< 15 August	17 August >

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transitional Ethnic groups[edit]

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

The concept of a "transitional Ethnic group" appears to be the invention of the article creator. I cannot find reliable sources that discuss a concept by this name, I can only find a very few hits to the term that don't seem wholly relevant. Fences&Windows 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sourcing provided to keep this article. Truthsort (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this article , i'll add some sources, this is a basic concept of ethnicity, there's goanna be many more transitional ethnic groups added, the concept of the name is included in some other ethnic groups concerning to have a transitional linguistic trend. Such as they actually use the term "Transitional Ethnic Group" in the Saraiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themastertree (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Title should change to "Transitional ethnic group". Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change the name, integrate mullato, mestizo, etc. into it. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change the name to what, and on the basis of what sources? I'm not unsympathetic, but this should not be an original research fest. Fences&Windows 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improve or delete At the moment it reads: "Transitional Ethnic Groups are ethnic groups of multiple origins or..." I challenge anyone to name an ethnic group that lacks "multiple origins". And the article has no sources.AMuseo (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Bearian'sBooties 02:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete unreferenced, OR. I would suggest that "transitional ethnic groups" implies something different from "transitional linguistic trend".--Utinomen (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression towards Islam[edit]

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

Improper synthesis, pulling together various disparate events into a "suspected conspiracy theory to suppress Islam", including the Crusades and the Ba'ath Party. No hope for salvaging anything here that I can see. Fences&Windows 23:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damnit, I opened mine a minute after you did Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suppression towards Islam (2nd nomination). Delete for original research. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence provided to support this article. Truthsort (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Perry Mason would say, "incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial." Carrite (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and bad title. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreadable and not credible. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. extransit (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson Learned[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NSONG Eeekster (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of the other songs on the album have articles associated with them and their is no discernable difference between them and this article. scope_creep (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a popular song by a popular and is currently scaling the charts and every other song by this band has a pageFeedmyeyes (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep charting song by very notable band. Even Billboard.com has given the song its own page.--Dripping oil (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Popular song. I think it's gotten enough exposure to warrant it's own article. --Gtadood (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the song even has its own page on billboard.com^[1] showing that it has charted.

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism (conspiracy theory)[edit]

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

Themastertree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-sensical unsourced original research. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:OR. scope_creep (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simultaneously nominated, I've closed my nom. It's one of a series by Themastertree (talk · contribs). Unsourced uber-conspiracy theory that supposedly asserts that Islamism is run by the US and other Western powers. This is basically an extended version of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but without reliable sources stating that there is such a coherent conspiracy theory under the name "Islamism" (and I don't think such sources exist), I don't think this article should exist, as it is basically original research. Fences&Windows 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources will be added, there are articles concerning this issue, remember it's a conspiracy theory based on opinions of people on the internet,the same way as theirs 9/11 theories based on peoples opinions and the evidence such as the thermite have scientific support on both sides to support the theory or object to it. As being only a theory, it's not asserting that Islamism really is run by the west, instead i'm asserting that people have made this theory, but it's not neccarily true. Also this is a collective article that annotate terrorist attacks in their "conspriacy theory" subsections.I'm making this article to list and refference multiple other articles that relate to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themastertree (talk • contribs) 02:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a lot like War against Islam, - User:Themastertree- August-16-10 8:39 PM, Mountain Time Zone. —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Festival of crackpot original research. Carrite (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. - OldManNeptune (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now has references. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And which of those is reliable? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A link dump of forum posts and crackpot websites does nothing to verify the content or show the notability of the topic. Stuartyeates, you need to re-read WP:RS. Fences&Windows 01:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR based on WP:POORSRC--Utinomen (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources aren't reliable. Eeekster (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources aren't credible and a wing-nut conspiracy theory needs that, at least. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing isn't anything like good enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories against atheism[edit]

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

I don't precisely understand the intended scope of this article, but it is meaningless whatever the intention is. It's just two brief, grammatically flawed sentences with no references or indication of any kind of notability of these conspiracy theories. Fences&Windows 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was just about to nominate. Nonsensical original research. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this article, it's under construction and more information will be added. It's at the moment incomplete just cause i want other people to contribute to the article i've already marked. Already there's another article on Obama's religion as a conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themastertree (talk • contribs) 01:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another original research festival. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Failure to differentiate atheism, secularism and humanism means content irrelevant. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with editors' reasons above--Utinomen (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, reads like a personal essay. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaSleuth[edit]

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

A website for educational media. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as web content that fails to make a subminimal claim of importance: an e-commerce extension of the National Information Center for Educational Media.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The organisation in Smerdis's quote has an article here on WP - with a prod tag on it and just as badly referenced as this one. I get the feeling that some people put articles up and then never come back to see how they're doing - or else they're arrogant enough to think they are above the requirements of referencing. This organisation may be notable (though I doubt it) but there's no evidence given. Peridon (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanostelli[edit]

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

The term in question does not appear in a Google web, book, scholar, or news search, or in the OED, and the article is unreferenced. I believe it is a hoax. —Mark Dominus (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, appears to be a WP:HOAX. scope_creep (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - John Collis is a real archeologist but I can find no connection with Italian cooking utensils beyond a reference to Italian traders in Iron Age French river valleys [1]. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get Rich or Die Tryin'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Get Rich or Die Tryin'

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

This disambiguation is needless. All of the subjects merged here refer to 50 Cent, or rather to his album/film. We can use the template "for the film see grodt (film) and for the soundtrack grodt (soundtrack)" and so on... DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Waste of WP resources and serves no useful or discernable purpose. scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No primary topic identified. Suggest you request a move of one of the articles to the base name first. Otherwise the disambiguation page is indeed needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is perfect disambiguation page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Three articles with no primary topic. Not only is this disambiguation page desireable, it is necessary. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. bd2412 T 04:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Land Krill[edit]

The result was Speedy delete as hoax RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hoax, though too subtle for speedying. See this link. Oroluk only has a population of 10, and how did they count 50,000,000 in 1677? Chris (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. scope_creep (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:HOAX per WP:CSD G3. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Wheeler (British Army Officer)[edit]

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

There are no citations and and no apparent notability. Jojhutton (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you Google Hugh+Wheeler+Cawnpore you'll find plenty of citations and explanations of notability. Google books has even more. Chris (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The man is a major historical figure and the article should never have been nominated. Find and add additional sources. scope_creep (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't have been all that of a major figure if it took 9 years for someone to create an article about the person. Still, there are not any sources. And without sources there is no apparent notability.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a completely wrongheaded argument on two counts. First, what our corpus of volunteer editors takes its time to get around to means nothing. It took us five years to write about North Asia (AfD discussion), and that's a large area of the planet. It took us almost a decade to give significant coverage to Diogenes and Alexander (AfD discussion), and that's something that has over two millennia of literature surrounding it. No major encyclopaedia was written instantly, and Wikipedia is no exception. Second, lack of sources cited is not lack of sources existing. It's sources existing that counts. If all that you are doing is looking at articles without putting any effort in to see what sources exist, then you aren't being of any help or use to either AFD or Wikipedia, and aren't putting our deletion and verifiability policies into practice properly. Always look for sources yourself. Unless one does, an opinion that something is "unsourced" is utterly worthless, because it is based upon zero research. Always look to find out whether sources exist. This is the advice in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and even User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. It's best practice to follow it. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was a major figure during his time alive. I don't think you understand history and our current access too it. We are all sitting front of computers and accessing Google or some other search engine and expecting to find to answer to every question that is posed in here, but the reality is different. The real reality that Google and every combined is only indexing less than 2-3% of the worlds information, in those countries where google is not popular, like the Middle East, India, China, Indonesia much less so. Even Google, who have been working flat out to digitise the worlds libraries admit that they have probably less than 1% of the world books digitised, so most of the knowledge we have access to on Wikipedia and Google is miniscule compared to the vast ocean of information that is sitting tied in archives and libraries all over the world. Its worth knowing that some people are really famous in their time, but not know afterwards. I read in the Times about a scientist in the victorian age who was the most famous scientist in the British Empire, but completly dissappeared from view for over 100 years until rediscoved. scope_creep (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Ridiculous nominiation. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some footnotes would be nice. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: quite a few resources found with this search: [2]. I believe that Wheeler satisfies the guidance at WP:MILPEOPLE. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. With the addition of reliable sources, WP:RS is satisfied, I'm still not convinced of notability, but as he appeared to be a General, there is no doubt he played an important, although most likely small role in the war. How do I withdraw the nomination?

As a side note, I do take offense to Buckshot06 calling this a "Ridiculous nomination"', as any user creating an article without citations, should expect the article to get some scrutiny.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nomination can be withdrawn simply by adding a line below the votes saying that you wish to withdraw the nomination. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did some cleanup and copyediting, as well as added a couple more citations. While the subject was sufficiently notable, it still needed some help. Cindamuse (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Thanks for your contribution. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous Google Scholar and Google Books mentions. Just because he didn't exist in the age of the internet doesn't mean that he's not notable and worth an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L.S.C. Oakeshott[edit]

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

Not one secondary source about him. Having a famous Daddy does not allow you to pass WP:GNG. Chris (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. scope_creep (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails general notability guidelines. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His work appears in Anthem, Scotland On Sunday and The Evening News so he's apparently reasonably widely published. There are mentions of him by the BBC and Telegraph. He's on imdb.com too. At least generally notorious in varied circles from fashion to politics it would seem. http://anthemmagazine.com/story/Gareth-Pugh http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7066282.stm http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/spectrum/Out-of-Africa.3623942.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by PunitiveExpedition (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found these sources as well, but still fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:Notability. Truthsort (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 11:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC) There's some more of his writing published by the Scotsman. http://living.scotsman.com/outdoors/Falkirk-can-provide-wheel-good.3315784.jp. WP:Notability should clarify this as there seem to be a lot of pages knocking about for heirs of British nobility.[reply]

Is there a reference for this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Hurd-Wood on Rachel Hurd-Wood's page and on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherhood/Motherhood mentioning him? He appears on the video's credits but I can't find a news or published source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.209.135 (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakur Green[edit]

