate than alternatives like cats. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like it was pretty bad before. Looks like it's not so bad now. Yay. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:35, 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) 00:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Vitali[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This promotional piece offers nothing in the way of references to establish notability. Full of puffery, many of the theatre credits are questionable (are these student productions? Where were they performed? Were they ever reviewed?) and the television credit appears to be a fairly minor role. No proof offered that this person has written a "best seller" (not even a title for the book). Steamroller Assault (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is entirely possible that notability could be established through providing details of Vitali's failed vanity production of Hamlet, which received some press in Los Angeles. However, that could possibly fall under WP:ONEEVENT, and would require a full article rewrite. Steamroller Assault (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Hamlet farrago is a one-time local-interest-only event; if it wasn't for the vague involvement of Mr Clooney, it probably wouldn't even merit a mention. The rest is pure unsourced self-aggrandisement. Facebook and Twitter do not spell RS! Yunshui (talk) 12:56, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Frédéric Dieudonné[edit]

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

This article was first written as an autobiography and userfied. It has been re-created by a user with no other areas of interest. It contains a number of references, only three of which include the name of the subject. One of these is a press release, the other two are mere namechecks in reviews. None of the sources is an independent biographical source about the subject. Google shows clear evidence of brand-building but not, as far as I can tell of encyclopaedic notability as we define it: non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. That, combined with the SPA issue and past autobiography, leads me to suspect astroturfing. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV - the LA Times articles appear to be about events only tangentially about the subject. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have carefully reviewed the case. Whoever wrote, or contributed to write this article, it is more than relevant. There are numerous references on google about this writer, producer, film maker. I believe people who have a serious activity and cultural impact and are famous for those reasons, have their place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tool to learn more about projects, people, notions. I've always found abusive deletion as a dangerous method for denial. It's all should be balanced. These references are more than valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron943 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Byron943 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Can't agree with Gene93k, Bearian or whoever those users are. This article has nothing to do with an autobiography. It is fully worthwhile, as well as its independent references. Coverage of the subject is nontrivial and trustworthy. I object to this article's deletion.Spacer999 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacer999 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Spacer999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I don't quite get this zeal to remove such knowledge from the encyclopedia, especially about a subject who brings education and entertainment to an international audience in a very significant way. Deemed notable by a list of unrelated reliable sources.Symphony1966 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphony1966 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Symphony1966 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep. Meets requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people): he is "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."; "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."; "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Seriously, how could this be considered for deletion?Julie Podcol (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Julie Podcol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete- Read all provided references; sum total of all coverage is the foundation of the festival in 1992 and no biographic information; searched AP, Reuters, and major news venues separately, but results provide no non-trivial in-depth coverage; would pass WP:N as long-standing festival co-founder, but clearly fails WP:RS. Dru of Id (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting due to sockpuppetry. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Refs are insufficient to establish notability. Flurry of eager socks also suggests that this is a puff-piece. Yunshui (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is legitimate writer, producer, film director and event planner mentioned and interviewed in various notable media. He does have a certain degree of fame on the Internet. Clearly of interest to Wikipedia users.Jeanpichan (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Jeanpichan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I think the nom nailed it - the ghits show evidence of brand-building but not of encyclopedic notability. The reference section is misleading - there are a lot of links, but none of them have significant coverage of Dieudonné. It might be worth looking at the Jean-Christophe Jeauffre entry, too - he's a colleague of Dieudonné's - both entries have similar sources and similar tenuous claims of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. All references are fully legitimate. The subject is definitely notable.Symphony1966 (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC) — Symphony1966 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Please only !vote once. I have struck your second !vote. Edward321 (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:N guidelines with the sources provided. The references are passing mentions or individual quotes or Dieudonné rather than articles that illustrates the biography of the individual, such as in an interview or a review of his work. I Jethrobot (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable. What would Wikipedia gain by deleting this page? It's informative, the works of the subject have been widely reported to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramelog (talk • contribs) 01:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Cramelog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The biggest problem with this biography is how poorly written the introduction is. It only states his birthday and that he is a member of a non-notable club, the French Explorers Club. Both of these statements don't explain how he is notable. Minima © (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject who created a notable successful international film event both in Europe and America. Mandarin28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandarin28 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC) — Mandarin28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions do not address the policy-based problems raised by the others. Sandstein 06:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FrostMUD[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Couldn't find any reliable sources to support this article. Singularity42 (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please explain what is your criteria for a "non" reliable surce.DeeCeeVee (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are found at WP:RS. Singularity42 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All references are from frostmud.com. A better reference would be to have an external reference such as a magazine or newspaper. Softdevusa (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad, but websites can't be reliable sources about themselves. i kan reed (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to make this article more fitting for wikipedia, however I need help in doing so. The site is in fact real, go to it and see. It is indisputable that it exists. If I cannot reference the site itself, where do you propose I gather this information from? Axanon 13:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axanon (talk • contribs)

