< 5 September	7 September >

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

The result was keep. The consensus was that this page meets notability standards. There are issues but these can be resolved by editing. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social media optimization[edit]

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

Following the guideline of WP:sources most of the referenced sources appears weak. It seems like the primary purpose of this article is to drive traffic to websites referenced and WP:promotion authors. I feel that it needs to be almost entirely rewritten with sources that are credible and have no commercial interest in inbound traffic generated through users going to their site. That is if general consensus is that this entry is encyclopedic at all Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With a few million Google hits (I went several hundred deep in unique hits before I gave in), it's difficult to argue that this is a WP:NEO violation. If the nom wishes better sources, nothing prevents him from tagging the article - article cleanup is not within AfD's purview - but this looks like a WP:BEFORE issue. Did the nom make any attempt himself to find sources he liked better? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 18:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be edited to address Cantaloupe2's concerns. WP:SOFIXIT or at least add some tags. --Kvng (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no valid reason stated for deletion, but I encourage Canty to start improving the article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. To elaborate, the arguments for retention asserts that the sources given satisfy notability, while the deletion side has disagreed with that notion. My view is that neither side has been able to establish any consensus, in particular for deletion. –MuZemike 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Michael Woods, Jr.[edit]

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

Looks more like campaigning against a death penalty then a usefull article for Wikipedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Doesn't look overtly non-neutral to me. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — even the news search given by the find sources template at the top of this discussion gives 11 articles in regional and national newspapers from 2002, 2004, and 2010. this seems to me to easily indicate notability per the gng. if there is a problem with the tone, and i concur with Falcon8765 in not seeing a serious one, it can be fixed by ordinary editing. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GNG. Notability asserted.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PERP we don't create articles for each person on death row and the usual coverage associated with it. Has to be something very notable to justify an article.LibStar (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- such as a hunger strike, and Woods case and punishment being criticized by Noam Chomsky and other activists. which are both sourced in this article and infact notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A common fallacy is that the various notability criteria for people somehow supercede the GNG. This curious notion is not supported by any policy or criterion. The GNG, in fact, supercedes the "Additional Criteria" - WP:PERP included - and meeting the GNG's provisions is sufficient to sustain notability. I could see a WP:NOTNEWS issue were these articles clustered around a narrow date range, but in fact they stretch over the better part of a decade. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources quoted are from a murder victims site, news sites and do not use any (or little) of the actual trial transcripts.I'm not sure how the article could ever be unbiased unless using trial trnascripts for every point. As this person is scheduled for execution in 4 days and this might possibly prejudice for/against this I suggest it is removed immediately. Also- it is not usual to create a page for everyone on death row. (added by User:Manny99887)

comment — the fact that the sources in the article are bad, and they certainly are not ideal, is not a reason for deleting the article. it is a reason for editing it. the question is whether or not there are sufficiently many actual reliable sources over a span of time. there are. using original trial transcripts in a wp article would almost certainly constitute original research, which we don't do. also, we don't expect news sources to be unbiased, but merely reliable. the ones that cover this guy's case are certainly that. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with user Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. filled with reliable sourcing. This one should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow. I don't think I've ever before heard someone seriously suggest that a Wikipedia article be censored because it "might possibly prejudice" legal proceedings. We should firmly reject any such suggestion; Wikipedia is not censored. That being said, the GNG is satisfied by just two reliable sources discussing the subject in "significant detail." However many sources are from sites any given editor dislikes, whether trial transcripts are used in said sources, or the degree to which creating articles for subjects who happen to be on Death Row is "usual" are completely irrelevant to any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Could we stick to said policies and guidelines in making our arguments, please? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 22:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment are we sure that it's serious? Manny99887 seems to be a SPA, and there may be some sockpuppetry going on too. take a look at its contribs and those of Peacer8181 and what they've done to the page we're discussing. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I've reverted their edits, and will issue BLP warnings. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 22:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP. No unusual amount of coverage or notoriety. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. This person has recieved unusual amount of coverage per hunger strike and people supporting his release etc etc. anyway what is an "unusual amount"? --BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable WP:PERP - coatracking of opposition to death penalty - although I don't see this case as high profile in that regard, if worthwhile that belongs in the specific article. Off2riorob (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:PERP. Alternatively rewrite as Texas law of parties which seems to be where the notability is here. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough reliable sources: Please read some of these articles to see that this does not meet the wikipedia criteria for deletion: -
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2011-09-09/two-inmates-set-to-die-this-month/ -
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/08prison.html -
http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=6oJCLQPAJiJUG&b=6645049&aid=516487
His trial/conviction are very controversial and many people have been taking note. *Please take a look at page view stats: http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Steven%20Michael%20Woods%2C%20Jr.*If you don't think that an article in the NY times is notable, maybe you should read the wikipedia article on the New York Times. Yes, like all news sources it contains bias but it is a significant enough newspaper to show that this article does not meet the wikipedia criteria for deletion and DOES for notability Mar2194 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of that makes this living person WP:NOTABLE - perhaps the whole protest is but I don't see it. To have a biography about someone here they need to be personally notable - this person is a not notable criminal. Under his name Its not even a close keeper.Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — i'm not sure how you're reading the gng to conclude that this guy doesn't satisfy it. it seems to me that the austin chronicle article and the nyt article alone are sufficient, esp as they're separated by 5 years. the amnesty campaign seems to clinch it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever way , here on wikipedia - hes a not notable criminal. Wikipedia is not here to be a partner assisting in Amnesty's activism. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — i'm sorry if i wasn't clear. i wasn't suggesting that wp should be a partner in amnesty's activism, but merely that amnesty's involvement in a case lends weight to the argument that the case is notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

..and there you have it ..the case may be notable . The case...not the living persons biography. If he is put to death in a couple of days as scheduled his life story will still not be wikipedia notable. There is nothing in this persons life that qualifies him as notable for a wikipedia life story. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~(struck - user has already vote commented - Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)) Why don't you stop being a wikipedia-bully @"Night of the Wind"? All you are doing is trolling an article for no reason, and fortunately you are outnumbered. Take a look at page view stats. As to your unfounded accusations and incredulous tone, please do your homework! For one, I'm not against the death penalty, I've just read a lot about this man in news articles and decided that there should be a wikipedia one as well that puts together the most relevant information as possible (i.e. make an encyclopedia article; add to human history, you know... the point/goal of wikipedia). Now I don't know why you would think I'm some kuke "campaigning against the death penalty"; look at the wikipedia articles I have contributed to... none of them even touch on the subject! I'm a physics major at Columbia University and an avid wikipedian... go ahead, google my username or name (Marshall Rogers-Martinez), you won't find anything linking me to any pro-life anti-death penalty nonsense. I'm about as unbiased a writer for this article as you could get, which just points to the ridiculousness of your accusations! Wikipedia needs someone like me to start/write/contribute to this article as I have no links to anything having to do with this guy. So, unfortunately most people would not agree with your statement that I am a "campaigner against the death penalty". Nice try "Night of the Wind" but I think you might have just outed yourself as someone who has strong sentiments FOR the death penalty, and you should no longer make edits to this article as you cannot possibly be an unbiased author. Please remember to substantiate all claims/facts with reliable resources if you do continue to make contributions to this article. Thank you. Mar2194 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Excuse me? look at the wikipedia articles I have contributed to... none of them even touch on the subject! Are you serious? Look at your own articles: Contributions. An for the record, as wiki-bully: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar2194. Have a nice day... And please, stop crying. Everybody loses sometimes articles because others think that it is not notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is a "sockpuppet"? I assume that this is ANOTHER accusation of some sort... You're claiming that I'm making fake accounts or something? Can't you check IP addresses or something?! THIS IS RIDICULOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar2194 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not seeing anyone here saying that the individual is notable and lots of people saying that the case is notable. I suggest that the page be renamed after the case rather than the person. Maybe Trial and Sentencing of Steven Michael Woods, Jr. or Trial, sentencing and appeals of Steven Michael Woods, Jr. ? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — that sounds like an excellent idea to me. i think it's an accurate expression of what's notable in this article. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a notable conviction and appeal? It has a little more chance of existing under such a title. If he is executed in a few days will his case and appeal be notable for a stand alone article? All I am really seeing is a bit of a save the subject campaign, a few months down the road I don't see any long term notability here. He,s not a notable person, his crime isn't notable. His conviction is a little notable but is it really worthy of its own article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to to make the absolute, I'm trying to suggest a concrete improvement that gets us a better article that more likely to be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Felony murder rule (Texas) - seems like would be the "parent" article to improve and merge to. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Felony murder rule (Texas) is an excellent article to merge this too. Some improvement may be necessary, as you say. There are other articles of those convicted under the rule that could also be merged, see Kenneth Foster and Jeff Wood (prisoner) (maybe Clinton Lee Young?). The same article can mention the campaigns for/against this rule. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — To add a voice from an amateur here--I found the page informative and the significant angle is not the individual per se but the nature of the case he represents. The Texas law of parties is currently very much a 'live' issue and it's this case and its notoriety which is bringing it (and its legitimacy) to the fore as a contentious issue. The particular individual in question may well become the 'poster child' for an entire movement against the Law of Parties. 173.53.70.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"may well become" - seems the important issue as regards wikipedia notability in your comment - Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Actually, the important issue is whether there are multiple reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG requires. As it happens, there are. The several editors jumping up and down saying "He doesn't qualify under WP:PERP! He doesn't qualify under WP:PERP!" have blinders on. The subject doesn't qualify under WP:MUSIC, WP:CREATIVE or WP:NHOCKEY either, but those guidelines are exactly as pertinent to this discussion. If you would like to argue that GNG's "additional criteria" should overrule the GNG itself, you can ... but this AfD is not a proper venue for you to seek that consensus. Ravenswing 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this person passes the WP:GNG for a biography under his name. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you'd have to explain the 'multiple reliable sources' then, one of which in fact (the NYT) brought me to this article in the first place. I think a lot of the 'sturm und drang' here have to do with capital punishment per se and is hence misplaced. Maybe this subject (Woods) will fade off into obscurity at some point. Right now he's most definitely that 'poster child' like it or not. And the pertinent issue has to do with the Law of Parties not with Capital Punishment. 173.53.70.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — as far as continuing coverage, here's an article from der spiegel from today: Pitzke, Mark (12 September 2011). "Governor Perry's Death Mission". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 12 September 2011.. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fitting the on-going pattern, there is no discussion of Woods as a person in the article, only his crime/conviction/sentencing. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

admitted. i'm only arguing for the material to be kept. i have no objections to appropriate merges or renamings. although i do think it's a clear keep under both wp:perp and the gng, i don't want to go to the mat over that. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My vote is based on this WP:GNG guideline: "Significant coverage" -check, "Reliable" -check, "Sources" -check, "Independent of the subject" -check, "Presumed" -check. --Ryan.germany (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (closing ahead of time because of readily apparent consensus and request of the subject). Neutrality^talk 19:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Shaw[edit]

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

Not notable; nearly no editing activity other than its initial creation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominated at request of the subject. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject was right to request deletion. Almost nothing is found at Google News. I was going to say: if she wins an assembly seat we can recreate the article. But according to this, it was in 2010 that she ran for state assembly. As a failed candidate for state office she is not notable. This year she is just running for a seat on the local community college district board. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per the subject. There is no compelling reason to keep the article against the subject's wishes. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN & WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LemonStand[edit]

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

unremarkable software lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Supplied references are largely primary ones. Prod contested without improvement. RadioFan (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per [1] and [2]. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of subdivisions in Albany, Georgia[edit]