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

None of the information in this biography of a living person is confirmed by reliable independent sources - in fact, I couldn't find any published writing at all about Shakur Green. Wikipedia's rules don't permit us to publish unsourced information, and removing all of the unsourced and unverifiable information from this article leaves us with no information at all. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added article. The author has created the equally unsourced Shakur Green discography, which I'd like to add to this AfD. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, mostly because of the repeated attempts to remove the tag.--intelati 22:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are full of it. every article I create on here gets deleted. Shakur Green is a real producer , Kane Beatz has wikipedia page and it's poorly written why isn't that deleted? and it's unsourced. Shakur Green page has been sourced and he is a real producer I interviewed him on HOT 97. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInsider299 (talk • contribs)
- every article I create on here gets deleted. Maybe that should tell you something. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only other article this editor has created was Shakur Greene. I'm sure that if User:TheInsider299 will read WP:MUSIC and WP:RS, she'll understand why this article was nominated for deletion, and be better able to succeed at Wikipedia in the future. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shakur Greene was, in fact, a copy of Shakur Green, and even gave the name as "Green", not "Greene". Thus "every article I create" actually means "this article, which I have made two copies of". As for Kane Beatz, I suggest looking at WP:OTHERSTUFF. As for "Shakur Green is a real producer", you may like to read Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence offered as to his notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, either in the article or elsewhere. (I can find Green on Facebook, Twitter, Myspace... but nothing better.) The only reason given here for keeping is "Shakur Green is a real producer". The article is also written in terms such as "He’s a burgeoning, musician / producer / writer, based in Los Angeles and Philadelphia, and his works are sure to be heard for many years to come", which is purely promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've performed the same searches with the same result: no evidence of notability whatsoever. Favonian (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After various searches, I can't find any reliable sources to show that Mr. Green currently meets WP's notability criteria. That's not to say that this will not change in the future, of course.--Slp1 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pipe Spring National Monument. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe Springs, Arizona[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this settlement exists. It claims to be the site of the Pipe Spring National Monument, but that monument's website gives its address as Fredonia, Arizona. Brian the Editor (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Brian the Editor (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pipe Spring National Monument. There's no entry for Pipe Springs, Arizona in the Geographic Names Information System, but there are several mentions of a place by this name in survey documents and the like ([3] and [4], for example). At any rate, the sources never indicate that this was a community as opposed to a ranch or other locality, and it seems to have been absorbed into the national monument at this point. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per what TheCatalyst said. --P C B 22:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

The monument is referred to as "springs" by Pearson Corbett in Jacob Hamblin, Peacemaker and some maps. Historian David Lavender makes it singular, "Pipe Spring and the Arizona Strip".

”

— Hartt Wixom (2008). Jacob Hamblin: A Modern Look at the Frontier Life and Legend of Jacob Hamblin. Cedar Fort. p. 81. ISBN 9781555172732.

That says it all, really. It's always good when sources make the AFD arguments for us. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted, patent nonsense that seemed to be just somebody farming hits for his Youtube video: On August 03, 2010, Florida-based singer/songwriter Tristan Clopet uploaded a YouTube video that is widely criticized for being illegitimate. However, after giving the video a closer examination, one could easily suggest the argument that without the presence of Tristan, there would be no variable to engage the Tulips to cause such an expedited process of Photosynthesis, thus no stimulant to cause the tulips' growth. Therefore, in studying Mill's Methods, one could logically conclude that Tristan's presence, if not his voice, acted as a concomitant variable that caused a physical, and chemical reaction in not only the Tulip, but the moisture, air pressure, and sunlight that was acting upon the tulip at that very moment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomena Science[edit]

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

Complete nonsense. Possibly already deleted once (though I couldn't find a record), judging from the author's talk page. Chris (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Chris (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI – Logs say it was deleted on 11 August as a hoax ([5]). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per KuyaBriBri. Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No redeemable features. Should be speedied. scope_creep (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopeless jibberjabber. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense per WP:CSD G1. Also unreferenced. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters in Islam[edit]

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

Not notable. Plantron (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some non-trivial coverage in Malay papers and also the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/asia/26malaysia.html (was no search made before nomination?). Per http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/25/nation/20100125154150&sec=nation the group has published a previously banned book (https://shop.elsevier.com/authored_subject_sections/S06/S06.../art15.pdf) which itself appears notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite an important article and notable. scope_creep (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very significant organisation in Malaysia.[6] Granted, the article needs some work. But this is a very lay-down case.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! This organization makes headlines from time to time. What do you mean, not notable? Piff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.168.233 (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How notable they actually are is obviously open for debate.--Utinomen (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G11) by Fastily. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 00:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Management[edit]

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

This is an obvious advertising page, and a search does not turn up any reason to think it's notable. Also note that this user is blocked BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 and tagged accordingly. A previous speedy tag was removed by an IP and not declined by an admin, and as far as I know there is no explicit prohibition on re-adding a speedy tag. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:ADVERTISING. On a side note, was ((db-g11)) applied? Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been applied twice and was deleted both times by the same IP. I've left a warning on the IP talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i am trying to figure it out and rewrite. please be patient with me. i am so new to this and am so confused. i am so sorry kuyabribri. i don't know how to do this. i am just trying to get this article on the site but am so confused. will not remove warnings anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.125.74 (talk • contribs) 16 August 2010

See the note I left at Talk:Marin Management. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not trying to persecute you, and welcome to Wikipedia (: This is all taking place because of Wikipedia policies on advertising and reliable sourcing. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. No evidence of notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Whose Your Guy (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, G11, as originally tagged, and per WP:SNOW. WuhWuzDat 23:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faith magic[edit]

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

Article reads like an essay. No sources. DimaG (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, and no rationale for this being separate from any existing article on magic(k). - OldManNeptune (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. scope_creep (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above Techman224^Talk 23:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hunter (engineer)[edit]

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

Just had a look at google, no reliable sources on the man. The odd blog breifly mentioning him. Article has been a stub class for quite a while, an orphan article, prose looks like it was taken from somewhere else. Article has no refs anyway. RAIN the ONE (Talk) 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is not the hall of fame article listed in the article itself a source? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Granted, the article needs some work and sources but the subject is notable enough. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contrary to nom's claim there are reliable sources including the Automobile Hall of Fame (http://www.automotivehalloffame.org/about.php). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just that one really. No mentions in big magazines or websites that focus on automotives... just the one there. Perhaps it those who are supporting the article could enquire to see what book mentions of him there are, then cite them. So one references isn't really good enough.. is it. Taking into account the below comment, that may be, but I think you'll find there are others in that hall of fame, of the same period that are better covered in books and the internet today... so the question is raised.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- really? He is the founder of Hunter Engineering (http://www.hunterengineering.com/company/history/index.cfm)

a large privately held manufacturer that employs thousands of people and has revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars.::(http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/03/26/focus53.html) There is material about him on that firms website. ::Also, http://engineering.wustl.edu/brauerhall.aspx describes Hunter as having "revolutionized the automotive service ::industry." Seems a far cry from claims of "[t]he odd blog breifly(sic) mentioning him". Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Keep - The website you cited is that of a university which received funding from Lee Hunter, and, by their own admission, continues to receive financial support from Hunter Engineering Co. Any material that they publish about Lee Hunter or Hunter Engineering Co. fails WP:COI and is thereby inadmissible as evidence of notability. I agree that the auto Hall of Fame admission establishes notablity, so I recommend a cleaned-up Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.93.154 (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- okay, by that logic we should never use government publications as a source of notability for governmental figures, cause after all they are obviously subject to the same COI, no? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That is correct. A government publication about a government employee would only serve to establish facts, and not notability. In the case of the University website, I would discount that as a source. It is essentially a PR item as it is a profile of a person for which a building is named. -- Whpq (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - his period of activity falls into a period for which online records are still rather sparse so additional souring may be hard. But induction into the auto hall of fame establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the auto industry's position on the Automotive Hall of Fame? Should entry into this hall of fame grant notability?--Pink Bull 23:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not that big a deal really. It's just a company, well more a charity that aim to give recognition to people who have done good in their trade... It's not like this is that notable, a merge into the list of people inducted into the hall of fame which is in the AHF's article anyway. The self serving references above are just that, they only act to back the odd fact up, if he was that famous he'd be in the books.. is he?RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 23:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gabriel Cousens[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nikiforova[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced. I've had a good look at Google (including news and books) and cannot find anything. It could just be that she's a pre-internet Russian, but the chances of there being absolutely zilch seem slim. The person that made this page has not edited any other page. Chris (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything either, so it fails WP:V, WP:N, and WP:GNG. I am of the opionion that it could have been tagged as db-hoax since nothing can be found online to verify it. Also, the article creator has not made any edits since creating the article. Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found the name mentioned in Memories of Lenin, Volume 2, but the dates are for before the subject in the article were born. "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Verifiability policy. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-08-16t21:11z
Delete: Suspect WP:HOAX. Can't find any refs to the English writer mentioned either. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Running a Google search on the Cyrillic name, I come up with an Aннa Никифоровнa born 1892. Adding the purported birth and death dates of 1926 and 1998 returns fuck-all. There is no page for that name in Russian Wikipedia, which sets off warning bells for a modern opposition leader. Let's just call her "no notability demonstrated" and leave it at that. Hoax likely. Carrite (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious delete. Not sourced at all. Oceansummer87 (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sourcing and failure of WP:V. Beyond that, even if the content of the article were verifiable, it doesn't have much in the way of a detailed and specific claim of significance for her. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USA (Horrible Histories)[edit]

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

Alas, it's one of my favourite books, (but no, my very favourites in the HH series are Wicked Words and the Shadow in the Gallows), but I just know it's not notable enough. Even Bloody Scotland is more notable. Or the Horrible History of the World. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article mainly presents a product. No secondary coverage or discussion of its importance. The main article on the series lists each title already. (Looks like fun books.) Wolfview (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the article has a POV too (I forgot to point out). According to this article, it focuses on the bad facts, which is a POV. The book is mostly about the negative things that Columbus, Washington, etc, did. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Afraid you're misunderstanding. The book has a POV, but that does not mean the article is not done from a NPOV. Edward321 (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the negative things about Columbus etc are not necessarily 'bad', as presented by the creator. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of that has anything to do with keeping or deleting this article. The book could have the worst, most dishonest POV problems but if secondary sources said it was notable then the article could be kept. Or it could be the greatest history book ever written, but without people saying so the article should be deleted. Wolfview (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmph. Entertaining book. Popular book. Merge into a larger Horrible Histories article. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- What about a sub-page of Horrible Histories called "List of books in Horrible Histories", much like the many pages for "list of episodes.."? That way there can be a short summary of each book (much like there is on this page, but more concise and less fan-like) and leaving th main page to look less like a massive list of book to more of a proper article.
  - Good idea, really, although I'm not sure if someone will bother to do it, because there are zillions of books in HH, HS, HG, MM, TK/Really, DF/HF, WL, etc. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if its not sourced it should be nuked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find references to establish the notability of the subject. Fails to meet the WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spartaz's reasoning. Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Carlo Guicciardi[edit]

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

Contested prod. Luthier with no real evidence of notability. Google News returns two trivial sources and nothing for the alternate spelling "Giancarlo Guicciardi."

Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This individual is not notable enough. In both articles he is only mentioned in passing. --Angelikfire (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion The Bologna Luthier School is arguably the most important Luthier School in '900. Gian Carlo Guicciardi is among the most representative of this school, having been a pupil of the great Ansaldo Poggi. Many luthiers of the new generation make reference in their website to Giancarlo Guicciardi as a revered master (http://www.liuteria-parmense.com/ita/storia_900.htm, http://www.dallaquercia.it/, http://www.marcominnozzi.com/guicciardi_it.html, http://www.gianni-norcia-liutaio.it/GianniNorciaLiutaio.html, http://ricerca.gelocal.it/mattinopadova/archivio/mattinodipadova/2009/07/19/MB1PO_MB101.html, http://www.liuteriatoscana.org/eng/abe.htm, http://www.suonare.it/DettaglioRicerca.php?IdNews=1267, et.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcamillini (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the kind of sources we are looking for that would establish notability. In fact, some of them don't even mention Guicciardi. Please read WP:GNG and WP:RS. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Against deletion~~ with reference to Blanchardb's note it's hard to make sense of his criticism, comparing the figure of Guicciardi with what is on in the wikipedia's contemporary luthiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_luthiers#Contemporary). Rcamillini (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not !vote twice. You are welcome to add comments, however. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note The article has been improved, take a look! Rcamillini (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The improvement you made was merely the addition of what we call unreferenced puffery and does not address the issues mentioned above. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot agree, actually the impovements are facts you can check easily calling the declared associations: ALI (Associazione Liurtai Italiani); EILA (International Society of Violin and Bow Makers);Rotary (Vignola - Castelfranco Emilia - Bazzano). The truth is lutiers live in a niche world, rarely contemporary violin makers break the news, they are far from the stage, no wonder it is not so easy to find the kind of evidences you are looking for even on the web.Rcamillini (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This maker is very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.213.177 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC) — 93.39.213.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Being good does not make him inherently notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep: Guicciardi is an outstanding violin maker, many musicians especially in Italy, Germany and Japan play a Guicciardi violin, viola or cello. He is the most important pupil of Ansaldo Poggi (one of the most important Italian luthier). Marcella Ghigi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.89.37.156 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - President of EILA (International Society of Violin and Bow Makers. Perhaps an arcane topic but seems a well known figure within the violin-making world. Article is not done in a commercial manner. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Rcamillini that rarely contemporary violin makers appear in the news, and strictly following Wikipedia's notability criteria probably more than 50% of the makers listed here should be deleted. Maestro Guicciardi is with no doubt a well known and reputed collegue, someone who will not be forgotten by our History.--RegazziR (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't have an unsourced BLP and all the keep votes are by assertion, except one and the subject isn't even mentioned in that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. Appears he may be notable but further work is required. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and wikify and extend. Gian Carlo Guicciardi is well know, with many sources available to satisfy notability, so why was he nominated. scope_creep (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. Stifle's reasoning makes perfect sense, and is the best way to balance the possible notability with the present lack of sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as the rough consensus indicates. In addition, I believe the arguments for deletion outweighed those for retention. –MuZemike 01:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people working outside the arts who are also musicians[edit]

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

Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. For most people this is trivial information and the criteria for inclusion depend on one's definition of musician. A significant portion of the population plays some sort of instrument so this list would become so huge that it would be useless. Pichpich (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR."?? I say poppycock on both counts. Neither of those guidelines apply in the least to this article. Cgingold (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my view, this would fall under WP:TRIVIA also, and possibly WP:LISTCRUFT. Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "trivia" & "listcruft" are often in the eye of the beholder. In this case, I'm afraid I just don't agree. As a serious student of human behavior from a social science perspective, I find this sort of info quite fascinating and valuable. The article pulls together some very useful information that would be extremely hard to locate otherwise. Cgingold (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:ITSUSEFUL apply to what you just said. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hopelessly crufty. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nonencyclopedic cross-categorization, which falls under WP:NOTDIR. Them From Space 03:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we were discussing Categories, I would agree with you -- Category:Politician-musicians and the like would surely be deleted. But this is an article -- not a Category -- and as I already said, it pulls together some very valuable information. As for WP:NOTDIR, as I said above, poppycock. That guideline has nothing to do with articles like this. If it did, we would promptly expunge every last List article from Wikipedia. Cgingold (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. The key word here is unencyclopedic, not cross-categorization. This is a cross-categorization which really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It is indiscriminate: it can go on forever and the lines here are very blurred (what constitutes "the arts" and how involved in music does one have to be to be a "musician"). Furthermore, this collection of date really isn't a notable one. Nobody comments on this sort of material, no reliable sources compile data on people who work outside the arts yet are also musicians. This is why the cross-categorization is unencyclopedic. Yes, there is nearly an infinite of bad list ideas such as this that fall under WP:NOTDIR. Sadly we host many of them, but most by far are not on here. What matters isn't your personal opinion on the article, but whether the subject is proper for an encyclopedia. If a subject hasn't even been defined elsewhere in the world, what makes us think we can invent it and publish it on Wikipedia? Them From Space 06:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tighten up the scope of the article. I've already explained in my interspersed remarks why I disagree with the arguments that have been advanced for deletion. However, I would agree with Pichpich's observation that an awful lot of people play instruments, so the article should be renamed to "List of people working outside the arts who are also notable as musicians". Cgingold (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While i like cgingold's argument, i dont think we can ultimately define such a list, so i agree ultimately with themfromspace. is it for people who have earned money outside of music, but also play? would they be excluded if they earned any money as a musician? some of the people on this list most certainly earned some income from their music. why "outside the arts", is someone opposed to Clint Eastwood being on this list? wouldnt a sculptor/musician be a good entry item? the best i can see is modifying cgingold's lede rewrite to be "people who are notable both within the field of music and within other fields", as the "working" part is too hard to define, and is not the basis for notability. but this may be an arbitrary confluence of subjects, which is disallowed, like "red haired dictators". see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. if its not an arbitrary confluence, as undoubtedly the subject of people who are musicians and other things has been written about, it may be too broad a confluence to allow. a person is notable, but once notable, how would one measure what precisely they are notable for? perhaps a pie chart: steve martin: 65% film, 15% stand up, 10%writer, 5% musician, 5% other. should the cutoff be at 90/10 for nonmusician/musician? I really think this is best left as categories, so a person can be both a banker and a composer/musician by category, not notable for being both at the same time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ny original inspiration for this article was people like Charles Ives, Robert Byrd, and the King of Thailand, all of whose careers were outside of the arts, but who had significant musical reputations as well. Then there is Bill Clinton, who is notable as a musician only because he was President. And others who are primarily musicians but who have careers in politics, etc.... I'm not totally satisfied with the article, myself, and hoped that other people would improve it. I also put in "outside the arts" because there is such a tendency for people to work in multiple areas of the arts. I don't think that a Congressperson who sings in the shower would qualify for this list. I'd like to see people make suggestions on how to improve the list and the concept rather than just eradicating it. The "Notable as musicians" qualification offered above sounds like it would define the concept a little better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breffni Whelan (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 August 2010 UTC

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

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

The result was keep. After a rewrite, there was no consensus to delete this article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Autosports[edit]

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

Clear advertisement. Undeleted on WP:REFUND here because the content (both text and imagery) was released under a free license and the original deletion reason was for copyright violation. The comments on that undeletion request indicate that the wikipedia article is to serve as an extension of the corporate website. Additionally, this may fail WP:CORP, but I don't know for certain. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless completely re-written, NPOV is an issue, the opinions are abound with statements like "The team will seek to deliver immaculately prepared and executed racing programs in a variety of settings and styles" and "Mr. Hogan directly contributed to the development and professionalism of the modern motorsports industry". This subject may qualify for a Wikipedia however this article does not, I think editor which created this has conflict of interest here and may need to step back and ask for someone else (not attached to the group) to recreate it. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep~~Delete~~The promotional portions and NPOV are definitely cleared up (thank you for that), now does it meet with Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). I do not know much about autosports, but the article stills seems to ~~lack the notability for inclusion~~ be on the right track now.