The issue is not that it exists (see WP:ITEXISTS). The issue is whether this is notable, as per WP:COMPANY or WP:WEB. To demonstrate notability, you generally need non-trivial coverage by multiple, third-party reliable sources. I looked myself before proposing, and then nominating this article for deletion, but I could not find any. Singularity42 (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability - that is, coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject - can be provided. Robofish (talk) 16:38, 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. Sandstein 06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Scerri[edit]

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

When I created this article, the subject was trending because the video of his miniature had been posted on YouTube. Now in hindsight, I realise that it probably doesn't meet WP:N. XXX antiuser ^eh? 17:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 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) 00:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I lost track at some point so one or two of these links may be duplicate or reprints [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. Also some are blogs, and the NYT articles are just mentions, but overall I really think he meets WP:GNG. I did leave out a considerable number of minor blogs and forums since they definitely wouldn't have passed WP:RS, I'm just mentioning them to note that you were not by any means the only one fascinated by this man's achievement (and rightfully so) - frankie (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 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 08:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark B. Barron[edit]

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

Notability tag removed, without comment, by what looks like a single-purpose account. In my view, the sources provided to date either don't classify as "reliable", or don't pass the "non-trivial" coverage test. Happy to be persuaded otherwise, in which case, I'll speedy close this AfD. Dweller (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my view the secondary sources are certainly reliable (e.g. U.S. Patent Office, Chicago Tribune, et al). Information sourced to the subject's own website may need to be cleaned up, but the article doesn't warrant outright deletion. While the subject is not covered in depth by most sources, his companies are, and he is at least mentioned in enough sources to qualify. I am the article's creator (Also - not a single-purpose account.) Zyzzyballuba (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources discuss Mark Barron in depth? --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 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) 00:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't help that the creator, Zyzzyballuba was noted to be a possible sock of accounts working on the same page and that a majority of the user's edits appear to be for the Baron page and his invention, the S-1 Gard. --I Jethrobot (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Problems with notability and reliable references. The Chemo Caps don't seem to be a notable invention because it has no documented use, and the comparison to "cold caps," which was not an invention of Barron's, doesn't seem to belong in this article. I think the Chicago and LA School Bus information are good references for use of the S-1 Gard. However, several cities have no references or poor references. The Baltimore reference is no longer available. There are no references for DC or LA on public transportation buses. Also, the MDZShield.com reference is not a reliable third-party source even if the ad was in Times Square. I Jethrobot --(talk) 01:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the necessary significant coverage in reliable sources on the subject to meet WP:BIO. TerriersFan (talk) 16:17, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Dayne[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other SNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits for either stage name. "Tart of the Year" is an employee of the month type award given by a porn mag to its models and cannot establish notability; other award nom is single-year, failing PORNBIO. Article lacks any nontrivisl, reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant notability outside her community (porn community).Curb Chain (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think notability requires mainstream coverage, as curb chain suggests. There is precedence where AVN and XBIZ coverage was enough [51] even if they may be suspiciously derived from press releases. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. That AFD is not really consistent with more recent outcomes (like this one, from last month, where the AVN/XBIZ notability issue is addressed [52]); moreover, in the AFD you cite, the article subject was a Penthouse Pet, so coverage beyond the AVN/XBIZ PR machinery existed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember only the questionable case Monika Star, no more other "outcomes", except when an article was found to be only a promotional press release (but this is a different matter)... common sense suggests analyzing case by case and only where there is suspicion that the content of an article is not true, otherwise not only WP:PORNBIO criteria (being AVN/XBIZ the main source for award nominees and winnings) but the whole WP:PORN should be questioned. --Cavarrone (talk) 15:21, 26 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, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in 2009 she earned three nominations, AVN Award nomination for Best Tease Performance and two FAME Awards nominations including Favorite Female Rookie. WP:PORNBIO requires an award winning or several nominations in multiple years, criteria she doesn't fit, more famous porn actresses (with more than 11 titles in career) have been deleted for this reason. --Cavarrone (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bionix AATV[edit]