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

Little more than a list of redlinks. Not one single subdivision has been notable enough thus far for an article to be written on it. Aside from the listing of subdivisions, the originating editor has decided to designate certain part of the city as "ghetto" or a "redlight district". Her method at determining these designations, based on a discussion in another article are that she saw a report saying "have not's" "economically depressed area", so through some OR, she made that a "ghetto". Then through some WP:SYNTH, she determined a "redlight district". Not a single source in the article, nor has there been any effort to update this orphan in the past month. Essentially, appears contrary to WP:IINFO. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only people who actually care about subdivision names are either land surveyors or real estate agents looking for historical context, and they certainly aren't throwing them into defamatory categories like this at all. Nate • (chatter) 22:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not ready to suggest a block for the editor, but the next step may be semi-protection if this is continually added. Just because a section of town is authorized for adult businesses doesn't mean it is the red-light district. Nate • (chatter) 00:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I wasn't suggesting a block. Your reasoning about the "red light district" is almost identical to what I said. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the newly-created East Albany, Georgia be added to this nomination as it all consists of WP:SYNTH. Nate • (chatter) 01:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:User Violetta123321 has deleted her account.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Surely a city of Albany's size merits a section within the article - the Albany article itself being none too long - of notable neighborhoods. No city of just over 75,000 people, however, has eighty-six neighborhoods. Perhaps Violeta123321 (under whatever name she currently uses) should turn her attention to familiarizing herself with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines before setting out to create such a section ... which, of course, cannot contain POV violations such as claiming particular sections to be "ghettos" or "red light districts" absent iron-clad reliable sources saying so, explicitly. This source cannot, of course, be her personal conclusions that they are, however much she believes them to meet common definitions of the same. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 18:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://georgia.hometownlocator.com/ga/dougherty/ Looks like a lot of subdivisions to me. But delete it anyway. I'm not going to be here to improve it.
Delete Surprisingly, this isn't all original research; the "subdivisions" on the list are all in the Geographic Names Information System, which in turn seems to have gotten them from a 1989 Dolph Map Company map of Albany. I can't find the original map, but in my experience the GNIS is rather loose about adding neighborhoods from maps by non-government publishers. I can't find sources outside of the GNIS to verify the neighborhoods, which makes me think they aren't well used names, much less notable. We shouldn't have what is essentially a list of what may be neighborhoods pulled from one company's city map, and if any of these turn out to be notable, they can be added to the main article on Albany. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted the the subdivisions exist. (Of course we also know that simply existing doesn't equal notability). The OR was the editor designating areas as "ghetto" or a "red light district". Sorry if I didn't make that part clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG alternatively purge of entries without articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Albany, Georgia if it can be sourced. If there are no reliable sources, it should just go; but, methinks that Dolph Map Company would constitute a reliable source; presumably, it - like most mapmakers, newspapers, etc. - makes money by publishing accurate and complete information and wouldn't have to invent neighborhoods and streets that otherwise don't exist in order to sell a product that probably is likely to be bought folded up anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will say this. Whispering Pines Subdivision could be notable because of Sherwood Baptist Church's involvement and location in that particular area. East Albany isn't really a subdivision, rather a district under the jurisdiction of Albany composed of other subdivisions. If the article it's self is going to be deleted it does need some mention in the Albany, Ga article. --166.248.67.123 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps under the Geography header you could make a designation between the two parts of the city?--166.248.67.123 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should be discussed on the talk page for the Albany article. That was more people interested in the article will have the opportunity to comment.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Baer[edit]

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

Self promotion for non-notable guy. Based mostly on primary sources and the like. damiens.rf 20:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per proposal. Junk page with no reasonable claim to notability. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overtly promotional and unsourced depsite the huge list of references. I did find something behind a pay wall from the LA Times about his play "A Lyon's Tale". But nothing else. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JAFO[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The acronym this article discusses is not notable. S Larctia (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, delete according to WP:NEO. ItsZippy (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The acronym is defined in The F-Word (book) and the New Partridge Dictionary of Slang, both reliable secondary sources. Per a Google Books search, it appears in at least a couple of dozen books, including novels as well as memoirs or other non-fiction. I'm not certain it can be expanded beyond a dictionary definition, but I think the potential exists. Cnilep (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the mere existence of a definition was sufficient, we would have an article for each of hundreds of thousands of words in each of hundreds of languages. Powers ^T 23:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTDIC. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has been conclusive defined in reliable independent sources, thereby meeting both WP:GNG and WP:NEO. The content goes beyond what you'd read in a dictionary, so WINAD does not apply. Linguogeek (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share some of those reliable independent sources? Currently the article has none... Stuartyeates (talk)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contrary to Linguogeek's assertion, a comprehensive dictionary entry would include all of the information found in this stub article. Powers ^T 23:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP is not a dictionary. Agree with LtPowers. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDIC. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that biographical entries in major reference works confers notability. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Unwin[edit]

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

Claim to fame is the poet William Cowper stayed at her and her husband's house for many years. After her husband died, Cowper stayed on and eventually became engaged to Unwin, but never married. She helped Cooper write again after a mental illness. Article has relatively little about Unwin, but more about her husband and son. Nobility cannot be inherited. Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited, but she's notable in her own right because of all the reliable sources that have noted her, such as: (1) The Dictionary of National Biography from whom her article is derived; (2) Cowper and Mary Unwin: A Centenary Memento, a book by Caroline Geary; (3) Oxford Journal of December 16th, 1922.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a tough one for me because she is mentioned in various sources, but only when it relates to Cowper. The Oxford Journal ref you mention contains two letters of Unwin to her son's friend. The book, Cowper and Mary Unwin: A Centenary Memento, is indicative about most of the refs of Unwin. The link you gave didn't include the text. Here is the text of the book. Unwin and Cowper wrote alot of letters that we still have and that is what the book is based upon. Urwin and Cowper were engaged. I'd give it a weak delete, which is why I nominated the article, but I'd understand why somebody would say weak keep. At the vary least, she should be mentioned on Cowper's article. Bgwhite (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I really can't see the "delete" argument. I can see the case for a redirect or a merge, although I'd also say that an entry in the dictionary of national biography ought to confer notability.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator placed a speedy delete notice, citing A7, on Aug 26 [3] using twinkle. This was declined shortly afterward, and rightly so, it was quite inappropriate. The nom now offers "weak delete" and that is a 'tough one' because the person has numerous mentions in well known, highly regarded, properly published sources. This counts for nothing against the opinion of Seccombe, Cowper, Hayley and the other notables mentioned in the bio, it is just wasting people's time. Unwin was the subject of an extensive entry in the DNB, that ought to have been the end of it. cygnis insignis 01:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bio in a major reference work for biographies is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I agree that Unwin doesn't seem to have done anything to merit notability. But S Marshall's and Whpg's point is persuasive: that she has biographical entries in major reference works is enough to pass the GNG, whether or not we might think she merited such entries. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but article needs improvement - and certainly the sourcing that confers notability is not present in the article.--Cerejota (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: a bio in a major reference work for biographies get you notability. Alas, the notability criteria for the major reference work aren't what we might like. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verlette Simon[edit]

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

Article does not appear to meet notability guidelines (music). A review of the internet for reliable sources did not turn any up. The only sources cited are the subject of the article's own blog and website. Article appears to be drafted/framed in a manner that suggests it was written for self promotion, by the subject or her friends. Seems a likely candidate for deletion per Wikipedia policy. Wolfhound1000 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The only ref is saying she received a local award. Releases appear to be electronic only. Ability to establish wp:notability appears unlikely but possible. I'd say give the editors time to add wp:notability-related sources, but the article is 3 years old and has none. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to nominator's comments, article has been tagged as orphaned for almost two years, and nothing has been done to link it up. Jewish-wargamer (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the two local music awards are very local indeed, and don't establish notability. There's lots of convert announcements like this. I did find one substantial piece about her in a community newspaper, and another local paper mentioned an networking organisation she founded. Taken together, this is still insufficient for me to say she meets the inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Whpq. I'm not satisfied that the local awards meet criterion 8 of WP:MUSICBIO, or that the local coverage meets criterion 1 of the guideline. Will reconsider if additional sources emerge. Gongshow ^Talk 05:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmentioned by 3rd party sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 23:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Layman[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article does not cover the concept of being a non-expert, but a particular term, of dubious notability. I believe it should be deleted, and replaced with a redirect to Laity, as this article covers the concept of Laypeople as non-clergy. S Larctia (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A dictionary type entry with no real subject. North8000 (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this could be revised into a religion article treating the older sense of the word: a non-clergyman or person not subject to vows like those of monks or nuns. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mention in the nomination statement, we have an article about that at Laity. --S Larctia (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - We might as well make it into a disambargation page linking to Laity, Lay judge and Lay magistrate.TMCk (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't heard or read the word "Layman" refer to a lay judge or magistrate. If it used, it would be more appropriate to have the disambiguation at Layperson, a more gender neutral term. --S Larctia (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would support that assuming layman would be redirected to layperson.TMCk (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lay, which is a DAB not unlike that described by TMCk. Cnilep (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It provides some background information. Biophys (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIC. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate - certainly not a keep; unsourced and essentially a dicdef. However, a redirect to Laity would be misleading as they are different concepts. A disambiguation page looks the best way forward. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Telecommunications in Hungary. All the content is presently at the target so nothing to merge. However, this is definitely a useful redirect term. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet in Hungary[edit]

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

Original research Liquidcheeze (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Telecommunications in Hungary. This is unreferenced, but hardly original research. In fact, a trivial search to find a potential source to verify the claims led first to Wikipedia itself; it transpires this page is a copy of a tiny part of Telecommunications in Hungary. The new article title is a plausible search term, making a redirect appropriate. The nominator could have done that and it would have been simpler than raising an AfD. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Article consists of one factoid sentence. It's not even a stub. No sources. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – to Telecommunications in Hungary, which already has the data in this article. 71.237.197.56 (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Bloomfield[edit]

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

autobiography tagged since December 2010 for having no references Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From this edit, it is clear this is an autobiographical piece; the article has major problems with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. Notability is most likely not met but because the article in its current form is so flawed it should be deleted regardless (and recreated only if notability can be demonstrated). RichardOSmith (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced BLP unless someone can demonstrate notability with reliable sources and strip away all the extraneous CV type material. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a resume and autobiography. There's a bit of coverage about him running against Trudeau. That's really a sacrificial lamb candidacy. See [4], and [5]. He had a conviction for securities fraud overturned on appeal [6], but there's little coverage of that either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no 3rd party mentions when searched forCurb Chain (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Ungerer[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. No references to reliable sources given in the article, and I can't find any myself. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found a mention of him here, in German. But that's insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choir of Mainstockheim[edit]

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

Without any references to reliable sources in the article, and with Google providing no indication of notability, and the lack of an article or mention on the German wiki, I have no grounds for believing in the notability of this organization per our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third-party sources are provided and I can find none myself; seems to be non-notable. ItsZippy (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 author blanked. There are no subsitantial additions to the page other than by the author.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that the subject meets notability standards. Issues over its promotional tone can be resolved by editing. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Artists Village[edit]

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

Very promotional, sources are thin. Dubious notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – AllyD (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search on The Artists Village Singapore turns up diverse items (from which I've added a 2010 New York Times article to the references); a Google Books search turns up a snippet view of what looks like a chapter on this organisation in "Situation: collaborations, collectives and artist networks from Sydney Singapore Berlin", published by the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney. Also coverage in books such as "Asian ethical urbanism: a radical postmodern perspective", "The Asian modern: culture, capitalist development, Singapore" and more. AllyD (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See in particular the assertions of notability on this page from "The Asian Modern". AllyD (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per two new inline citations from NY Times, which establishes notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another lousy nom by a clueless otter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - the consensus is that as a national standards body, for which reliable sources are available, it is notable. The article requires work, in particular the addition of sources, but these issues can be dealt with by editing. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Board of Agrément[edit]