Delete I am the one who restored the article, and I agree with the above comments. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is no longer promotional. I have no opinion on the notability. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep ~~on the caveat that the article be re-written by someone OTHER than the creator to eliminate the non-neutral point of view.~~ Additionally, here are links to coverage I've found - these could be included to establish notability. ~~which the article in its current state doesn't~~ - ^[2]^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please do not delete this page again. It took a while to figure out what happened the first time, and I just got it reinstated. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Article is simply a rewrite of the team's website. The author has been repeatedly warned against using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Notability established although article is nothing more than a stub at the moment. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below) - this sort of extended promotional stuff would be fine on the company's web-site (and indeed is largely a copy of it) but Wikipedia is not a promotional notice-board, it is an encyclopedia, which is quite a different thing and (since anyone can edit) it only maintains itself as an encyclopedia by having strong rules against editing with a conflict of interest. This sort of thing shows why we need them. JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you're considering promotional material. This is information straight from the United Autosports web site, and we are not promotion events here. We are simply showing who United Autosports is, its team members, drivers and cars. There isn't anything promotional about it. Please, help me understand as I am very confused by the controversy here.Bgoodman0310 (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion only comes because I don't think you have read or followed any of links which people have left on your talk page, which explain the current issues with the article you have copied from your website. Not to mention the numerous mentions of conflict of interest you hold by creating this article on Wikipedia. Here is some other readings which will hopefully help clear some of your confusion reliable sources, notability and because this may be an issue from comments made in the refund discussion ownership. I hope this helps - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 14:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously have read the links, I promise. It just doesn't make sense. I do not know what the "refund discussion" is. Is there content in my article about a "refund?" Bgoodman0310 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REFUND is just short for "Requests for Undeletion", the page where you asked to have the article restored. The statements you made there are identical to the statements you made here. You said that the article on wikipedia reflects your own corporate website: which is not at all what a wikipedia article should be. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I'm taking no stand on the notability. The article is unabashedly promotional, and would require a ground up rewrite. As such, it should be deleted as WP:SPAM. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - now that other editors have basically rewritten it from scratch, the promotional concerns are adressed and I'm satisfied that the sourcing is good enough to pass notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have spent a good portion of my day reading through the Conflict of Interest rules, and I have also rewritten the sections of the United Autosports wiki page so that it is less "promotional" and more encyclopedic. I hope this meets with everyone's approval Bgoodman0310 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Bgoodman0310, while you are welcome to offer comments to the discussion, editors have just one opportunity to make a bold recommendation on the outcome of the discussion. Cindamuse (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On that note I have changed the wording accordingly. Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is promotional in nature and really not appropriate for Wikipedia. Allow me to explain. Sometimes there is a bit of confusion over the use of the term "promotional". There is a much broader scope than simply that which covers the sale and/or advertisement of products and services. One way to better understand the term as it relates to assessing articles is to determine the purpose or motive of including the article on Wikipedia. Some people say, "But I'm not selling anything!" Other terms that define "promotional" include "advocate", "present", "announce", "advance", "introduce", "make known", "publicize", "bring about", "plug", and "facilitate". I think it's safe to say that all these words typify both the term "promotional", as well as the content of the article. So, again, it's really not appropriate. Cindamuse (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still promotional, still no credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe I can show notability as the United Autosports drivers and organization have had many articles written about them. Would that help show notability, and if so, do I show those as Resources at the end of my article? Thank you for your help. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply - no, that would fall under the "notability is not inherited" principle. Not every project in which a notable person is involved, is thereby made notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I cleaned up the article a little and used two notable sources that Whose Your Guy had found. Please review changes and modify delete/keep votes accordingly.--v/r - T P 19:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is all my content and images? TParis00ap said they cleaned up the article 'a little', but ALL of my content and images are now GONE. This is not acceptable. I noted MANY notable sources. Am I not seeing the revisions correctly? Remember, we're not all pros like the Wiki administrators. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not WP:OWN the article, therefore there's no requirement for your work to remain. Your work was highly promotional and biased and served no encyclopedic use and therefore was removed in order to save the article from being deleted. Had we kept your work, the article almost certainly would have been deleted. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. I made major strides to make the article unbiased and nonpromotional. It was simply an encyclopedic view of what United Autosports is as a racing team and the ownership of such team. It is very similar to that of Penske's wikipedia page. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree you may, but the article was still heavily biased, promotional, and not encyclopedic. Changing a few buzzwords was not the fix to the problem. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with user:The359, prior to the rewrite, the article was still promotional. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bgoodman0310, Wikipedia is not a place for original research and works. The article I wrote was not in my own words. In this version, each statement is supported by a verifiable source to support it. There are also notable sources now that support the notability of the subject of the article. In this form, the article may meet guidelines for keep. If you wish to add to the article, use third party content and inline citations. Sometimes we cannot see how our own interests influence the things we do. Even trying your best to stay nuetral may not appear as nuetral to others. Thanks.--v/r - T P 20:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article as revised by TParis00ap - brilliant rescue job. It may need to be watched to see it does not get re-spammed. Bgoodman300, nobody owns a Wikipedia article, not its first author and certainly not anyone connected with its subject. If you want an article that you can control, you need Myspace or a site like that, not Wikipedia. Your website is the place for all your pictures and detail, and anyone who wants to see them can get to your website in one click. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. When will the "delete" message be removed from the top of the article? Thanks. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion runs for seven days; soon after that, an uninvolved administrator will decide what the consensus of the debate is, and take whatever action is required. If the article is kept, the template at the top will be removed at that point. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rideau Canal. NW (Talk) 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rideau Canal Festival[edit]

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

Notability has not been established. It appears to be a minor festival in one city. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - As there seems to be lots of coverage, not sure if they can be used or not though - [7] [8] [9] [10] Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or, better yet, merge into its own substantive section in our Rideau Canal article. The festival, while new, has gotten sufficient coverage to justify its own small article (14 Google News Archive hits). I think, however, that it would be better to incorporate it in the larger article -- the material would get better visibility. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rideau Canal, as it is not notable enough for a stand alone article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Xtreme Wrestling[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanispamisement cruft. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. scope_creep (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails general notability guidelines. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other independent promotion have pages which are not marked for deletion. Please advise how this page can be updated to not be considered for deletion. I would be willing to work on this article so as to prevent it from being deleted. Note: I am not currently affiliated with TXW Wrestling but have spoken to the trainer (Billy Marshall aka "Demon") about the possibility of training as a wrestler for TXW. Vince bd (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC) — Vince bd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Nikki♥311 02:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nikki: My apologies for the confusion. I was not trying to argue that the TXW Wrestling article shouldn't be deleted because other Independent wrestling promotion pages exist. I was just stating that I would be willing to work on the TXW article so as to avoid it being deleted, however I'm not exactly sure what you are expecting. Any suggestions are appreciated. Vince bd (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You would have to show that it has had sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources (see WP:CORP). Nikki♥311 01:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TXW is a major wrestling promotion in the East Tennessee area that has been listed in several National publications and is about to start broadcasting on a network affiliate locally. Wrestlers that have worked for TXW include Buzz Sawyer's son Travis Sawyer, Ricky Morton, Shawn Shultz (who recently appeared on WWE television), Sigmon (recently on OVW television), Ryan Dookie, the Bashams and others. Flipsiderunner 20:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC) — Flipsiderunner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing enough (or any) significant coverage in third-party sources to pass WP:GNG. SheepNotGoats (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alnwick. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alnwick Fair[edit]

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

Speedy declined. No assertion of notability. Wtshymanski (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and wikify. The fair has been running for almost 40 years, and it will come back. The UK Age of Austerity has put kybosh on it, but it will be back no doubt. It is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - as it stands, no evidence of notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Alnwick. An event that's been running for that long warrants a mention somewhere. I don't have time right now to check just how much media coverage this event has, but it's certainly not a deletion candidate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at the very least merge to Alnwick. The Northumberland Gazette has extensive coverage over the years: e.g., [11], [12]. Also coverged here and here for examples of coverage outside of the Gazette. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator So does the Morden Corn and Apple Festival also get an article? It's been running since 1967 and gets extensive coverage from the local papers, too. Does every village annual sock hop constitute a topic for an encyclopedia? What's the threshold for notability for these things? Now, the Calgary Stampede (since 1923) makes some notability claims in the first paragraph ("world's largest rodeo", one million visitors, etc.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alnwick, this is commonly the best solution of things only of local notability. It is a pity that the article has not been updated since before the then proposed 2007 event. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Alnwick. As far as I can tell, the only coverage of the fair in non-local sources deals with one particular event (the fair being shut down), which does not meet the requirement for "significant" coverage in WP:GNG. SheepNotGoats (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robbos Loyal[edit]

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

Should have been speedied, I think. I don't think it's notable and it has no sources BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:ORG. Nothing to make it notable. scope_creep (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. In fact I would have speedy-deleted it, but I thought since this AfD is here we may as well let it be discussed. However, if another admin decides to go ahead with speedy deletion I won't object at all. (Incidentally, the speedy deletion tag was removed by an account with no edits other than to this article. The account was created shortly after the article's creator was indef-blocked under the username policy.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the speedy was removed and that's why I put it here. I don't know what else to do once the speedy is removed. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right then by bringing it here rather than trying to place a PROD tag on it, as since the speedy tag was removed, there was a good chance the PROD tag would have been removed also. Whose Your Guy (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining :D BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems close to a coatrack designed to denigrate the club and its supporters. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Completely non-notable organisation written in an non-encyclopaedic style. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utter tosh, totally non-notable and completely unencylopaedic. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Whose Your Guy (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While they may not represent all Hearts fans they certainly do represent a number of them, deleting the account would only serve to further the aims of those who dont like this group. there is nothing controversial posted so imo should be allowed to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmfc 1874 01 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We're not deleting it because we don't like it, we are deleting it because it fails these guidelines - WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:N, WP:NPOV and possibly WP:V. Whose Your Guy (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - showing what some hearts fans beleive in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.18.169 (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC) — 195.173.18.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes do not address the issue of objective notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BigBlueButton[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have not found any coverage of the product or project at all. Haakon (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Being an inclusionist and a software architect I tend to like these kinds of articles as they enrich Wikipedia but not necessarily violate WP:NOTMANUAL. Its an interesting and sucessful product, which brings together a number of well know open source products, and clearly demonstrates that Open Source products work. I think it should be expanded heavily and wikifield. scope_creep (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand where you're coming from, but liking the article is usually not a keep reason, and it's not up to Wikipedia to promote open source. Some sources would help the article, if they exist. Haakon (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unambiguous advertising: BigBlueButton (BBB) enables universities and colleges to deliver a high-quality learning experience to remote students. BigBlueButton supports sharing of slides (PDF and PPT), whiteboard, chat, video, voice (using Asterisk), and desktops. It is built using over fifteen open source components, runs on Windows, Linux, Unix, and Mac computers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self promotion, non-notable, apparently still half-baked. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article does need to be improved (which I started), however, this is clearly a leader for an open source app in this software class. Marclaporte (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it may be interesting and innovative, it hasn't received enough significant coverage in third-party sources to establish notability. (The only references that may be third-party are from a publication called "Open Source Business Resource", whose site is timing out right now, so I can't evaluate the quality of the references or the publication itself. But the blurb on Google calls it a "Free monthly publication for Canadian business owners", which does not sound particularly impressive.) SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PlayStation 3#Reliability. Tone 12:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Light of Death[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability to justify the article or cite any sources. The one that was provided was to Yahoo! Answers - Essentially a forum/messageboard which are not reliable. Suggest redirecting to PlayStation 3#Reliability which covers the issue sufficiently. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 18:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely frivolous to have this as a separate article. The entirety of this information could and should be contained in the Playstation 3 article. - OldManNeptune (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Could easily be incorporated into main PlayStation 3 article. scope_creep (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely an opinion piece (saying the new model hasn't improved at all) under the guise of an actual article. This element is already in the PS3 article and so many other things go wrong with it (loss of Blu-ray playback, internet connectivity and such) that this is one of the smaller issues with the console. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless article whose content should be in the main PS3 article. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PlayStation 3#Reliability. Plausible search term, but this hasn't received the coverage that the red ring of death has. We also had a previous AfD that was pretty much the same thing (may have been reworded), closing in a redirect. --Teancum (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator (why bring to AfD?). As Teancum says, this is a plausible search term as evidenced by the BBC reference[13]. Marasmusine (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted due to no claim of importance Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Arun[edit]