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

Basically empty. Contains no references and no claim to notability; I could not find any references either. One could argue it might as well be speedied for A1 or A3, but I'm bringing it here. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Article is about a Canadian cable channel that runs familiar anime series. The article contains less information than this; the bulk of it is a logo, blown up so we can see the JPEG artifacts, and a list of series. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any relation to the former YTV programming block Bionix (this appears to use the same logo as that did) a merge or redirection there may be in order. If not this probably does not need to be covered.--174.90.78.3 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we confirm this channel exists? Why don't they have an official website? Some of the links in the Bionix article are broken links even. If a late night television block didn't last very long, then why would they go ahead and give them their own channel? Dream Focus 20:17, 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) 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax "spin-off" of defunct Bionix block on YTV with a very nonsense name. Nate • (chatter) 22:00, 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) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marxel[edit]

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

BLP unreferenced for more than a year. No apparent notability, no obvious matches in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 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) 00:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no third-party references found. All ghits are backreferenced to the wikipedia page. No hits on gnews for Marxel, Marxel Lopez, or the full name. The record company's (KRAM Records) website is currently down. There are no references on the current article, either. There is just no trace of this guy. I Jethrobot (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:06, 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) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Ruby[edit]

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

BLP with only a link to their myspace page after more than a year Stuartyeates (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 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) 00:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly non-notable. No reliable sources at all, even the Myspace link is broken. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:07, 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) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Poe[edit]

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

Poet with no clearly independent reviews / references after more than a year Stuartyeates (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 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) 00:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:11, 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) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Pitts[edit]

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

The author of a number of books. but not obviously notable and no independent references after more than a year. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 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) 00:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:10, 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 redirect to ¡Viva Hollywood!. Sandstein 06:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Pinto[edit]

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

reality-TV contestant. article is cut and paste of her bio from show. no references after more than a year. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ¡Viva Hollywood!. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 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) 00:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ¡Viva Hollywood!. J04n(talk page) 12:09, 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 138[edit]

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

This is a future sports event that currently fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:FUTURE. Fæ (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is unsourced speculation about a future event. Very few user hits as well, for what it's worth — and that should be at least pondered. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been confirmed by multiple reputable sources now. All prior and other future UFC fights meet GNG as does this. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The advance creation of articles far into the future is highly dubious, I note that there were attempts to create events such as UFC 150 last year which made them so far into the future as to almost be science fiction and were fortunately spotted and deleted. Fæ (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - True enough, but unlike UFC 150, UFC 138 is now a confirmed to be occurring event in only a few months time. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as there's a card announced and that info is published, then it will be time for a page... That's my take anyway... Carrite (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been confirmed by many sources. There is no reason to delete this page unless you plan on deleting the other 20 or so upcoming MMA events.. BEDofRAZORS666 (talk) 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are really 20 more pages up for forthcoming events, odds are that they'll be whacked, too, as UFC 139 was recently deleted under WP:CRYSTAL. Carrite (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find that highly unlikely as there are always around 20 upcoming MMA events on Wikipedia at all times. UFC 139 was deleted because it wasn't announced at all, every other event has been announced. Therefore, they will most likely not be deleted.BEDofRAZORS666 (talk) 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just searched ufc.com and it had no mentions of UFC 138. I fully expect the event to occur, but all information is currently speculation. Since I believe this event will occur I would hate to see all the work done so far just eliminated--can it be saved to someone's work space and recreated as an article at a later date? Jakejr (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Google search provides 20 news hits about the event. Event is anticipated (yeah, yeah, rumored may be another way to say it) to occur in 5 months. There will be more hits in not too long. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been and continues to be confirmed by multiple sources. Ppt1973 (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly, there has to be a point at which future events are deemed pure speculation, but this event would seem to be comfortably within those bounds. The fact that it isn't happening for another five months isn't particular relevant (there is a page for the 2016 Summer Olympics, which isn't happening for another five years - heck, there is a page for the 2028 Summer Olympics, for that matter). If there are references that suggest that certain fights are planned and/or a location is reserved, then page creation isn't premature in my estimation. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:52, 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 00:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compilr[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Refs are to the project's blog and two articles by the creator of this one, so serious COI concerns. A web search turns up nothing more substantial. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 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) 00:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article fails WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:42, 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) 01:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajshekhar Rajaharia[edit]