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

No third-party references at all and does not seem (to me) to pass WP:ORG for notability. Primary article contributors are single-purpose accounts that have only edited this article. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 17:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of third party refs can be found; this search, in particular, shows many instances of government departments (local and national) referring to the organisation on a par with BSI Group. I believe these demonstrate ample notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article passes WP:ORG for notability, of being an official UK body that has significant or demonstrable effects on society by providing certification of safety for construction products and systems and providing inspection services in support of their installers. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and encyclopedic. As pointed out above, it is a national standards body exercising a quasi-public function. There is plenty of evidence in a Google search to demonstrate the nature of its work and its significance. Or see this book for an example of its publications. There is coverage here in a independent publication, but GNG isn't really relevant to national regulatory and standards bodies if they are officially sanctioned. --AJHingston (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cholamandal Artists' Village[edit]

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

Ad-like. Sources are only tangential. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – AllyD (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Ad-like" is a reason for deletion only if an article lacks relevant content; this article looks far from being in that situation. I'm struggling with the idea that the sources are "only tangential". There is an India Today reference where this association is first on a list of "10 biggest art moments"; there is a New York Times article discussing the group. Then under Further Reading there is a 400 page book on the association published by Oxford University Press. These are already in the article, so this isn't even a WP:BEFORE situation? AllyD (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per reliable sources listed directly above this message. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of a book published by Oxford University Press in 2004 called Cholamandal: An Artists' Village, is profiled in another book, an artist biography, Husain: Riding The Lightning, and in Art and visual culture in India, 1857-2007. Extensive coverage in publications such as The Hindu, (dozens of articles there), the Toronto Star, and India Today. The coverage in the New York Times is far beyond tangential. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (bordering Speedy Keep) Subject has been covered by numerous secondary sources. The book by OUP and the article in NY Times is good enough to indicate that the subject has received international attention. Numerous mentions in reputable Indian newspapers like The Hindu. But the article is written very poorly and needs a lot of cleanup. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 00:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But of course we agree, as do probably 99% of active editors here, that poor writing in itself is not a valid reason to delete an article about a clearly notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as above. SL93 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The basis of the nomination for deletion, that the article is "Ad-like. Sources are only tangential.", with tangential meaning, per Merriam Webster dictionary's definition for 'Tangential': "touching lightly : incidental, peripheral <tangential involvement>; also : of little relevance <arguments tangential to the main point>," indicates that the nominator didn't follow the proper guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE, and based the nomination for deletion upon opinion rather than checking for reliable sources before nominating the article, per stated WP:BEFORE guidelines. In this case, the nominator is basing deletion criterion upon the sources in the article, and not upon a search for sources as is required in WP:BEFORE. Therefore, the basis of the nomination is nullified, because the nominator failed to follow Wikipedia guidelines for nominating articles for deletion in AfD. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not even in that ballpark of sourcing's a bit difficult and only tangential sources exist etc, a minute on Google is sufficient to check notability. And per all the above. —SpacemanSpiff 05:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments to merge the volumes into the main article, while noted, provide no good rationale for keeping the main article. lifebaka++ 03:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion on my talk page, I am amending my close to no consensus on Saint-Germain-Des_Prés Café, merge others up into it. lifebaka++ 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Germain-des-Prés Café[edit]

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

Nomination also includes the following articles:

Delete. None of these albums appear to have any notability and I can't find any significant coverage. I thought there'd be some sources on the French wiki but nothing there either. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all - wikipedia isn't discogs MadCow257 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the rest to Saint-Germain-des-Prés Café. While each volume may not be notable in itself, I believe the series may be. They claim to have sold close to a million copies [7]. There are also professional reviews for vol 2 allmusic and vol 4 RA, allmusic.--Muhandes (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it's an important compilation, though not as important as eg Hôtel Costes so therefore I think Merging would be the correct thing to do, and perhaps copy the style of Café del Mar which lists all the tracks of all the albums in the same article, but does not have separate articles for each compilation.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the sources to confirm this importance? I couldn't find anything that doesn't do much more than confirm its existence, so until these sources are found and added, it fails the notability requirement of having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG alternatively Merge&redirect and tag as needing references. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Barenaked Ladies. per Lifebaka, whose comments are a perfectly valid closing rationale that I had arrived at independently prior to reading his/her comments. causa sui (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Naked[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only sources are primary. Previous merge attempts declined. Last AFD closed as no consensus after two relists due to complete lack of participation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to advise one way or the other here. I'll say from my perspective that this is a significant band with this being an informative and useful piece — which doesn't hold much water at AfD. Still, it should be an objective here — if this subject is found lacking in terms of notability — to port this information to the (bulletproof) article on The Yellow Tape. Keep or Merge, don't delete. I presume that this is the nominator's intent as well. While demo tapes are generally not considered notable in the same way that albums are, this seems to have been released and re-released for sale at shows over a protracted period of time... It might be reasonable to conceive of this as a "cassette-only release" rather than a "demo tape" per se. It's a tough call. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know i'll be discriminated against due to the fact that i'm an IP, but this is a famous demo by a band extremely popular (or at least at a time) in Canada. The article is also of surprisingly high quality for an article about a demo tape, although i'm not sure if that is a valid argument. Sadly, this article does not have very much traffic, so it will most likely simply be deleted due to lack of a consensus. 65.190.66.32 (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that if there's any way this page can be kept, it should be. It has a lot of detail and good information, and I see pages for a lot of bands' demos and early independent releases, etc. Or, failing being able to keep it, is there anywhere it could be merged? Or at the absolute least, I'd say it should be turned into a redirect to Barenaked Ladies' discography page, not deleted. DeadpoolRP (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"By a notable act" is not a reason to keep; see WP:NOTINHERITED. A redirect is fine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we cannot keep this article, I say we should merge this and all other Barenaked Ladies demo tapes into one single page. This could also be a good way to include more information on much less notable tapes such as the unreleased Barenaked Recess and Variety Recordings. Buck Naked would simply redirect to the demo tapes page. 65.190.66.32 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED / WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like DeadpoolRP said, it has a lot of useful information about the tape. The tape also has several early versions of many of the band's most popular songs. If the article is deleted, we should merge all the demo tapes like that IP address said. ChineseLamps (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know a ton about Wikipedia policy versus essays, but I notice that the page linked to twice above at WP:NOTINHERITED specifically says at the top that it's just an essay that "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy" and it's not actually Wikipedia policy. So how does citing the information on an essay work when they're opinion, not policy? DeadpoolRP (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, but still. There are no sources for these EPs beyond primary sources. No sources, no article. "It's by a notable artist!" doesn't hold water and you know that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a legitimate question, by the way. I've never heard of Wikipedia essays before and thus have no idea what the policy is regarding essay vs. policy, hence the question. I'm not sure why Wiki editors always insist on telling me what I do or do not know . . . DeadpoolRP (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources needed to establish notability. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to close this, but I worry that the way I was going to would come across as a WP:SUPERVOTE. Anyways, reading the above, I note two very simple things. First, the delete argument that no good sources are provided to meet the WP:GNG seems to be spot on, implying that we perhaps shouldn't have an article at this title; this argument is also not refuted. Second, the keep argument that the content in the article is good also seems to be spot on, and is not refuted. It seems to me that we should split the difference and redirect the article to Barenaked Ladies, leaving the content in the history to be merged at editorial discretion. The suggestion above for creating an article to cover all of the Barnaked Ladies' demo tapes is also worth looking into. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My worry with that is that the information will simply be forgotten and never be fully merged. A band article typically doesn't have album information, as it doesn't fit well. But this article has too much interesting and important information to simply summarize it. I can make a draft of a "Barenaked Ladies demo tapes" page in my userspace if anyone has interest in the merging idea. 03:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChineseLamps (talk • contribs)

I have no objection to a redirect provided that only material that is reliably sourced is merged; and that is, at present, very little. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced content to Barenaked Ladies. Not independently notable as far as I can tell - the sources in the article don't seem to provide significant coverage and all I could find was this and this, which are no better. But assuming it can be verified, there's no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the band's article per WP:NNC, and it seems to be fairly important in their history. The title is a plausible enough search term so a redirect would be good too. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've actually put together the demo tapes page in a subpage of my userspace. You can see it by clicking here. Please tell me if it will work well before I move it to an actual page. ChineseLamps (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barenaked Ladies or to a new article, per the excellent rationale presented by Lifebaka, which I cannot think of anything decent to add to what they have already said. I do think the idea of creating a new article for the demo tapes is an idea that can and should be explored, but that can be discussed through normal editorial processes. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - the consensus is that this article should be kept in some form though not necessarily as a standalone page. The question as to whether the sourced parts should be merged into Going postal would be appropriate to a separate merge discussion. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal killings[edit]

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

List of generally non-notable news events. A couple of them aren't actually examples of going postal, but rather incidents where others killed postal workers; any of the others that are actually notable should be in the main article, which is short and which is already set up to deal with individual events. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trim, merge, and redirect to going postal. I fail to see why this even needs to be brought up here. Be WP:BOLD and do what needs doing. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones, besides those which are not examples of going postal, would you suggest trimming? The ones already in Going postal are notable for, eg., resulting in changes to USPS regulations, or being the deadliest workplace shooting in the USA by a woman. (There are others there which may not be notable and perhaps should be removed - I'm just trying to explain what could make one notable, not trying to defend everything that's already there.) Or rather, which ones would you suggest merging? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that you ask, I agree you have a point. This isn't as simple as I initially thought. Going postal appears to focus on the United States, so it might benefit from expansion with examples from other countries as this article lists them.

Some examples lack sources altogether. I haven't looked to find sources for those, but if none can be found, they could be removed. The entry for Canada seems to be a family murder that happened to involve a postal worker but there's no indication that there's a connection between the killing and working for the post office. The Australian ones appear relevant.

One question I have concerns vernacular. "Going postal" is a US-centric term, so is it appropriate to merge in examples from other countries? Although "going postal" originated from postal workers doing the killing, nowadays it means (according to the article) getting angry to the point of killing indiscrimminately. It might make more sense to compile a list of mass homicides regardless of where they occurred. List of mass homicides might be a title worthy of renaming going postal and expanding it.