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

The supposed source is copied together from Wikipedia articles and is identical to a blog of the Wikiuser who started the article. Another version of the article was already deleted twice under the name Arun Thomas. Does not fulfil the general notability guideline. Hekerui (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Completly fails WP:BIO and with no sources. scope_creep (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. Can't really say that the claim of "famous for namjak samaram" is an assertion of importance. —SpacemanSpiff 19:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Falls under A7 criteria, doesn't even make any statements which would suggest notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not asserted or sourced. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity piece.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Дождь[edit]

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

Дождь, or doshd, is the Russian word for "rain". So Pravda (in Russian, try Google translator) says this is nothing but a canard on Twitter resulting from the latest drought and fires in Russia.[14]. The bomb image in the article shows an ordinary RDS-6s bomb that must have been photoshopped. No reliable online sources can be found that this program is real. And Putin's dog is called Koni [15]. De728631 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete: pure phantasm; this bomb does not exist. --High Contrast (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy. An explanation in English is here: [16]. A lame wannabe-meme that just didn't take off. East of Borschov 18:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax -- I almost said redirect to Joe 4 but its clear that this doesn't exist. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Whose Your Guy (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources now added, I think this fixes the problem here. Tone 12:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Frank[edit]

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability, article has been tagged for improvement since April 2010. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless sourcing is added to bring it inline with BLP guidelines - There was a SF Gate blog post about it that got picked up by Jezebel. Those two are the most obvious sources but both are blogs, although high profile ones. There's also an FTC settlement note from about 10 years ago, and there's a pretty strong web presence in general, although most of it appears to be shopping or primary sources. Shadowjams (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what it's worth I've heard of her and probably everyone who has bought school supplies in the last couple decades has seen her work. I think there is potential for notability but I agree that sources seem to be lacking, as she is primarily a commercial artist. - OldManNeptune (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment so I've added the BLP caveat above. Right now it has 0 WP:RS backing it up so I'm concerned with BLP guidelines, but if someone could add some (in addition to the blog ones I pointed out above) then I'd easily switch to keep. Shadowjams ([[User

talk:Shadowjams|talk]]) 18:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've added two from newspapers. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the added citations I support keeping but encourage development and citation for the sake of preventing further nominations for deletion. I believe the subject is notable (30+ year career and possibly the only person to get name recognition for illustrating trappers) but the circumstance of being a commercial artist hampers sourcing; however that should not stand in the way of giving the article a chance. - OldManNeptune (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's the founder, president, and CEO of a multimillion-dollar public corporation. Walk into any commercial art store, arts and crafts, or children's section of your local Walmart and you will be bombarded with Lisa Frank products. Niche product, not likely to find a lot of information in books and newspapers, etc. outside of sales ads for Michael's Arts & Crafts though. Cindamuse (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:GNG now satisfied, and per Cindamuse.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs) per A7: "Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canoodle[edit]

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

Borderline speedyable; no real assertion of notability, no third-party sources OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 16 August 2010

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Patterson (DJ/Producer)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria WP:BAND Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Clearly fails WP:BAND. scope_creep (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme strong delete as article fails notability critetia for djs. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Oceansummer87 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 075[edit]

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

No lasting significance, a single event that violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH C628 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC) C628 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if it subsequently becomes apparent that the aircraft has been written off. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a wholly non-notable accident - no injuries/deaths means no real story. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news reports, there is no evidence, that it will have a lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the airline article. The accident does not meet the guidelines in WP:AIRCRASH. Even if the aircraft is written-off it would still not meet the guidelines. The accident is already mentioned in the airline's article, so no need for a merge. YSSYguy (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is already mentioned in the article then there is no need for a re-direct as any search engine worth its salt will winnow it out.Petebutt (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a thousand times delete, otherwise the Wikipedia servers will be full of junk like this.Petebutt (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST, and additionally I would say it falls afoul of CSD G11 as it had no encyclopedic content, and was written as a review which by its nature is there to advise on purchasing. If not blatant, then I don't think anyone will mind a WP:IAR deletion. Taelus (Talk) 21:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Comparisons[edit]

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

Fails WP:N as this is an essay filled with original research based upon its creator's POV. The article was WP:PRODed which was removed along with the maintenance tags by the creator without improvement. --moreno oso (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - You are being extremely generous in your description. This amounts to nothing more than using Wikipedia as a blog. - OldManNeptune (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Doesn't appear to fall under any speedy criteria - maybe G2 test, or A10 if someone can find a similar article, pity. A BLATENTLY OBVIOUS WP:OR essay. WP:SNOW anyone? Ryan Norton 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agreed, WP:SNOW certainly applies. As mentioned this article was WP:PROD, a process only stopped by the author. Deletion of this article is entirely uncontroversial. - OldManNeptune (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - OR essay, wikipedia is not a webhost. Mauler90 _talk 20:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Melnychuk[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN Ironholds (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only ref appears to be a dead link, for the external link i cant get the page to load either(can anyone else?), so it appears we do have an unrefd BLP here. Article indicates no reason as to why she passes WP:poli as in notable coverages and such. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ref. link is 404'd. Article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - councillors for major cities are notable (WP:POLITICIAN#2). 117Avenue (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Show where this coverage is, please? Ironholds (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For those of you who think I never met a Biography of a Living Politician that I didn't like, I just found one. Non-notable and not running again. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume good faith that the Edmonton Sun article was worth something, even if the link no longer works. She was frequently mentioned in the Edmonton Journal during her time on council (I have access to that paper, but not the Sun), including a piece about her when she retired, as well as a short article about her when she was first elected (Oct 16, 2001; p. B2). In all, there are 381 articles in the Journal that at least mention her. There's nothing beyond Edmonton that I could find. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Caterina[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - councillors for major cities are notable (WP:POLITICIAN#2). 117Avenue (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Show where this coverage is, please?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 August 2010

The link above will take you to over 200 hits. 117Avenue (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, show significant coverage. You seem to be failing to distinguish between what our notability guidelines require and the number of google hits. Ironholds (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, city councillors are generally NOT notable per WP:POLITICIAN, unless they've done something wonderful or dastardly, thereby gaining media coverage. PK T(alk) 18:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Krushell[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - councillors for major cities are notable (WP:POLITICIAN#2). 117Avenue (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Show where this coverage is, please? Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link above will take you to over 200 hits. 117Avenue (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All brief mentions. Show how it spans "significant coverage". Ironholds (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @117Avenue do you oppose deleting or keeping the article? You may want to clarify your recommendation and read the guidelines on how to discuss an AfD. It may help in adding clarity to your participation in the discussion. As far as my recommendation, just being an elected official to a local office does not guarantee notability. We need reliable sources that can be properly cited, rather than a list of hits on google. Cindamuse (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, city councillors are generally NOT notable per WP:POLITICIAN, unless they've done something wonderful or dastardly, thereby gaining media coverage. PK T(alk) 18:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Phone Addiction Denial[edit]

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

Repost of prod-deleted material. Complete original research. Delete again. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meh, it has credible sources, where else would you look this up, or start the article? leave it be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.41.113 (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unestablished notability or mental health diagnosis. Not listed in the DSM-IV or DSM-V. Lacks reliable sources or verifiability. This is a joke, right? I'm just playing along. Cindamuse (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, none found, WP:MADEUP, fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An original essay. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anything deleted from Wikipedia becomes notable because of that fact, doesn't it? Delete. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As expected, nothing on Google. Half the article is about how the admin who deleted it last time "done goofed." Non-notable essay and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:MADEUP, WP:OR, ~~and possibly even WP:PN.~~ --Kudpung (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see any mention of this in DSM IV or any mental health reference Willbennett2007 (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt. Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and SALT.--Kudpung (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes pertain to WP:EFFORT. If the subject really is notable, then recreate with proper sourcing and without the promotional tone. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Obert[edit]

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

Autobiography with no evidence of notability Eeekster (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure where the policy stands here as this is a BLP lacking reliable sources. I also realize that this article was written by the subject. He even sought assistance from the Help Desk clear back in 2008 about how to write his own article. Regardless of the poor writing and approach, Obert is actually an award-winning cinematographer with additional expertise in photography, acting, and producing. Again, it's a bad article, lacking sources, but the subject is definitely notable. Cindamuse (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Dale might potentially meet notability criteria, the article as it stands is an unreferenced unwikified stub with no real evidence of importance. Based on this it should be deleted. (and recreated when someone is prepared to write the profile properly (anyone??)). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article need substantial work, wikified and sources added, but the the guy clearly satisfies notablity guidelines. Deleting and creating it again just creates unnecessary work. scope_creep (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources (ie: third party coverage) establish notability; imdb & Linkedin are not sufficient. Hairhorn (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, painfully promotional. JNW (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article. Nakon 23:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in Tom Clancy's Endwar[edit]

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

Very very trivial indeed, no sources, not notable. Geoff B (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources with significant coverage to back up the article. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke - not compliant with WP:WAF or WP:Notability. Wikia Gaming would happily accept this, probably. Marasmusine (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirunaball[edit]

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

Contested PROD - in fairness to the editors of the article, it would be best to discuss it at AfD. That said, I would argue that article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the original PRODer, I don't think this sport/game is notable at this time. However, the authors suggest that it may well be taken up at the university level, and so I'm happy to have a wider discussion here. If nothing else, it might help the authors establish what makes a sport notable (I found policy articles on established sports and their participants, but I didn't find a specification of what makes a sport itself notable). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as this game was only invented 11 days ago, it is most unlikely to be notable yet. In the absence of any special guidelines we fall back on the GNG and ask, is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? And no, there is none at all, even the one reference in the article does not mention it. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An important consideration is that there is no agreement over whether the existing coverage is enough for her to meet WP:GNG. A lot of the "keep" !votes are very weak, but the "delete" !votes pertaining solely to WP:PORNBIO are also irrelevant if she meets GNG. Since this AfD does not establish that one way or another, we must conclude that there is no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Fishburne[edit]