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

Deleted twice already under CSD:A7, but there does appear to be some claim to significance - helping police trace cyber-criminals in India. There has been some mention of him in the media, per the article's external links (in Hindi, I think: Google translate gives, e.g. [53], [54]), but almost certainly not enough to show notability. —SMALL JIM 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 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) 00:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage in mainstream Indian media are passing mentions. The rest appears to be local media and self-promotion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Further on-line exploration has not turned up any more references. —SMALL JIM 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkout the official website of Rajshekhar Rajaharia [55] where we can see many articals about Rajshekhar. He is the youngest person of this type and owned a Company Yolike Technologies and many popular websites. Interview on ETV Rajasthan given by Rajshekhar at the age of just 18 [56] He is the notable person from the young age... Press Trust Of india also publish a artical about Rajshekhar Rajaharia which copy can be seen on his official website. [57] Which is the biggest notablity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniljjn (talk • contribs) 15:52, 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) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity consciousness[edit]

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

While the book this term is from may be notable, the neologism itself is not. The only references I can find are the sale descriptions at various online book sites (for the book where the neologism is described), and the author's blog (who also appears related to the author of this article). Singularity42 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This term is used in academia and diversity circles irrespective of the book. A link to some examples follow. These examples are from the world of business, academia, blogs, a textbook and general interest pages to show the variety of places the term is used.

I posted these links here: http://diversityconsciousness.com/divconlinks.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucherpa (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that tthe term is widely used. Essentially it is blatant spam for a book by its author. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:59, 22 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) 00:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; non-notable neologism, and.... Developing diversity consciousness is a lifelong, incremental process that requires an ongoing commitment to learning. Developing diversity consciousness can be broken down into six areas: 1) examining ourselves and our worlds, 2) expanding our knowledge of others and their worlds, 3) stepping outside of ourselves, 4) gauging the level of the playing field, 5) checking up on ourselves, and 6) following through. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 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) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Souders[edit]

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

No references in more than a year. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 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) 00:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of sources is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:15, 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 00:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua M. Schwartz[edit]

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

BLP unreferenced in more than a year Stuartyeates (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it could be referenced, I would keep it. Joshua M. Schwartz supposedly wrote songs with Brittney Spears. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC) ... and for Lady Gaga. Is that enough? Bearian (talk) 01:13, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of sources is a reason for improvement, not deletion. 04:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:13, 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) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beach Girl5[edit]

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

The IP who removed the PROD did not satisfy the concern, which was "does not meet WP:BAND, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero hits on Billboard's website, zero Google news hits, only Google web hits are primary sources managed by the band or their management." 117Avenue (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 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) 00:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — doesn't seem to be very notable, other than having a reality star as a manager. No significant coverage, hasn't charted on a Billboard chart or internationally. Delete. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 13:36, 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) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen James Walker[edit]

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

BLP fails GPG; no independent third party references in more than a year. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 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) 00:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no references on the article. However searching his name his books are available on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softdevusa (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:16, 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shahre Mubarak Grand Masjid Calicut[edit]

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

The article fails WP:FUTURE and cites no references indicating why this mosque is yet significant or notable. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does now. Withdrawal would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It still seems far to early in the making to fall under something that is acceptable under the WP:FUTURE policy. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a comment. This thing, it seems to me, is notable even if they never build it--and there obviously is plenty of coverage already. FUTURE has no bearing here; it passes easily per GNG. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources have been added since the discussion was opened to indicate that it meets the GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's reference are enough to establish notability. I would suggest, though, that it be moved to Shahre Mubarak Grand Masjid. Calicut is the proposed mosque's location, but it doesn't seem to be part of the name of the mosque, so it doesn't need to be in the article's title. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:51, 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.