I've heard this term throughout my life and seen news coverage of these mass killings, which leads me to wonder if someone has investigated the attractiveness of post offices for carrying out the act. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets every requirement for a standalone list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you either stay out or identify yourself as the creator of the article? How can you be judge and judged at the same time? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

keep — the above discussion highlights the reasons why merging to going postal is probably not a good idea, esp. the us-centricity of both the term and that list. since the people mentioned in this list are in no way independently notable and neither are the individual crimes, but they share a notable characteristic, a list is the perfect place to have this information. this seems to me to fall under the clause in WP:LISTPURP that says that lists may be useful if "grouped by theme". if some of the entries don't fit the theme of the list, why not take them out by ordinary editing? if anything's going to go, it ought to be that going postal is merged here, but that's not under discussion here. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the other way is a possibility too, but that's out of scope for a deletion discussion. If the article is kept, appropriate merge tags could be placed on both articles and a new discussion would commence on the destination article's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that any of these events meet the GNG if there are two or more news articles covering them. With that threshold, it's not clear to me (SNGs like NEVENT notwithstanding) that there is an agreement on what counts as a "notable" event. Note further (ha ha) that per WP:NNC, lists such as these don't need each entry to meet notability guidelines; notability for the topic and verifiability for the entries are sufficient. Thus, while it might be improved by editing, I don't see any reason to force a merge or deletion. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Going postal, by only moving the sourced incidence in this article with a simple intro of the term's usage out-of the US. Both articles together are considered a topic, but this alone ain't. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 03:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - should not be merged. simple.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't understand why the overall theme of this list, which seems to be "murders in one of three countries where either the victim, the perpetrator, or both were postal employees" is a useful theme to make a list article out of. What is the encyclopedic interest that combines postal workers who "went postal" with postal workers who happened to be killed on the job? I don't see one. gnfnrf (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect: pretty arbitrary to focus on all murders not just perpetrated by postal workers, but perpetrated against postal workers. We don't want to see a list like this for every profession or person. Much better to present this in context with "going postal". Dzlife (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Even if a list article is not appropriate, allow editors to merge the information in to another article. Robert Brockway (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Going postal. Alternatively Purge unreferenced entries. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pelé's matches and goals[edit]

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

This article, and its subarticles (if and when they get created) will violate WP:NOTSTATS; there is also a discrepancy in the number of games/goals in Pelé's career, meaning this article can never be complete. Giant Snowman 16:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user here is merely trying to disrupt editing. Nevertheless, if that is the case, I can find n u m e r o u s e a m p l e s which that could apply. The matches and goals of what is regarded the best ever player of all times in the sport definetely has 5,550,000 results, more than enough to qualify for its notability. Also, he is the player to have played the most matches and scored the most goals in the sport. Wikiproject football is becoming notorious for eurocentrism and giving a lot of leaway to promoting and keeping European articles but it is next to impossible for articles that aren't European. That is why I refuse to join such group.

As far as the count, sources are plentiful. Here is one of the best ones which details even the date of Pele's matches and goals took place. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. (P.S. the "examples" are lists of players, not lists of match results and goals scored by a single player) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article passes WP:NOTSTATS, it is comprised of more than just a recap or summary of Pelé's matches and goals and it does NOT have excessive listings of statistics. The nomination to delete above by The Rambling Man isn't qualified, it just states deleting per WP:NOTSTATS guidelines that the article actually passes. The list within the article of red links regarding lists of Pelé's matches could be merged into the actual List of Pelé's matches and goals, rather than having individual standalone articles. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I didn't nominate it for deletion. Perhaps you need to look again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably worth noting that this is going to be a "header" article to a bunch of NOTSTATS lists. In case that wasn't clear enough. When we start listing every match and every goal for footballers.... oh dear. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And having spent a further few minutes thinking, where does this nonsense stop? John Wark's matches and goals? Jason Scotland's matches and goals? Pele was interesting but not that interesting that we need an article on every game he ever played and every goal he ever scored. Steve Claridge would rival him for endurance. I wouldn't want (ever) to see an article (or many articles) listing the games he played in and the odd goal he scored. Why would anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is precedent in having a list of, perhaps, milestone games and/or goals included in the player's main article or a related location but this seems to be a method to advance an agenda and is a great example of the maxim "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." — KV5 • Talk • 23:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article isn't in list format, it's written in prose format. Omit the word "list" from the article and it becomes a different type of article. Perhaps rename it to "Pelé's matches and significant accomplishments", and it becomes another type of article. Perhaps a merge of notable information to the Pelé article would be appropriate. This would be superior to simply blanket deleting all of the valid, referenced information that could be included appropriately in the Pelé article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is clearly intended to have multiple subpages that will list all his matches and goals. In that way it will violate WP:NOTSTATS. Any significant matches and accomplishments is 1) subjective, and 2) can be easily placed in prose in the Pele article. No need for an additional article(s). Digirami (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTSTATS a list of a footballer's games and goals is just overkill. Why is this needed and how do you decide which footballers are "good/notable enough" to have one of these pages. It would be subjective and based on personal opinions, creating a dangerous precedent. Adam4267 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Digirami that it would be preferable to include sufficiently referenced details on significant matches within the article on Pelé instead. Deserter1 talk 15:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anything worth keeping is no doubt already included in the parent article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - If anyone deserves a set of articles like this, it's probably Pelé, but where do we draw the line? After all, this is probably bordering on listcruft anyway. – Pee Jay 13:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Alternatively, rename as Notable games of Pelé's and ensure that every game has a reference with significant coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not directoryCurb Chain (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile justice in Pakistan[edit]

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

Original research, essay, advocacy. Unexplained PROD decline by article creator. ~~Article is unsourced.~~ While this subject meets the notability guidelines, this current article is totally unacceptable and unlikely to be made into an ~~sourced,~~ encyclopedic article. Delete. Safiel (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The addition of a source is noted. Safiel (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The rationale for deletion was nullified by inclusion of a reliable source. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I am going to withdraw this nomination and will redact some of the objectionable material from the article myself. Safiel (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Oliva[edit]

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

This article doesn't have reliable sources independent of the subject, and so does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for people. Extensive talk page discussions with Mr. Oliva's supporters on the article talk page have turned up many attempts at sourcing, but they are mostly trivial mentions or primary sources. The only exception is an article about Oliva's advertising agency in the Pinecrest Tribune, which is an alternative weekly / 'community news' publication. I do not believe the Tribune article rises to the level of a reliable biographical source. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. There may be a cache of non-English references on there on them, but if there is it's well hidden... Stuartyeates (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Almost a résumé anyway. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pavement Music[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability and after searching the internet it seems that the article is not source-able. Does not pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It is true that the article has links to articles of artists associated with the label but notability is not inherited : "If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable." I was unable to find any sources which make more than a passing mention of Pavement Music. A google news search yields zero results. Article currently consists of a single short unsourced sentence. It seems unlikely that enough information could ever be properly sourced to write more than a couple additional sentences. Half of the sentence in the article is about the label having been absorbed into another label which was recently deleted for lack of notability. Even the official website linked in the article has literally zero information, just an under construction warning. Topic will never acquire notability because the label is defunct. Also its been more than 5 years since the article was created. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 16:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. google news archive shows nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article is acceptable as a list of artists, which is just about all it is. If I were interested in one or more of these bands, this article would provide a useful way to discover their label mates. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC) — Hobbes Goodyear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

please provide evidence of sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My claim is that the article is valid as a list, not on the basis of the notability of the label as a business or organization. As a list, I don't think there is a notability issue, as all of the artists on the list save two are linked to existing Wikipedia articles that are, on cursory examination, respectable. Even the remaining two are listed in allmusic.com and have reviewed albums there. If the title of this article were "List of Pavement Music Artists", would there still be a notability issue? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a category would be more appropriate for the purpose you describe, just finding related articles. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but then would require a template change and updates to all the associated pages. And is there a good way with categories to cope with valid list members that don't have a Wikipedia entry? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPLASH Bartow[edit]

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

Non notable event with one local newspaper report. Other sources are blogs and primary sources. Previously CSD G11(Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article as currently written seems more like advert. Local newspaper report not sufficient for notability. Student7 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local event. Agree with Student7. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health Fidelity[edit]

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

I see no evidence for notability of this admittedly "early stage" company. The many references talk only about Electronic medical records in general. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ....an early stage healthcare data structuring company that specializes in using natural language processing (NLP) and ontologies for advanced healthcare analytics. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Stacked footnotes and turgid prose can't conceal the BizSpam nature of this piece. Non-notable company. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CORP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Streamray[edit]

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

Article is just thinly-veiled spam for the company. Unambiguous advertising. Jethwarp (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article's references prove both notability and verifiability. Wiki editors are just unfairly targeting it because it is an adult-based company.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cams.com fails WP:WEB and Streamray Inc. fails WP:CORP. The traffic ranking doesn't imply notability. St Anselm (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subsidiary company. Carrite (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Agree with StAnselm. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 22:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BridgeHead Software[edit]

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

Not notable. No assertion of notable, Refs are all own references or directory/ YouTube refs and three give 404 errors. No independent citation. Small back office software supplier Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree, keep. Broken links should be fixed and notability is not in doubt - eg see this article [15] in The Register which says that "[Dell person] reckons the Bridgehead software leads the medical archive industry." Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sawgoek[edit]

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

There seems to be no reliable source for the existence of such a writing system. The only reference in the article is a news article, which seems to have been copied from a self-published article. This source is unreliable, but it contains only a brief mention with tenuous evidence: the phrase (meaning "original writing") occurs in the Baeu Rodo text, and early inscriptions have been found in Guangxi, but no authority is quoted for a link (or anything else). The image in the article is unrelated. Kanguole 13:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No particular opinion. As original article creator, I have to admit that the article does not meet WP:V, and fixing this might not be achievable. I don't really mind what happens from here on in. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 15:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the article is based on an unreliable and inaccurate source - also an image added is deinitely not Sawgoek, but a much later system. There are other sources that talk about Sawgeok this however the article does not reflect these. The article calls sawgoek logographic which is questionable to say the least. Johnkn63 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are those sources, and what do they say about Sawgoek? Kanguole 10:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One source is "《古壮字字典》方块古壮字研究", http://www.docin.com/p-103520563.html . Johnkn63 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies whilst the above thesis does mention sawndip and what may have come before it does not use the term "sawgoek". The use of the "sawgoek" in Chinese are restricted to copies of the newspaper article. Not only should the article be deleted but the references to it should be removed. Johnkn63 (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there are no reliable sources for this article, and it fails notability (not a single hit for Sawgoek on either Google Books or Google Scholar). Even if we coud find some reliable sources it is doubtful that there is enough information on this legendary writing system to justify a separate article. BabelStone (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article is based on an unreliable source and incorrect. Johnkn63 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Person first approach in therapy[edit]

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

PROD removed without any explanation. Fails WP:GNG, seems to be a promotional attempt for [16]. Possible WP:FRINGE, no third party WP:RS for WP:V Cerejota (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as non-notable and supported by no sources beyond one self-promoting website. NB: the whole article is in fact a direct copyvio of this site; as a result I have deleted almost all the content. Please look at the page history to see the article as it was at the time of nomination. The only reason I did not speedy it is so as not to override this AfD process. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and speedy and close early as per WP:DP and per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Early_closure in the speedy delete clause, you can close early. Creator has been blocked for 48 hours.--Cerejota (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to just let this run the AFD process. AFD is more "final" than a CSD is.--v/r - T P 14:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty obvious case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be concept/form of therapy invented by one person (Patrick Doyle, who runs a company called Person First Solutions) and expounded in his self-published book, The Transparent Self: Towards a Person First Approach. I can find no reliable third party coverage of Doyle, his book, or the concept "Person First approach" when used to describe a form of psychotherapy. Note that the term "person first" is often used as an alternative to "people first" in People-first language [17], but that's not what this article is about. This article appears to have had previous incarnations as Person First Approach (created and subsequently deleted after the sole author blanked the page in 2009, the year Doyle's book came out) and Person First Approach in Therapy, first created in 2009 by the same editor who created the article under consideration here. It was deleted via PROD in 2010 and again today after the sole author blanked the page. Not being an admin, I can't access the page histories for these deleted articles, but I likewise suggest letting this AfD run its course to put a clear decision on the subject's notability "on record". Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those former incarnations, Voceditenore. I've used my magical admin powers to look at them and the content is very similar to this one - down to the references used and the wikilinks made. The page has been previously deleted three times, twice after blanking by its sole editor (the same one as this incarnation) and once after an expired PROD. If this AfD does agree to delete, I'd suggest salting all these titles. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concur with salting. It's pretty obvious from evidence now presented that this is self promotion. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be self-promotion by the book's author, but someone who works in the area, came across the book or company, and decided to create an article about it... repeatedly. Having said that, I also support salting the various versions of the title. The subject is pretty clearly non-notable (in the Wikipedia sense) and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all of the above reasons plus it says nothing about it other than one adjective and who it was "inspired by". ("Inspired by" is not a connection and essentially says nothing.) Appears to be to just to try to get people to go to their web site which is the only reference. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am defending the article, but you are reading a very trimmed down version. Check article history.--v/r - T P 21:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was trimmed out was a copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that and I'm not supporting the article. But North8000 has made a judgement on how the article looks now after those !voting delete have trimmed it (albeit trimmed by policy).--v/r - T P 22:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete for all the reasons listed below — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 00:18, 12 September 2011