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

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

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

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

This BLP was brought to my attention through another AfD. As notability is not inherited, as it stands there are only two sources in this article, and at the present time this person has done nothing of note to date. Appearing in two porno films isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG in my book. Whose Your Guy (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PORNBIO unless some verifiable evidence is presented of independent notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
Weak keep WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:PORNBIO and the number of films she's been in are irrelevant if she passes WP:GNG. She has had plenty of coverage, although it possibly violates WP:ONEVENT so far. Epbr123 (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She doesn't meet the criteria within WP:PORNBIO or anything else that I see. She's only gaining attention in the press because of who her father is, rather than anything notable that she has accomplished. WP:NOTINHERITED Cindamuse (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lawrence Fishburne with a paragraph on the behavior/his response. The Rhymesmith (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per The Rhymesmith --Waldir ^talk 07:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is nothing that separates her from any other pornographic actor or actress and the rules of of WP:PORNBIO are subjective at best DRCarroll 03:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep This individual satisfies WP:GNG in my books. comment added by User:BarraganLL — BarraganLL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nomination rationale. 70.241.19.79 (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can not vote for keep at this time because her notability is only based on her last name. There is indeed significant coverage by reliable sources but only for beeing the "bad" daughter of a famous actor. So even if there are currenty several articles about the conflict with her father and the consequences, even over several weeks, it's actually still WP:BLP1E at best and furthermore WP:NOTNEWS can be applied. Moreover if things have "cooled down" the article would probably not survive the next AfD. She has not done anything outstanding so far to my knowledge and also just started in the porn business, so there are also no awards or any other special coverage. On the other hand the rather significant media response should not totally be ignored. But because it is only significant because of her famous father, it should be merged with his article and maybe redirect could be added. Testales (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The Ogre (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Morpheus' daughter? I wonder how is her acting? Lionel (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep I believe this satisfies the general notability guideline. 24.222.124.252 (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Once again *keep.~~ considering some of the ridiculous minutia that Wiki keeps on its books such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Archer, an entirely fictional person it can be at least said that Fishburne is an actual person and had a pulse. Having an attack of collective conscience with regards to "noteworthiness" at this point seems to be of little valueDRCarroll 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 172,229 page views so far this month. Abductive (reasoning) 05:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably one of the most illogical rationales I have seen. Whose Your Guy (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails WP:PORNBIO and is just visible because of her father. Favonian (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails applicable notability guidelines, fails GNG as NOTNEWS/ONEEVENT control. Not a suitable merge candidate because there's no sourced, reliable material relating to her father beyond the simple fact of the biological relationship. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' self-management[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Workers' self-management

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

the 2 sources do not verify the majority of the article. WP:OR Darkstar1st (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is on a notable concept/theory. I don't have much interest in this area, but it would be a shame to see it get deleted because of a lack of references. Maybe reduce to what can be verified. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, but that will leave less than a stub as it has only 2 sources and not very specific. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're begging the question. What can be verified? Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to research and verify everything in this article but I did add a few references. Issues like this is why I cant stand when people insert information and don't give it the slightest reference. All of this could be from great offline sources. Also, well over 500 articles link to the this article.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding observation. Imagine having to remove links in more than five hundred other articles, if this article was in fact deleted. This one circumstance is in itself a powerful argument against deletion, in my view. My thanks to you for participating here. Richard Myers (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, absolutely Needs work, but this is an extremely important concept that is relevant and notable. It does not get attention in the mainstream media in the United States, perhaps due to economic bias, but it is of vital interest to millions of working people around the world, and not just in an academic sense. The concept is in use to a significant extent in many countries, including Spain, Argentina, and Italy. I live in Denver, Colorado, and i know people who practice workers self-management in their printing business. Yes, the article needs better sourcing. But deletion is out of the question. Richard Myers (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where are the sources? On a topic like this, regardless of "media bias" sources should be easy to find. Add in what UncleG said and it raises a question or two about this article. WP:GNG etc.. Ryan Norton 18:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator actually deleted one of the existing (and valid) sources, rather than fixing it, just prior to nominating this article for deletion. I am familiar with the source, and it is a good one, although the format of the footnote was rather odd. As for UncleG's input, i suggest visiting his more robust comment at a related AfD, which is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace democracy. I think in light of those entries, his intent is more easily appreciated. Richard Myers (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i assumed the editor was the translator for the material sourced, apologies. who is the translator for this source i incorrectly deleted? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein are among the foremost English language experts on Zanon. They are a very good source for this Wikipedia article, with a wealth of information available, including many articles they've written, and a major documentary that they have produced. I feel the source should have been upgraded rather than deleted. Fixing the source (in my opinion) would include linking to something of theirs that is more recent, and more detailed. Not sure what you refer to when you state that "i assumed the editor was the translator for the material sourced..." Richard Myers (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"^ Hugo Moreno, Le désastre argentin. Péronisme, politique et violence sociale (1930-2001), Editions Syllepses, Paris, 2005, p.109 (French)"this is the link i deleted, but the version i found was not in english? if you have an english source please accept my apology, and my plea to update the link. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this change, which appears to be your edit, just two minutes before you launched the AfD on this article for lack of sources. The Hugo Moreno source was not removed, and is still in the article. Appears that it does indeed need fixing or removal, and that you removed the wrong source/footnote. Richard Myers (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are 100's of ghits on the topic, and I suspect as a management article, will have plenty good sources. It is an important topic and Wikipedia is just the place for it, although don't care for it. scope_creep (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A concept which is becoming more popular, and is likely to generate significant interest. The article needs to be improved, but that shouldn't influence the fact it needs to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IainUK (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This concept is key to worker cooperatives and many employee owned workplaces. The article is in need of improvement and sourcing, but these are not reasons to delete an article. Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per WP:SNOW Zazaban (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Worst challenge of 2010. One of the fundamental principles of Yugoslav Socialism from the late 1940s until the multinational republic rebalkaniized... Carrite (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Definite Keep as this is an important concept (like workplace democracy) which follows the post-communist party and anti-corrupt union movements in Italy, Germany, France and Spain in the 1960's through the 1990's. See George Katsiasficas' book Bold textThe Subversion of Politics"Italic textSee also, CLR James' concept of worker self-management as "everyday" socialism. It also has ties to the Argentinian workers' self-organizing movement recorded in a book called "Horizontality"... the Italian Opereia movement is well outlined in Toni Negri's book, "The Hammer of Dionysus" et.al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.208.242 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.208.242 (talk)

the article appears to be improving! the lede and theory section cold still use a source or 2. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for the AfD, not to discuss a few missing references. Anyway, I think consensus here is clear and the article lacking a source or two certainly doesn't qualify it for deletion. Such issues can be brought up on the article's talk page and maybe WikiProject Socialism would be interested in working on it.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just for the record; sources are indeed out there. Ryan Norton 03:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

correct, a tag has been in place for over a year requiring action, yet none taken until this post, therefore a net gain. the article was not just missing a source or two, rather missing wp:standards, by a good ways, and for an extended period. whether or not there is consensus the topic is valid, the OR content needs work, or needs a rewrite. i am sure you/everyone will be pleased with a better article. @Ryan, thank you for the work you contributed here, please add the sources you found when time allows. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unorthodox methods you have, but hey it worked. Zazaban (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

articles like these make wp an easy target for mudslingers, who do not bother to learn how to use wp. articles are rated, yet few both to check. removing a valid topic, poorly written is a harsh reality of wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a copyright infringement of http://www.ft-safe.com/products/OTP-C200.html JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OATH TOTP c200[edit]

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

From the deleted prod: Advertisement for a non-notable product Eeekster (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace democracy[edit]

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

unsourced original research Darkstar1st (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, absolutely I will offer the same comment here that i offer for the AfD on Workers' self-management. These two concepts are related, but are not the same. The article needs work, but this is an extremely important concept that is relevant and notable. It does not get attention in the mainstream media in the United States, perhaps due to economic bias, but it is of vital interest to millions of working people around the world, and not just in an academic sense. The concept is in use to a significant extent in many countries, including Spain, Argentina, and Italy. I live in Denver, Colorado, and i know people who practice workers self-management via workplace democracy in their printing business. Yes, the article needs work, and yes, it needs sourcing. But deletion is out of the question. Richard Myers (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete articles for not citing sources. We delete articles when no sources exist to be found. That is deletion policy. So what effort did you put into determining that no sources are to be found? You're supposed to look for yourself when nominating articles for deletion, not leave that task up to other people. (See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do for good practice of long-standing which forms part and parcel of both our verifiability and deletion policies.) Did you go to Questia, for example, and see the umpteen books and articles on the subject, from Robert Mayer's Is There a Moral Right to Workplace Democracy?, in Social Theory and Practice through Hancock's, Logue's, and Schiller's Managing Modern Capitalism: Industrial Renewal and Workplace Democracy in the United States and Western Europe? Did you go to Google Scholar to find Mayer duking out the debate over workplace democracy with Robert A. Dahl in articles like doi:10.1017/S0034670500031156 and doi:10.1017/S0034670500031168 in The Review of Politics?
If you didn't do any of this, then you didn't approach Wikipedia correctly. If one doesn't look for sources onesself, then any conclusion that something is "unsourced" is founded entirely on sand and is both worthless and of no actual use to either AFD or Wikipedia in general. Always look for sources yourself. It's how policy should be practiced. Uncle G (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @uncle G, apologies, we seemed to have covered the same ground. i should have mentioned more specifically the article was OR, after reading the sources found in google, and many others. such a term does exist, just not supported by the text here. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So get out your editing tool and boldly rewrite the article! It doesn't require an administrator to exercise the deletion tool in order to get from the current state to the desired result. Just be bold, and write a good, verifiable, neutral article, without mercy. As the saying goes: AFD is not cleanup. Anyone, even someone without an account, can perform the cleanup that you're looking for. Refactor, rewrite, and replace. Turn an ugly ducking into sourced brilliant prose. We all have the tools for that. Uncle G (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A complete waste of time nominating this article. There are many many ghits on this important concept. As for Workplace democracy AfD entry above, their will be substantial reliable sources on the topic from the management posse. Needs some work, certainly, but no delete. scope_creep (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

believe me i tried, and since there is so much support here, i doubt there will be any trouble sourcing the article. what i found was not supported by the source, rather an interpretation, wrapped in OR, disguised as wp. the writing style is grade a, the topic is of great interrest, but few could deny the current work is below wp standards. a void is superior to a charade. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The subject is notable and there is an abundance of reliable sources that could be used to get this article referenced (see google scholar). Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is not the sources, rather the difference of the text, to the sources you and others googled. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Per WP:SNOW Zazaban (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another encyclopedia-worthy article title, this one a little short in the content department. Fix it, don't nix it. Carrite (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable concept/topic. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Definite Keep as this is an important concept (like worker's self-management) which follows the post-communist party and anti-corrupt union movements in Italy, Germany, France and Spain in the 1960's through the 1990's. See George Katsiasficas' book Bold textThe Subversion of Politics"Italic textSee also, CLR James' concept of worker self-management as "everyday" socialism. It also has ties to the Argentinian workers' self-organizing movement recorded in a book called "Horizontality", by Marina Sitrin... the Italian Opereia movement is well outlined in Toni Negri's book, "The Hammer of Dionysus" et.al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.208.242 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaji Ibrahim Shayi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, i cant find any reliable sources on this article whatsoever. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 08:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 10:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for sources but couldn't find any. I also tried looking up "chief accountant" bauchi, but with nothing definitive. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage, unreferenced BLP. —fetch ·comms 21:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a) There may well be sources in another language, if only we can find them, b) bear in mind this earlier version. I don't suppose he is extremely "famous", but I would imagine he is a significant figure within Bauchi and possibly has press-coverage in other language scripts. Chzz ► 23:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, Chzz, but unless someone can give us his name in Nigerian, we can't really look it up easily? Also, it depends on what is meant by "Chief Accountant" - are we talking about the equivalent of the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer or the US's United States Secretary of the Treasury - if so, he might be notable. However, I couldn't even verify that he held that position. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can try. No, I don't think he's equiv. of those two, he is "Chief Accountant in charge of all the 20 Local Government of Bauchi State Accounts" apparently - so I suppose the equivalent of a State auditor or something. Chzz ► 00:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. English is the official language in Nigeria, used in most newspapers and websites. Hausa language sources are unlikely. Bauchi State has about 5 million people. The Chief Accountant of the Local Government ministry, not an important ministry compared to Agriculture, Works, Education etc., is a mid-level bureaucrat. "Alhaji" is a common honorific. Web and Book searches on "Ibrahim Shayi" do not show up anything. Not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Comment I'm not stating either keep or delete on this one, but I figure you guys should see the extensive version the author wrote here. It was reverted back after he blanked the page and an editor reverted the vandalism. Might be a good way to find references. Nomader ^(Talk) 02:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that and Chzz did too. Looks like a resume. But given the job position, given the total lack of online sources ... I am absolutely against systemic bias, but this one just doesn't cut it. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Barroso[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable (as defined in WP:ACADEMIC and WP:MUSICBIO) student composer. Previously deleted per WP:PROD. VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC, nor WP:ACADEMIC. No discernable reason to keep. scope_creep (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. Dean[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael w. dean

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

Article appears to be little more than vanispamruft. Full of inline external links (sneaky spam?). Provided refs (all inline) are not satisfactory. For example, the one the links to a Vh1 clip only mentions Dean as the author in about 10 seconds of a 20 or so second short advert-like clip about a book he wrote. The variety magazine reference is useless, since it's just a listing of a film with his name as director. I do not see any actual references that are ABOUT this person, other than trivial passing mentions. He's directed a couple of movies but notability is not inherited and neither of them appears to have won any awards or been particularly special. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been nominated for deletion two or three times, well before user Kindzmarauli came onto Wikipedia, and it has been decided to let it stay each time. Has already been well defended, I'm not going to retype all of that. If a new user on Wikipedia wants to fight to delete it, I've got better things to do than fight with the youngins. See article "the failure of wikipedia" http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808 by Wikipedia OG Jason Scott about having to spend more time as a content DEFENDER than a content CREATOR. ElizaBarrington (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I find nothing to substantiate your claim that this article "has been nominated for deletion two or three times...it has been decided to let it stay each time" I only found this VfD discussion from 2005 in which the consensus was to delete. Could you please point those who have not been involved in these previous discussions to where they might be found? Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one of 'em: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_W._Dean ElizaBarrington (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over that talk page and most of what I see is you rebutting the various problem/maintenance templates that had been placed on the article. Placing problem/maintenance templates is quite different from nomination for deletion. Nominating an article for deletion usually entails placing a CSD, PROD, or AfD tag on the article, and the article being deleted (or kept) in accordance with the appropriate policy.

Upon further digging through the history, I found that an IP prodded the page – likely in bad faith – in December 2009 ([17]) and you removed the prod about 15 minutes later ([18]). While your removal of the prod was absolutely within policy, it is a major stretch to say that that was a decision to "let it stay". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do seem to remember at least one other nomination for deletion/decision to stay, I may have deleted the chatter about it. It's probably somewhere in history, either of the article page/talk page/ or elsewhere, I just don't have time to sift through it. It seems Wikipedia has some new editors who tend to be heavy handed with deletion, judging from their history (not just the folks who have called for this page's deletion, but just a general assessment from my years on Wikipedia vs. something I've noticed lately.)

I have a lot better things to do than to re-re-re-defend the same articles over and over. It's work. If no one else cares to nominate this article to stay, and provide additional resources, and someone deletes it, than so be it. I'm more into being a content creator than a content re-re-re-defender.

Thanks! ElizaBarrington (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Kindzmarauli and Burpelson AFB. In addition, fails WP:CREATIVE (author and filmmaker). Akerans (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Eliza, I am sorry your artice has been sent to AfD, but that is no reason to demean me and assume bad faith or that I don't know how to satisfy WP:N. This article does not. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find significant coverage of the person by independent reliable sources to establish notability per the guidelines (general, music, creative or otherwise) .--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is it snowing where you are from? Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination rationale. Salting might not be a bad idea either. 70.241.19.79 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and check the articles about this dude's "work" as well. Most of this seems like utter self promotion, I just read through the amazon entries for his "films" and I'm pretty convinced at least half of the reviews are fake. And using the google test as a relevance argument for a someone who is known to promote himself over the internet is just... let's say pointless. If this guy stays, I can tell two thirds of the students at my roommate's film and arts school that they deserve a WP article now... -- Imladros (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The subject's self-promotion should be a separate issue from whether or not he is notable. His 2002 documentary DIY or Die got a NYT review and his O'Reilly bio lists a lot of interesting work, but it is not clear than any one of them or all of them together add up to notability. Maybe keep the article about DIY or Die and merge the bio into it. Questionic (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually an All Movie Guide review duffbeerforme (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND. No real reliable sources have been provided to substantiate any of the claims made in the article. Unreferenced since 2008 and it does not seem it ever will be. Opening for Flipper doesn't make them notable. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Their Warner Bros. album, Hate-Fed Love, generated some coverage in notable papers. I wonder if that's enough for them to scrape by--it's only one record on a major label, but it is one that was reviewed inThe Washington Post and the Arizona Daily Star. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be enough for the album, but not for them. Did the album even chart? If not, then it's not notable. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Charting" is not a necessary requirement for notability. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I am misinterpreting this criteria, then? Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But that section clearly says a band "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria"--and having an album chart is only one of them. Independent coverage (the first item on the list) is much important and much more common, especially for bands outside the mainstream. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless reliable third-party sources can be found to save the article. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but part of the burden of participating in these AfD discussions is to do precisely that--look for such sources, successfully or in vain. "Delete unless sources can be found" implies "by someone other than me," but that's only OK if you actually look for them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some people are better at finding references than others. Some folks may have more resources than others. Generally when I see someone vote as WYG did, I assume they've looked and found nothing and are deferring to others. When I vote in this manner, it's because I didn't find anything myself but I'm open to changing my vote if someone else does. I tend to agree that the references could, potentially, be used to write an article about the album but not really the band since notability is not inherited. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If someone says "I searched high and low, in Google, on the Grammy site, in my collection of Kerrangs, or words to that effect, yes. But "inheriting" is not the question here anyway--if the album in its own right is notable, how can the band not be notable? It is rather the other way around--notable artists can make non-notable albums; they do so all the time. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That doesn't seem to jibe with WP:BAND though. Hypothetically, what if a band releases an album on a major label, the album gets a few reviews and an article about it, but the band itself receives no significant coverage? Subjects of articles need specific coverage about the subject, not about things related to them. For example, if a reported writes a series of articles about a house the house becomes notable but that doesn't mean the person who built it automatically becomes notable. There has to be coverage of the subject directly. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feltre School[edit]

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

nominated on behalf of IP: Non-notable private adult school. Fails GNG, as there's no indication of coverage besides one incidental mention in a local article about adult education. Prod contested without any improve to the article. User:69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many editors belive that schools have inherent notability, see Wikipedia:Notability (schools), which is a failed guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have tidied the article a little. One cite was already there, though not properly formatted. I found another and GNews indicates further coverage behind pay-walls. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All secondary schools are notable. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a secondary school — it's an adult school. Also, even if it had underage students, I would think the general consensus for giving secondary schools a free pass extends, at most, to officially recognized secondary schools: that is, a school which attending stops one from being considered truant under local law. --Closeapple (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Its website says "The Feltre School is a nonprofit private and independent school that provides returning adult students the opportunity to enrich their lives". It appears to be an adult-education establishment with no evidence of accreditation, and that is not something that Wikipedia consensus presumes to be notable. Therefore, WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and/or WP:LOCAL. ~~It appears to fail those, unless someone can come up with additional major coverage.~~ --Closeapple (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ORG actually states: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I think the sources that have been added adequately satisfy that criterion. Perhaps you would consider examining them? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks better: Weak Keep because of new Colista and Bertagnoli references (in article) being evidence of substantial coverage in WP:RS. (I can't get to Smoron page to see if it's a substantial treatment for notability; the others seem to be non-substantial for notability.) --Closeapple (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's more than enough references to unaffiliated sources to satisfy WP:V and therefore WP:N. elektrik SHOOS 07:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Eletrik, plenty of sources and coverage. --Stickee (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good sources. scope_creep (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jezhotwells. Passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feitian Technologies Co., Ltd.[edit]