Metadefinition[edit]

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

Whether it's original research/synthesis or complete nonsense is difficult to tell: it's so poorly written it's impossible to guess what a metadefinition is from it. The term is at best a dictionary definition, though more likely a neologism: a Google search turns up precisely one page, this one; a scholar search a handful of results, in each of which it seems to be defined anew each time. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per proposer. OR/gobbledygook. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poorly written WP:OR by WP:SYNTH, with miscellaneous out-of-context quotes. There is a core WP:DICDEF from mathematics (more succinctly expressed as something like "a meta-definition or definition schema is a rule for producing definitions" [18]), but this dicdef does not need an article given the content already at metalanguage. -- 202.124.73.223 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.223 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more original research and synthesis. This term seems to have a meaningful significance in mathematics, as one editor has pointed out; but the author, in characteristic style, is trying to stretch this term to cover a vast array of fields it has seldom or never appeared in, to meet his/her goals of some kind of unified-field synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely readable original research. The references are a motley collection, from The Origin of Species to an academic journal about sexual abuse. Doesn't seem to focus on a single subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretentious and difficult to read. No clear subject or meaning. --S Larctia (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the article's creator and substantial contributor. Google Scholar yields 498 hits for "metadefinition", that's notable by definition. The example regarding 'Liquid' demonstrates that it's not WP:OR and more than WP:DICDEF from mathematics. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar yields 5,750 hits for "gobbledygook". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any two words in juxtaposition such as "of the" may not be an encyclopedic subject. "Of the" is in some 7,410,000 articles on Google Scholar, but is not on Wikipedia; however, gobbledygook is.Marshallsumter (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before in regard to this whole concept of yours, Marshall, what we've got here is "synthesis by Google": the raw appearance of two words (in this cases, a word and a suffix) together in different contexts does nothing to establish that the term means the same thing to all those using it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incomprehensible original research. LadyofShalott 16:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Above reasons plus it's so incoherent that it doesn't even say anything. BTW, the word is used only once in the reference list and in that listing it appears in a blue link and is italicized...at first impression it appears to be the title of the work but it isn't. The same thing is repeated in "for further reading" North8000 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is deleted what should be done with the copy at User:Marshallsumter/Metadefinition? Edward321 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have MfD for things in userspace. LadyofShalott 00:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better question, what should be done User:Marshallsumter and the other articles he created in main space? Some of them look legitimate (to someone who knows very little about astronomy), but the series of articles currently on AfD cast doubt on those as well. —Ruud 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incoherent collection of random pieces of text. —Ruud 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much original research. Searches on Google, Google News and Google Scholar do not bring up anything useful. Most hits seem to use the term in a completely different way to how the article presents it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 17:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bollocks. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I commend the author on producing a lead paragraph unparalleled in its incoherence, but it's still nonsense babble, and seemingly OR. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I have never seen so little content expressed in so many words. A comparison with this seems highly appropriate. Wikipedia is not a place for things that aren't actually about anything. Reyk _YO! 22:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made-up word with no usage anywhere. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an oddball collection of unrelated tidbits tied together with a string of postmodern-like incoherence. Deli nk (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense.AstroCog (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the best nominations I've seen of late, right on the money: "Whether it's original research/synthesis or complete nonsense is difficult to tell: it's so poorly written it's impossible to guess what a metadefinition is from it. The term is at best a dictionary definition, though more likely a neologism..." Carrite (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My compliments to the nominator; I agree with Carrite. bobrayner (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I didn't understand a word of this. WP:SYNTH to boot. Linguogeek (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 22:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Award & MAX Korea 2009[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/K-1 Award & MAX Korea 2009

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

another non notable sporting event that fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no independent sources and is just routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources and notability. Papaursa (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; lack of good independent sources suggests that this falls short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 08:52, 6 September 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, lifebaka++ 13:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence of any lasting notability. Such one-off "sporting" events rarely have, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Fighting Network KHAN 2007 in Seoul[edit]

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of non notable results. that doesn't meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These articles are just routine sports coverage. Most of the events are loaded with non-notable fighters and the events themselves are, at best, qualifying events for qualifying events for title tournaments. Papaursa (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly notable events which do not pass GNG. Timbouctou (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not appear to pass the GNG threshould. bobrayner (talk) 08:52, 6 September 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, lifebaka++ 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted? Seems consensus is plenty clear above. Delete all as per nom. Just routine "sporting" events. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pope (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD by IP user, no explanation given. Footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played at a fully-pro level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 12:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kostas Stafylidis[edit]

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

Contested PROD by an anonymous user with no reason given. PROD reason was "Non-notable youth player who has never appeared in a fully-professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY."

As for sources, i could only find this interview for the official Superleague website: [19] (in Greek). I am not sure if this satisfies WP:GNG or not. Interestingly enough, no third-party media source picked that interview up. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 11:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro match and therefore fails WP:NSPORT, and he has not received significant coverage, therefore failing WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ezplot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Add-on for Microsoft Excel with no evidence of notability. (Previous AfD was inconclusive since author of the article requested deletion. They have now decided to re-instate it.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia, and I am trying to meet all guidelines. Could you please provide more specific instructions on what would make the article better, or what would help the notability of the article? The USPTO registered trademark for EZPLOT was just updated and the EZplot software has a large user base, particularly engineers. Thank you. Inquiry2 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry2 The main issue isn't the quality of the article. In order for a SUBJECT to have a stand-alone article it has to meet the requirements defined at wp:notability. The main question is whether or not it meets those criteria. If you wanted to make or bolster a case that it meets those criteria, the best way is to find and reference coverage which meets the criteria specified there. Very roughly speaking, this would be substantial things written about it in independent reliable sources. You should be doing this immediately if you think they exist and you want it kept. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Microsoft Excel (if there's anything worth merging) otherwise delete Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait 1-2 weeks See if author can come up with sources that satisfy wp:notability. Author should be doing this now anyway if they want it kept. Author says they are new which means that this question has not yet played out. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NAv6[edit]

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

The article had previously been left with a stale construction tag that was removed. It was then Proded. Article was deproded by a single edit anon IP without addressing the underlying concern. It appears that there are not sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are 3 Google Books hits on this and about 50 in Google Scholar, all from papers written by this group (National Advanced IPv6 Centre) or citations thereof. Not enough in my view. If they had more citations I'd be inclined to keep it. There are also about a dozen Google News hits, mostly experts from this group being cited. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the original author of this page. I have added references from newspapers, but this is not a Research organisation that is likely to have a cover story in the NYT. Most references will be joint collaboration announcements by people like ITU, APNIC, IPv6 Forum, etc. I request guidance, please. - Sanjeev Gupta 10:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the short answer is to establish wp:notability for the subject in accordance with wp:notability. And the core of that would be finding and referencing substantive coverage of the subject by independent sources. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets General notability guidelines with the current inclusion of this Star Publications article in the Wikipedia article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage based on media briefings is not independent of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing reference in The Star doesn't confer notability. Article seems like advertisement to me. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Tarrabain[edit]

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

Welsh-educated Canadian lawyer. Insufficient evidence of notabilty. (Wikipedia is not for memorials.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject appears to be notable only for his death in an auto accident WP:BLP1E. This is insufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Msnicki (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. The subject was a lawyer who had a non-notable law practice and died in a non-notable way. I disagree that WP:1E/WP:BLP1E applies here; that would apply if the event of his death was notable and should have a Wikipedia article, and that does not appear to be the case. I'm sure he was a great guy, and deserves a memorial someplace, but Wikipedia is not that place. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. TJRC (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add'l comment; Msnicki revised his comment after my response to it, so my response might appear to be non-sequitor. To clarify:

WP:1E (as Msnicki originally cited) does not apply here. That policy is about individuals notable for one event, and suggests that there should be an article about the event rather than about the individual. In this case, Tarrabain is not notable for one event; he is not notable at all. If applicable, WP:1E would suggest moving the article to a title about the circumstances of his death. But that policy does not apply, and there should neither be an article about Tarrabain nor about Tarrabain's death.

WP:BLP1E (as Msnicki has now changed to) is even less applicable; first, for the same reasons as WP:1E; and second, because by definition, an article about the deceased person or about that person's death is not a biography of a living person. TJRC (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that the only coverage is of the subject's death in an auto accident and that this is not sufficient to establish notability, do we not? That's all I intended by my WP:!VOTE. WP:1E and WP:BLP1E basically elaborate the same point, that if all the coverage is about an event other than the subject, that's not sufficient for notability of this subject (though it might establish the notability of the event). WP:BLP1E is simply little more specific to the context of a WP:BLP, where the subject is an individual. I found those discussions helpful but apparently they aren't to everyone. I intended my change as fixing a typo but TJRC refactored it with a strikeout, which I reverted, which I guess has made him unhappy. I happen to think having your comments refactored is a little more annoying than having someone fail to use strikeout on every change but that could be just me. Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only evidence of notability I can find on Google is a car crash and the usual puffery about 'prominent lawyer', yet no detailed biography or thorough article about him from a respectable publication (outside of his death, that is). As far as I can tell this BLP cannot be detailed without resorting to original research, and as such cannot adhere to WP:V (maybe as a stub it would, but not in its current state) nor meet the inclusion criteria. The blatant puffery in the article doesn't help its case either. Delete — CharlieEchoTango — 05:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 15:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Skanderbeg[edit]

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

Myth of Skanderbeg is another WP:CFORK essay like the recently deleted Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion. The sources themselves deal with various subjects including Skanderbeg, however, the myth of Skanderbeg appears only as a briefly mentioned phrase in very few of them. Many sections of the article don't even deal with aspects of Skanderbeg's life. For example Albanian intelligentsia proudly asserted: "We Albanians are the original and autochthonous race of the Balkans. The Slavs are conquerors and immigrants who came but yesterday from Asia."--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay with no encyclopedic value. --Vinie007 11:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems a well-sourced article. Takabeg (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay, whose sources have been misrepresented and have no relation to the supposed subject.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot compare with the article Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion, because I've never read it. We have article Skanderbeg in literature and art. As long as I understand, the article Skanderbeg is too crowded to be merge. Takabeg (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skanderbeg in literature and art was created as a split, but Myth of Skanderbeg is neither a split nor a subject.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Vinnie said it all... Fork to be merged with Scanderbeg.Majuru (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the second time this article is been nominated for deletion. The subject of this article is Skanderbeg as National myth which doesn't necessarily imply that Sk. is a pure myth. It could be incorporated in the Skanderbeg article if the latter was stable and neutral. Unfortunatelly, that article is constantly guarded by certain users who erase everything that does not fit in the standard Albanian version of the history. The article may change up to 20 times per day and is hopelessly cluttered with surpassed nationalistic hymns and POV and is almost sure that if the "Myth of Sk" is merged in there, it will soon be anihilated by various tricks. This article must stay for the serious reader who wants to learn the history of Sk's interpretation as a hero, which is something different from the history of Sk. himshelf. --Euzen (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time this article gets nominated for deletion. The article's sources don't deal with this subject and only very few of them mention the title (each in a different context). That being said most parts aren't even about Skanderbeg like the Albanian intelligentsia proudly asserted: "We Albanians are the original and autochthonous race of the Balkans. The Slavs are conquerors and immigrants who came but yesterday from Asia."--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. It was nominated for merging on 24/3/2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myth_of_Skanderbeg) which closed with no consensus. Is this nomination for deletion a proposal that the information of this article has to vanish altogether? --Euzen (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – (No vote.) Article could become worthy via more research and use of reliable sources. There is a degree of synthesis occurring in the article as it currently exists. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am involved user because I am one of the main contributors to the article. The article's topic is myth which exists and meets all Wikipedia:Notability guideline requests. It is well-researched and have significant coverage by many reliable sources which are verifiable and independent from the subject. There is no other article about this myth on wikipedia. According to WP:DEL#CONTENT any dispute over page content should be dealt at the relevant talk page not by deleting the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a pure POV article with no encyclopedic value.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DEL#CONTENT any dispute over page content should be dealt at the relevant talk page not by deleting the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the title, this gives some depth of coverage and shows that Skanderberg was made quasi-mythical. It could theoretically be merged into Skanderberg's article, like Mao's personality cult. As a side note, the nominator and article creator seem to have a history of disagreeing over content issues, like at Durrës County (Kingdom of Serbia). I hope the nominator is not using AFD to try and settle a conflict. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Vinnie. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Issues of WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability still not addressed. Best I can find is a trivial mention in Retro Gaming Hacks [20]. Previously Kept because.. uh... I'm not sure... it was 2006 and "it's on Google" seemed to be enough back then? Marasmusine (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources whatsoever and while Googling turns up some hits, none are useful, failing WP:GNG. Completely agree with nom about the previous AfD; before the establishment of the notability guidelines, many of the old AfDs were little more than WP:ILIKEIT discussions. Msnicki (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable source offering coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established. Just another program... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Followership[edit]

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

Contested prod about an obscure and non-notable approach to project management. There are virtually no ghits for "Project Followership", and most of them seem to trace back to one Italian source. This is a neologism and fails WP:NEO. There's also a major WP:COI - the article's author seems to be an author of the primary reference for this subject. Interestingly the article has only been edited by SPAs, the most recent of whom has downplayed the original author's role in this subject. andy (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. andy (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Smith, I am Marco Sampietro, one of the author involved in Project Followership. Honestly I did not upload the entry. Is the email/name of the person that did it available? However this is my comment. The entry, for my knowledge of the topic, is accurate. Of course project followership is quite new, however I would not call it obscure and non-notable. Obscure seems indicating something that has not clear objectives and boundaries, while project followership means applying the project management discipline with a bottom-up perspective, by taking the project team member point of view. The difference between project followership and project management is like speaking about subordinated and boss: they are both workers but they have very different responsbilities. About non-notable I can agree that there are not may hits but NASA, one of the co-founder of the project management discipline, accepted project followership as a topic for its Project Management Challenge, one of the most important conferences around the world. I do not understand the meaning of SPA you mentioned in your post. Can you explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampmarc (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPA. There's nothing wrong as such with a "single purpose account" but in this particular case I'm very concerned. The entry was created by "Marcosampietro" and now we have a comment from "Sampmarc" who says he is Marco Sampietro but has noting to do with the original author despite having an identical name. Meanwhile edits and positive comments have been made by two other SPAs. This looks very much like sockpuppetry. andy (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. It is not possible to know the email of the original contributor? What I can imagine is that one of my students did the entry. I knew about this entry because one of my business contacts emailed me the presence of project followership on Wikipedia. However, regadless the origin, to me what is important is that the article depicts the real origin of project followership. If the concern is to check if I am the real Marco Sampietro, you can write directly to my email. I do not know if this is Wikipedia practice, if it is, I have no problems to publish it (since it is already present in my personal web page).Best regards. Marco S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampmarc (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Another buzzword wannabe describing a vague management theory: a recent Project Management discipline that looks at projects with a bottom up approach. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if you want to comments the fact that it is not so widespread ok, but speaking about vague management theory is quite offendig. In the last release we are speaking about a book of 250 pages, with contributors both from Project Management Institue and Business School among the top 50 in the world. If the entry is not detailed it can be improved.Sampmarc (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the deletion nomination at the top of this page. The article is about a term that is not in widespread use - see WP:NEO for what this means. I don't see how the article can be improved because it clearly fails one of wikipedia's cornerstones, namely notability. andy (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I agree with this point, I was just commenting the post of Ihcoyc that was out of scope.Sampmarc (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Going solely by the material presented in the article itself, it is, indeed, a vague management theory: “Too often projects are passively accepted rather than actively participated in. The issue is not that the birth of the project is not shared, but mostly that many people feel lost, since they don’t have the right knowledge to understand the dynamics of the project. So project meetings are often turned into failed affairs where irrelevant questions are posed (and this decreases participation and increases conflicts), the kick-off meeting is considered a waste of time where you can get free sandwiches, and planning meetings become technical summits where everybody speaks in impenetrable jargon, creating mutual dissatisfaction.” Reinterpreting the project according to a bottom-up logic seeks to address these problems by equipping each participant with right tools. It's all about "what this can do for you" rather than "what, exactly, does this involve". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally agree with nom and Smerdis of Tlön. Seems like article is written purely to promote someones business theory. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call I Wanna Rock[edit]

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

Delete. Previously deleted in a bundle nom with Now That's What I Call R&B in July here. The album has received little to no significant coverage except for a press release that was copied to a couple of websites. As opposed to most Now releases with an article (at least in the US), I cannot find any review of the album (even on Allmusic) or record of it charting which could qualify it as receiving "significant coverage". Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted it is no longer a Wal-Mart exclusive. Amazon.com and other sites also sell the album(s) as well. Most songs listed on the album have indeed charted, although it is accurate that no 'signifiant' critic has reviewed this particular album. It is nominated to stay because it is a Rock-based genre album, which is substantially different than most of the other US Series albums, which are Pop, R&B and Dance. The R&B edition is not signigicantly different because most of the songs on prior albums in the US Series contain R&B songs. Rock is generally not included on the numbered albums in the series. Thebog1984 (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The songs on the album charted well before the release of the album and are completely independent of the album itself. The genre of the album, the songs on the album, and its availability at Walmart or Amazon are not what makes it notable; it is coverage in reliable sources that do. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, whatever. If I'm the only person in the world who thinks it should be on Wikipedia, then feel free to click the delete button. I go for systematic completeness. E.G., most of the US Series albums are listed in entirety, it's the opinion of this user that it would be appropriate to ensure it's completeness but *shrug* one person's thoughts do not make it so. S'all good. :) Thebog1984 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only was the article deleted in a prior AfD, but the recreated text is still in the same condition it was after that AfD; there is nothing in the article to indicate that the album is any more notable now than it was then. That said, there is no coverage of the album in reliable sources, so the album fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 15:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brainy Smurf[edit]

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

Non-notable character. Does not meet WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though I can see a merge to a list of characters as perhaps a better solution. Apart from being in dozens of books, animated shorts, two movies, and loads of merchandising, he is a kind of archetype, used as an example of the "literary intellectual" by e.g. Thomas Pynchon in the NYTimes[21], or in stories like here and non-fiction books likethis one. Also in other languages: the "Sctroumpf à lunettes" is used as a type of a child[22]. Fram (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He smurfs the smurfability criteria. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Clearly notable, but there just isn't enough encyclopedic to say about him to be worth breaking out into his own article. Powers ^T 02:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fram, but no objection to editorial merge. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as keep - but merge discussion can/should happen on article talk page. v/r - T P 15:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace[edit]

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

Dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. If you take that line, delete every article with a one-word title. Are the deletionists now so short of targets that they're producing this sort of utterly spurious AfD ? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambig Although "namespace" is a big concept within comp sci, I can't think how to produce a single readable article that spans the whole topic. It would be much simpler to make this a disambig and to have two sub-articles for XML namespace and Namespace (programming languages) (Much of the content for that is already in this article). We already have a high-level concept explanation at Namespace (computer science). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, any problems the article has can be fixed by editing. The article is encyclopedic, and does not fall under WP:NOTDIC. Quasi human | Talk 21:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Here's a link from Google Patents that further qualifies notability: Integration of physical and virtual namespace. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep poor handling of notable topic not a candidate for deletion. And what Dingley said about spurious AfDs. --Kvng (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Namespace (computer science), which encompasses the content of this article. --Lambiam 14:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge examples and references to Namespace (computer science), which is same topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - it's notable but a dab may not be needed. Not deletable, not really for AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. Courcelles 03:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium – Republic of Texas relations[edit]

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

there is nothing to this relationship except a 9 year period of relations of no siginificant events and 1 embassy, no chance of expansion. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing except a nine year period? Seems notable then. The "no chance of expansion" is not a valid reason for deletion, otherwise 99% of stub articles would get listed. Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not reasons. this topic clearly fails WP:GNG I don't see any evidence of signficant coverage. see WP:MUSTBESOURCES, where are the sources? LibStar (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you've not cited a single policy in your nomination as to WHY it's not notable. That was the point I was making. Lugnuts (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:GNG. no significant coverage of this topic. you've given no evidence of actual sources to establish a keep case. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep ~~It is possible it would be expanded, but unlikely. However, as noted above, that is not the qualification for an article.~~ One of the first nations to recognize another country is a pretty notable relationship. I am now plainly in favor of keeping the page per Colonel Warden's research.--TM 15:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find sources for this such as Early Belgian colonial efforts. The nominator does not seem to have followed WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's one source. hardly enough to justify an article. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite easy to find more sources, as you should know, if you had looked. For example, "Belgian influences on Texas have been notable". Warden (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't mention the Republic of Texas, which is what the article is about. Trying to save an article by presenting sources that don't mention the subject is pretty dodgy, as you know full well. Reyk _YO! 18:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texas still exists as a sovereign entity. Its status within the US federal system is now rather like that of Belgium's position within the European Union. These entities have had notable relations over time, as the source states, and so limiting the scope of the article in a narrow way does not seem sensible. Developing the article to cover this full notable history is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy rather than deletion. For example, your nitpick might be addressed by moving to the simpler title Belgium - Texas relations which would then better cover the early colonial history too. See Historical Associations of Belgium and Texas for yet another source which supports this scope and usage. Warden (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting that articles be based on sources that are actually about the subject is "nitpicking" now? I think that sums up your attitude to this project. Reyk _YO! 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas in an effort to expand said article. (Also, as an aside, the two articles currently seem to conflict as to where the first embassy in Belgium was located...) --Kinu ^t/_c 18:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the claim about embassies as it wasn't supported by the source provided. I think that merging this to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas would be the best option - this article has almost no content, and it can be split out again if anyone ever decides to work on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. There is nothing in this article that warrants a separate encyclopedia article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – data to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas before deleting the article, otherwise it won't be accessible to do so. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. Reyk _YO! 01:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above, not enough substance to justify an individual article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, until Rick Perry declares Texan independence again. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into I-73 and I-74. v/r - T P 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I-73/74 North–South Corridor[edit]

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

Unsourced and redundant to existing articles on 73/74. This says nothing the I-73 and I-74 articles do not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, given current plans, Interstate 73 and Interstate 74 will never exist in Ohio (east of Cincinnati) and West Virginia. So it's incorrect to cover this portion (which would include a long overlap of the two) in the I-73 and I-74 articles, since it's not I-73 or I-74, but a non-Interstate object called "I-73/74 North–South Corridor". --NE2 05:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it's not unsourced. --NE2 05:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. WP:NOTNEWS, can be covered elsewhere. --Rs chen 7754 05:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WTF? --NE2 05:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is including the material in a Future section out of the question? --Rs chen 7754 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm still wondering what you mean by "WP:NEWS".
    - I assume you mean future sections of the I-73 and I-74 articles? That would mean that they are planned to be portions of I-73 and I-74, which is currently untrue north of I-81. --NE2 05:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - A lot of it reads like a press release one finds on DOT sites. And "Future" sections are allowed to have failed alternatives to the current proposed routing. --Rs chen 7754 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "A lot of it reads like a press release one finds on DOT sites." Huh? I'm not seeing this, but even if it were true, is it bad when a DOT writes a description of a route without saying "thank you Governor Foo for making this possible"? "Future" means what is planned to happen. If you're putting failed proposals in "future", you're lying to the reader. --NE2 06:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Not if you explicitly labeled them as failed. For example, "The DOT proposed X, but it didn't work out because Y and Z." --Rs chen 7754 06:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not part of the future of the route; it would belong in history. But the I-73/74 North–South Corridor is not simply a historical proposal, but an actual corridor being built to sub-Interstate standards (north of I-81). The second photo on http://www.roadfan.com/i73wva.html shows a sign that is posted in West Virginia. --NE2 06:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't even tell what it is because it doesn't say! Just defines it by undefined insider jargon ("high priority corridor") which is linked to an article not so-named which also doesn't defin it. And the people who know what that jargon means don't need to read this article. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into the appropriate articles and then delete as an unlikely search term for either I-73 or I-74. –Fredddie ™ 22:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as appropriate and then delete per Freddie. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Fredddie. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep as dab page between I-73 and I-74. Dough 48 72 03:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems apparent that further editing could fix remaining problems. Courcelles 03:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny in hip hop culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:SYNTH violation. While feminist critiques of popular culture have their merits they do not make good encyclopedia articles. Articles that are set up to take the form of X group's views on Y group are almost never appropriate; only if independent reliable sources cover the significance and context of those views, which we do not have here. It is inconceivable that this article could ever be more than a synthesis of feminist essays that hip-hop is fully of bad/evil misogyny. The controversial nature and social implications of Hip hop should be mentioned in article, this here is a point of view (POV) fork.

May I request consideration of the good principle at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies that Wikipedia "is not a space for writing feminist, masculinist or LGBT critiques of society". extransit (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourced only to two articles so it doesn't give a major viewpoint; it's more like an essay built on synthesis of others' work. There may be an article for this topic but this ain't it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify or Delete. Existing article seems to be largely original research and/or synthesis. However, there seem to be lots of reliable sources on the topic[23][24] and even a documentary. Seems like a rescue would be possible if someone wants to take it on. Kaldari (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Encyclopedia of rap and hip-hop culture has an article about this. Other encyclopedia which cover the matter include International encyclopedia of men and masculinities, Encyclopedia of gender and society, Encyclopedia of the African diaspora, Encyclopedia of social problems, Encyclopedia of African American Business, The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology, &c. Clearly notable and so our editing policy is to improve the article not delete it. Warden (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree with you. However, this article was originally nominated for deletion over a year ago and no one has bothered to do any substantive editing on it. If you're interested in rescuing it, I would suggest stubbifying it as a good first step. That would at least deal with the major tone/content objections and a better article could be built from there. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved. [25] Studies on this have been referenced. Dream Focus 01:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and substantive article. --S Larctia (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely an encyclopedic topic. See The Colonel's refs above. What the hell is up with splitting Footnotes into "Notes" and "References" anyway? I really hate that stuff.... Carrite (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Warden points out, extensive analysis has been done on this. I don't know what definition of "hip-hop culture" we're using so I'm not sure how much of the content is appropriate (parts of it strike me as being off-topic, but I'm not an expert), but this is certainly a topic, and deletion is a detrimental way of solving the content problems. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll accept that the topic is notable. I do not accept the enormous amount of synthesis, original research, and irrelevant argument that filled up the article--some of which I've removed. The last big chunk that's left in the article also has those problems. Whoever contributed that should remember that a. the topic of the article is misogyny in hip hop, not the presumed breakdown of the black family or some such thing and b. inserting such content suggests that "black" and "hip hop" is the same thing, which is complete nonsense. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator - large degree of synthesis, content fork and content that doesn't directly relate to the said subject (i.e. first two paragraphs under 'cultural denigration'). -Cntras (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just needs work. CarolMooreDC 12:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nomination carries no logic, and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. How is feminist criticism not encyclopedic? Bearian (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I am afraid you are the one lacking in logic. The reason why we should not have this essay which parrots feminist arguments that misogyny is rampant in hip-hop is the same reason we don't have an article Idiocy in liberalism summarizing Ann Coulter's opinion of liberals or Jews as a blight on society summarizing Nazi opinion on Jews. What one group thinks of another is fundamentally not an encyclopedia topic. Women in hip-hop is an encyclopedia topic, however 95% of this is OR so its not worth moving. The X bad thing in Y group from the perspective of Z group is classic POV forking. extransit (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 15:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Potok[edit]

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

fails all tests for notability Avocats (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it passes WP:GNG: there are numerous independent media sources included in the references section, and plenty more that aren't included in the references section including an interview with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, an interview with NPR, quoting in the Daily Mail, MSNBC and more. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This MSNBC coverage For some observers, history repeating itself qualifies notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Therefore, there was no qualification for the nomination based upon the nominator stating the article "fails all tests for notability." It appears the nominator may not have used the WP:BEFORE guidelines before the nomination. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person does not satisfy the Wiki guidelines for notability. The Southern Poverty Law Center is notable; its communications director does not have independent notability. This is an important distinction. The subject was an ordinary reporter prior to this position; he did not found the SPLC, and is simply someone who presents SPLC information to the nation and the world. The article's first two cites are to the subject's father's (unrelated) book and to an upcoming small community forum in his hometown. The others are to articles not about him, but rather about news events upon which he is asked, as comunications director, for comment. There are numerous cites that relate to podcasts and HuffPost blogging. I did indeed WP:BEFORE and found nothing to suggest that the subject has done anything notable himself. He mentions attending but not graduating from university; he mentions working for an award-winning journal but there's no indication when the award was made and whether his work there was related to the award. Again, the SPLC is notable; Morris Dees is notable. The subject is an employee, one that is called on because he is the media contact. This article seems to reflect a surge in what are, at bottom, self-promotion pieces that seek to take a relationship to a notable entity and turn it into notability for the person. Neither of those alone constitutes notability in the Wiki sense. Also, I do not see the subject as either a political candidate or an "activist." Avocats (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you strongly believe the person isn't notable. MSNBC, the Daily Mail, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, NPR, CNN, the BBC, PBS, the New York Times and the Guardian disagree. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, those sources cite his name in discussing the work of the SPLC. There's a difference. The articles are not about him or even his work (communications); they are about the work of the SPLC, for which there is an entry.Avocats (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the SPLC issues, not of the PR person. If this were sufficient for WP:NG, there'd be an entry for every "celebrity" and another for every celebrity's flack. IMO.Avocats (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The SPLC does great stuff and is notable, but there's not content here that this particular staffer is notable. It's not even clear to me whether he's a lawyer or a PR person. I suspect the latter. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews are primary sources and do not count toward notability, being quoted in an article is not substantial coverage. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being quoted in an article is not substantial, however being quoted, interviewed and cited as an expert in a field in numerous articles builds notability. He has been quoted and interviewed as an expert in over 60 NPR articles/pieces over the last fifteen years --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Brudenell-Bruce[edit]

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

Her claim to notability appears to stem from her former relationships with Prince Harry and Jenson Button. However notability is not inherited, and I can find no reason why she should be regarded as notable in her own right. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I was considering the same thing. I feel her notability is not considered established enough for a wikipedia page. Arnoldxmidnight (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)~~ Comment from blocked sock puppet struck. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arnoldxmidnight has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts by using the following sock puppets to edit this and other articles:- Pjw89 and Franticjay. all have now been blocked from editing. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no notability other than two bit parts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.118.34 (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. I'm reluctantly going for a second relisting, since this is a BLP and we need to get a clear determination of consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jenson_Button#Personal_life. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 03:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Mensik[edit]

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

Was just released today and after a good faith search, it appears he fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NSPORT. Giants27(T|C) 18:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Um, what exactly do you mean by "fails WP:GNG"? His name is on every result in that page, and most of those appear to be reliable, third-party sources! Inter change able|talk to me 19:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count about one article listed there that is actually about him. A mere mention is not enough to meet WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 20:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG requiring significant coverage in multiple sources. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player; his college highlight was being first team all Big-12 in his senior year[26][27]. However, his bio lacks WP:IMPACT that does not stand out in either NCAA or Oklahoma Sooners history. In the event I missed some articles, note that WP:GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." —Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 4 September 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, DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep College football players pass WP:GNG if they have received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media, and Mensik has received such coverage. Mensik played college football at the highest level for the Oklahoma Sooners from 2007 to 2010. He was moved from tight end to offensive line (a major change) and excelled at the new position to such a degree that he was selected as a first-team All-Big 12 player in 2010 -- a remarkable athletic achievement. This article from The Dallas Morning News (11th largest newspaper in USA by circulation) is a good example of the type of feature coverage in a major metropolitan newspaper that helps support a finding of notability. Also, The Oklahoman (which is the largest circulation newspaper in Oklahoma and 51st largest in the USA) has published multiple stories about Mensik. E.g., here, here, here, and here. See also this one, this one, and this one from the Tulsa World, this one from the Enid News & Eagle, and this one from Sooners Illustrated. Cbl62 (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Article is notable per several reliable sources listed directly above this message. Passes WP:NSPORT, WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Several articles are about the individual and his accomplishments are listed above this message. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being named to the 1st team all Big 12 conference team qualifies under WP:NCOLLATH as having "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team."--TM 20:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The First Wave[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As nom. ? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 15:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem BMW attack[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:GNG, fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, belongs on List of terrorist incidents, 2008 at most. No real notability to warrant a standalone article. Cerejota (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
- Notable per WP:GNG, since there is wide, WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE coverage in reliable secondary sources. Coverage according to my quick check included BBC, Haaretz, Jereusalem Post, Al Bawaba, Lebanon Wire, NY Times, Stratfor Global Intelligence, The Guardian, and many more. This is certainly not a "local interest" event. "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely".
- Similarly notable per WP:CRIME which states that media coverage can confer notability on a "high-profile criminal act".
- Wikipedia consensus is that terrorist incidents and other crimes are generally notable if they are widely covered internationally by secondary sources, see for example Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack and Omeed Aziz Popal SUV rampage.
- It is especially notable since it represented a new militant tactic which evolved in 2008. See "Israel: Vehicle Attacks - A New Militant Tactic?. Stratfor Global Intelligence". (This is not a news source, it is a case study which WP:PERSISTENCE specifically states is evidence for long lasting notability). The source says that "Palestinian militants have discovered a new tactic that, while not thus far as deadly as suicide bombing, could prove more difficult to prevent".
- The purpose of NOTNEWS is to prevent articles about "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" as well as "first-hand news reports on breaking stories". This article is NOT about a routine event or first hand reports of breaking news.
- Surely this event has more long standing historical significance than Vehicles of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks or Lego Batman: The Videogame or Victor Zsasz (just three random articles. I know other stuff exists).
- To conclude, I see this as another misuse of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this is becoming a trend. Marokwitz (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable event. per WP:GNG. seems like an dead-beat AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context."

"Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally."

The article links to three other, similar incidents. Isn't the notability and persistence due to this series of events and wouldn't it then make more sense to merge these into one article? DS Belgium (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Systemic bias must be avoided. I am convinced that if a man from Afghanistan, for instance, would have committed a similar vehicle attack in which he would driven a car in full speed into a crowd of random US soldiers in the center of New York, simply because they are American soldiers, no one here would have opposed the existence of such an article in the English Wikipedia. Especially not if the event would have been widely covered internationally. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT as there is no non-trivial coverage outside the initial news cycle and no lasting effects. I'm disappointed that the same old "if we don't give Israel a special exemption from all rules then we're guilty of SYSTEMIC BIAS" and "Events in Israel are inherently notable" arguments keep coming up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT. All references seem to be dated in the three days following the event. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Clay[edit]

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

Not notable enough to warrant Wikientry as per WP:NIt looks like WP:promotion and lacking significant coverage in WP:RS. Only mentioned in USA Today and Wired.com in passing, Significant amount of references are directly from his own website Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. What's offered is uncritical routine coverage (Wired), completely trivial mention (USA Today) or no mention at all (NHK), falling far short of what is required to establish significant coverage. Msnicki (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Here's a link that further qualifies notability: 12 Essential Tips for Search Engine Optimization from Smallbusinesscomputing.com. The individual is not "only", meaning exclusively, "mentioned" in the two sources quoted by the nominator; there are other reliable secondary sources with more in-depth coverage of the individual. Per WP:BIO notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Therefore, the individual passes WP:BIO due to the availability of stated sources. The statement that the individual lacks reliable sources per an entire guideline page such as WP:BIO doesn't provide any specific rationale for deletion of the article, and exists as a generic, blanket statement without any form of actual qualification. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The guideline WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is highly superior compared to deleting this article based upon references to entire pages of guidelines as rationale for deletion, because specific qualification from the guidelines weren't provided to qualify said deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article isn't about him, it's a how-to article in a trade pub uncritically reporting a bunch of tips he's given the reporter on how to make your website do well on Google. The reporter doesn't appear to talked to have talked to more than just this one source and the tips offered are all kind of lame. Sorry, this is not substantial coverage about the subject in reliable sources. Msnicki (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a Facebook page and articles about people must warrant their existence in encyclopedia through WP:N, otherwise any persons who's ever been mentioned on web sites become justified to be on here. The link cited by Northamerica1000 quotes the subject a lot, but doesn't appear to satisfy source standards for WP:GNG. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Another link further establishing notability, from the Chicago Tribune here. Per WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Therefore, the individual passes WP:BIO due to the availability of stated sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A truly minor mention. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Added the links I quoted above to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Added another reference from Yahoo news to the article: "The Best Enterprise SEO Companies Ranked by topseos.com for September 2011." Yahoo News. Accessed September 2011. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncritical verbatim reporting of a press release. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Cleaned up the article significantly, reads much less like a resume now. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's less important what it reads like and more important that there are no sources to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – To whomever moderates this AfD and makes the final decision regarding inclusion or deletion, please refer to the article in its current state to view the significant improvements and reliable sources added. Here is the link: Bruce Clay. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are absolutely no reliable, independent and significant references in the article or that I could find. Northamerica1000, you need to read WP:GNG where it says, " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." You say the Chicago Tribune article establishes his nobility. The article includes 3 sentences of him, but not about him. You say you added this reference from Yahoo News, but the reference never mentions him, just the company is ranked 6th. Bgwhite (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sacks[edit]

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

Delete' - The article fails WP:BIO. Lots of vanity links to the publications the writer has contributed to, but not a single link about the author. Mosmof (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but tone down the promotional stuff and include secondary sources. Here's a selection of third-party references that took me about one minute to find: Oregon Live, A.V. Club, Psychology Today, Potomac Almanac, The Brooklyn Paper, Bookslut. Steamroller Assault (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Numerous references, which act to collectively pass WP:BIO notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I cleaned up the article's organization and merged data to newly-created sections. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nothing about the person in any of the links I could find. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have rewritten the article, citing multiple independent sources to establish notability for this individual. With this new version, I feel all the arguments for deletion have been fully rebutted. Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I still have concerns about whether the subject is really notable enough for inclusion. All the cites in the article, if I'm not mistaken, are reviews of a single book or the sort of publisher-mandated interviews that doesn't really give enough biographical information (or, at least in my mind, not independente enough to be WP:RS) to establish notability. --Mosmof (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that side to the argument, but in my rewriting, I didn't include the review from Psychology Today, which if we included in the article, would probably meet all the inclusions issues, and would also make for an interesting Wikipedia article. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see enough third-party commentary in the links listed by Steamroller, above. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology. v/r - T P 00:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crop Biotech Update[edit]

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

Non-notable publication; advertising Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to its parent organization, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, or to its publisher Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology (which is apparently a subsidiary of the ISAAA). --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 5 September 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, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge + Redir - both this and Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology can be easily upmerged for lack of independant WP:Notability, IMO. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + Redir - Referenced data from this article should be merged into Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology. I added merge tags to both articles. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mtiebi[edit]

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

non-notable (?), unreferenced Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Georgia by Tim Burford, they're described as a group "who have emerged as the leaders in rediscovering and preserving the most authentic examples of Georgian song". In World music: the rough guide. Africa, Europe and the Middle East, Volume 1 they're described as an "excellent group". The Washington Post reviewed them in 1990. There is a strong presumption that many sources exist in the Georgian language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Cullen. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamhouse (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyright violation from the Allmusic listing. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only coverage I can come up with - besides the two Allmusic references already in the band's article - is this Billboard write-up. Additionally, one of the group's songs charted in the UK, so I've added these bits of information and reworded the parts of the article that were copied from the Allmusic bio. I believe there's just enough material, then, to satisfy WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 06:12, 3 September 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, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be that notable. Did a search and nothing confirms notability. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable according to WP:MUSIC, sources are cited, and the copyright violation has been removed. Peter E. James (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Koukl[edit]

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

Minor Christian apologist and talk radio host. Little evidence of independent coverage, or that the topic meets WP:CREATIVE, or any other relevant criteria. I am also nominating the article on his ministry:

Stand To Reason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say that he's got enough coverage on google news[28] The Terminator t c 15:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And which, if any, of these sources are reliable, independent and give him "significant coverage"? Mere News WP:GOOGLEHITS is a bad argument for keeping. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Google News coverage. -- 202.124.74.129 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 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, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Greg Koukl and Stand To Reason. Both lack reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO or WP:CORPDEPTH. The various Google hits are all trivial mentions, falling far short of the substantial coverage required. Msnicki (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the GNews hits (lots of references to him as a significant anti-abortion advocate and this interview, for example, is certainly more than trivial[29]), GBooks has dozens more. Many are religious tomes, but the hits also include independent, scholarly works like these [30][31] to establish his notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first is an interview and thus a primary source (you can't get 'closer' to the topic, or more of "an insider's view", than interviewing the topic himself), the second and third are both tangential (being on the topic of theological arguments in public debates, and emerging church, respectively). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:BIO notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Therefore, the individual passes WP:BIO due to the availability of stated sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The statement that the individual lacks reliable sources per entire guideline pages, such as WP:RS and WP:BIO doesn't provide any specific rationale for deletion of the article, and exists as a generic, blanket statement without any form of actual qualification. Referring to entire pages of guidelines fails to qualify specific reasons for notability or lack thereof, and equates to referring to an entire list of multiple, specific rationales as a singular, generic rationale. This logic equates to stating that an article should be deleted because of any reason on a guideline page. These types of illogical qualifications are absolutely invalid. Specific examples from guideline pages are valid and should be considered. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – WP:GOOGLEHITS listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are not based upon concensus, are opinion pieces and don't reflect Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that I stated that mere news Google hits was a "bad argument", and supported my statement implicitly by questioning "which, if any, of these sources are reliable, independent and give him 'significant coverage'", as well as by explicitly citing that essay and thus its contents. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has Google News hits, but almost all that aren't behind a pay wall only briefly mention him or announce an upcoming speech. The only news hit that could qualify is from the Christian Post and it is an interview, so it is not independent. There needs to be reliable, significant coverage (per WP:GNG) and I don't see it. Per Northamerica1000's arguement via WP:BASIC, you need to read quote in context. Just before the quote, it says a person "has been the subject of multiple published..." Then as you quote, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial..." The person has to be the subject of the articles first. If there are alot of articles are about the subject, but they don't go in depth, then you can use WP:BASIC. Bgwhite (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is also a mass of coverage in Google Books, both under "Greg" and "Gregory": [32]. -- 202.124.74.114 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Greg Koukl and Stand To Reason fail WP:GNG. Many, many hits across multiple media (they're in the media business, after all), but all that I could find a things written by them, references to their books in footnotes or passing mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Through The White Noise[edit]

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

Non-notable album? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, and such looks unlikely. Electronic release only. BTW, contrary to the appearance of an internal link in the article, the band does not have a separate article in Wikipedia. The "band" is a pseudonym for the individual who is the drummer for Nine Inch Nails (who has an article) and this is a solo album. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per North8000. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Command of San Andres y Providencia[edit]

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

Non-notable, minimal content Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google Translate of the "Cite" confirms that it WP:ITEXISTS, but I cannot see why it is WP:Notable. (FWIW, I dont speak Spanish so my Gsearch may be skewed) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of wp:notability. Content is just one sentence which could go into another article. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Kish[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NSPORT. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there is no specific NSPORTS standard for wrestling, Kish is the fourth head coach in the history of the North Dakota State wrestling program. At age 28, he's the youngest head coach in any sport at any NCAA Division I program. He was a two-time All-American and twice placed as the runner-up at the NCAA championship. He's received non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources. A google search for "Roger Kish" turns up 10,000 hits, and a google news archive search turns up 600 hits. Many of these appear to constitute non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I've added a few to the article. His coaching career is just getting started, but his overall accomplishments and news coverage strike me as sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 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, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62's reasoning and sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The statement that the individual lacks reliable sources per an entire guideline page, WP:NSPORT, doesn't provide any specific rationale for deletion of the article, and exists as a generic, blanket statement without any form of actual qualification. Referring to entire pages of guidelines fails to qualify specific reasons for notability or lack thereof, and equates to referring to an entire list of multiple, specific rationales as a singular, generic rationale for article deletion. This logic equates to stating that an article should be deleted because of any reason on a guideline page. These types of illogical qualifications and arguments are absolutely invalid, and exist as the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. Specific examples from guideline pages are valid and should be considered. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:NSPORT criteria the nominator should have been referring to is WP:NCOLLATH and the subject has been demonstrated to meet clause 3 of that section (well-known assistant coach [who has] gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Generation[edit]

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

This is a Neologism. A search for sources proves it is not a notable term. Fages (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep One or two examples found at Google News and half a dozen citations at Google Books suggest that the term is in fairly common use. More of this material needs to be incorporated into the article, which is mostly WP:Original research as it stands, but this does seem to be an established term. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 5 September 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, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Generation X has mentions of itself being called by different names (13th Generation). Would a Merge and Redir to Section be possible? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems plausibly-notable to me. Also added to WikiProject Iran to try and attract people knowledgeable in the field. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amod Cassimjee[edit]

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

Cannot find any mentions of this person except for inclusion on various lists of residents of his neighborhood. The business he established is not notable. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 22:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment There was a whole family of articles with surname Cassimjee, and this was the only one with a claim of importance in the foundation of establishment of the "Moliamedan Oriental School", all the rest were speedily deleted. Having lived more than 60 years ago, sources will be more tricky to locate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 September 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, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Marokwitz (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep entries in who's who are usually considered enough for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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