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

From the prod: No independent sources cited, and no evidence of notability found. Article is promotional in character. Eeekster (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not as notable as SanDisk or such. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 05:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did some massive cleanup of the advert tone and various other things, and restored the afd tag removed by the article author. Could be notable, but since the author is obviously chinese and obviously originally advertorial (sp) in tone.... note that one of the [two] sources, "en.factolex.com", is actually mirroring the former state of the wikipedia article. Fails basic verification policy right now big time, not to mention most of the stuff that might make it pass WP:CORP is unreferenced. Ryan Norton 08:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has created several pages for different dongle-type computer accesories, all with strongly advertising tones.--Kudpung (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All of the articles created by this author except this one have been deleted as copyright violations. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it was obviously created for advertorial purposes , and even when trying to find sources to keep it the lack of anything to assert notability means it has to go.--Kudpung (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I disagree with the jist of what you say, but assuming the awards can be sourced somehow, it MIGHT make it close to being notable. Ryan Norton 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Standing on the Shoulder of Giants. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckin' in the Bushes[edit]

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

The only ref was a site for the lyrics; doesn't seem notable. So far it has failed the Google test; all I could find were copies of the same lyrics repeated over and over and over. I can't see anything meeting the general notability guidelines for the album currently, and even though it's been "in a popular commercially released film" I can't see the notability being inherited. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 03:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Standing on the Shoulder of Giants. If it's released as a single, it can again be its own article Purple backpack89 04:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that's a great idea, but I want to see consensus at an AFD first. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 04:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to Standing on the Shoulder of Giants, the song has been released on the CD for the film sountrack of Snatch and is heard in the film itself. A song appearing in more than one commercially released CD/DVD of note should warrant its own article. It's also been featured on Top of the Pops among other TV shows.4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Aah! It is a great song, I just had it playing on my computer and it is in one of the most important scenes of Snatch (one of my favorite movies) but it doesn't meet WP:NSONG. I can't find it on the charts, etc. Suggest merge to Standing on the Shoulder of Giants as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure if it needs to have a separate article, but I did want to point out that there is some useful WP:RS material about this song that can be incorporated in the article (or the album article). There are a number of hits for this title at Google News archives. Many of these relate to the song's use as the "traditional intro tape" at Oasis concerts.[19][20][21] An NME review describes the song as "one of the album's four saving graces, brimful of the sticklebacked attitude that once oozed endlessly from everything Oasis did and said. It also breaks new ground for them - if not anyone with half an ear cocked to the Big Beat Boutique during the past three years - based as it is around a manic drum loop and a cyclical, repetitive guitar motif . . . Basic but hugely effective, 'Fuckin' In The Bushes' inevitably gets the heart pumping nostalgically for the days when Oasis inspired such scenes of mass mayhem - and more importantly, suggests they may yet have it in them to do so again."[22] Here's a similar rave in Washington City Paper.[23]--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are somewhat bound by WP:MUSIC. If this song is really that great and famous, it will be eventually released as a single Purple backpack89 16:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the other songs on that excellent album, as everybody knows fine well, have articles. No doubt the other songs without articles will soon get one. It will be silly to remove it. scope_creep (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 16:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precore[edit]

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

Popularity of the band is in question, not worthy of an article Ubot16 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST, WP:MUSIC and WP:ENT. Don't seem to have any reliable sources, and only seemed to have released a single album, so article is advertising. scope_creep (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Artist has charted singles that can easily be verified; that alone is generally enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Miles[edit]

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

no major music coverage Ubot16 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The artist is vastly well known in the UK and should perhaps never been nominated. scope_creep (talk) 3:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Strong (even speedy) keep He has had Top 40 UK chart hits and so more than passes notability criteria. Keresaspa (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Obviously notable.--Michig (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - three top 5 hits in the UK, including one which was awarded a platinum disc, obviously notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Yeah, it's a BLP lacking sources. Still, I'm absolutely stunned that this was nominated. Scratching my head now. Sure the article needs some work, but it clearly shows his body of work and states that he is an award-winning musician with a platinum album. Cindamuse (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Slade[edit]

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

Delete. Non notable person. Numerous refs are not independent of the subject. See talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Nicely done bio, may I add. Carrite (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it is nicely done but does not belong on Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. I must be missing something. When you sort through the non neutral point of view material that comes primarily from the subjects own books and web page his career acheivements seem to be: having written 4 books, having done a lot of book reviews, and having worked on some USENET FAQs. He is not a professor at any university, not a recipient of any major prize in his field (IEEE, ACM, etc.), not an editor for any journal. In short, from what I can tell, most local college computer science instructors would have similar notability.Willbennett2007 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a fairly well known and respected security consultant who's written some books about virus's and malware. Maybe borderline WP:BIO fail, but well worth keeping for reference. scope_creep (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide some third party sources (i.e. not from the author or his publisher) that establish his notability? I have been told by more experienced wikipedians that even subjects who have published far more books than Mr. Slade, may not be notable enough for wikipedia?Willbennett2007 (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Willbennett2007. Here are a few places that choose to reference him in what I consider to be a notable way (no awards to write home about but I wouldn't have written this biography if I didn't think it was worthwhile): O'Reilly, Linux Security, Eset (first published in Virus Bulletin), Amazon.com -SusanLesch (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The O'Reilly link is a quote by him about an O'Reilly BIND book, The linux security link is them giving him a book review column, and your eset link is to a book review of his book. Amazon is him reviewing another book.
There might actually be enough to keep here, however your response here makes me question how great all of the other sources provided are, if this is what you consider a cross section of sufficient WP:RS, non-primary sources. I realize you're also trying to make a point that he's respected enough to have him on a jacket cover, and therefore he's notable, but that link is simply too attenuated and it doesn't answer Willbennett's original question. I would !vote keep if someone would point out a third party source indicating notability with a little bit more substance. Shadowjams (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams, perahps you can answer a more fundamental question for me. My understanding is that simply being an author is not enough for notability. Even the volume of books written does not make an author notable. OK, what does make an author notable?Willbennett2007 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams, that's fine, now that you've corrected your response. Nope I don't think any of these source are good enough to include in the article. They are only to give some indication of what people think of Mr. Slade. I plan to not respond again in this thread because as John Lennon wrote, "better get back in the shade". -SusanLesch (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per scope_creep. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those links, but what I saw was a publisher press release and a website using his book reviews. So I come back to this: the only claim to fame I see for this subject is writing 4 books(which btw where almost unanimously slammed by Amazon reviewers) and doing book reviews. That hardly seems 'notable' to me. More to the point I do not believe you have provided anything that meets Wikipedia notability guidelines: What I see is a guy who wrote a couple of books, that not only have not 'been widely cited' but in fact are given poor reviews. I am not aware of him creating any 'new concept'. And I am not aware of him having been given 'significant critical attention'. I am just learning the notability guidelines myself. But it is my understanding that simply writing a few books is not sufficient. I am hoping a more experienced wikipedian can weigh in on that issue.Willbennett2007 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He obviously doesn't pass WP:PROF, and I don't think the reviews of his books that I can find in Google news archive rise to the level of WP:CREATIVE. Merely writing books (and more, merely contributing to mailing lists and web sites) is clearly not enough for notability: the books have to have some demonstrated significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Hoax. Alexf^(talk) 01:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putain Chatté[edit]

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

I suspect this is vandalism or a hoax. "Putain" is unequivocally vulgar in French, and "chatté" can be interpreted as vulgar. I have performed two Google searches, one for "Putain chatté", which yields no useful results and another for '"Putain chatté" +phoque' (French for 'seal'), which yields nothing. The French Wikipedia article on the Baikal Seal makes no mention of this name. Not being a native speaker of French, I leave this to the community's eyes. Intelligentsium 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I can't seem to find any references, or single gist, to this article at all, and their is already a fairly extensive Baikal Seals article, so it's duplicating what is present. I think it is a hoax. scope_creep (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Mind of Israel[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary. No reliable sources given, none that I can find. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

look at www.inthemindofisrael.com it refers to alot of the resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyadegari (talk • contribs)
Independent sources, please. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That website has an "In the media" page, here. It's empty. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no evidence of notability. This film doesn't even have an IMDb entry, much less any coverage in reliable sources. The cited link to The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is just a calendar listing placed by the director.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cleaned up the article somewhat, but could no find suitable sources. It currently has no sourcable notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was page blanked by creator, subsequently turned into redirect to Wick Communications. elektrik SHOOS 08:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Mathew[edit]

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

Krisramirez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable CEO of Wick Communications. Simply being a CEO is not evidence of notability. No significant coverage I can find. The current source is dead. Fails WP:BIO. Blatant SPA and COI. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No agreement on whether her office satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimo Isaak Bihi[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Of note 'Fatima Isaak Bihi' appears to be the better search term and yielded 2 google book hits but not enough in my opinion to meet WP:GNG. This WP:BLP has remained unsourced for three years. J04n(talk page) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has a chapter in a book, which I've added to further reading section. She seems to be genuinely notable, although three years is a long time to be unsourced. I think this needs the attention of an expert in the field rather than deletion. Markiewp (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to badger but writing a chapter does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR, if there were writings about that chapter... J04n(talk page) 20:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found two very minor references, but nothing which would meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high level diplomat. Somalia is a country with minimal coverage from the outside world and in order to counter Wikipedia's systematic bias it is important to keep this article. As the former Permanent Representative to the United Nations, she was obviously one of the highest ranking diplomats in the country. Her position is akin to a major politician in Somalian politics.--TM 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears the lady was called Fatuma Isak Bihi. She is Somalian, and was the ambassador from Somalia to the UN at Geneva, but was sacked for misconduct. scope_creep (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be genuine. The former ambassador is now a social work professional. scope_creep (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails any of the tests for notibility you can think of at the moment without the significant coverage. As this is a WP:BLP delete or userfy with no bar on recreation if sources surface later. Codf1977 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Nothing particularly notable about ambassadors. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN includes people holding international office, which being one country's ambassador to the UN would qualify.--TM 19:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such a person is an ambassador to the UN as an organization, not to every member nation of the UN. No, that is far to much of a stretch of "international office", IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Kochhar[edit]

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

I don't see any notability, plus WP:AUTO by User:B Limited. bender235 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promising, youngest, and up-and-coming, but not notable by any stretch. See also WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prior AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhishek kochhar (prior to article move). —SpacemanSpiff 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. Also, with a prior AFD more input is needed to determine if consensus has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Completly fails WP:BIO. The award doesn't establish notability. scope_creep (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Searles[edit]

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

Non notable former child actor who now has a few bit parts in British TV series to his credit. Fails the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER. Please note that the parts of Gavroche in Les Miserables and Artful Dodger in Oliver! are generally shared between four child actors at any one time and that there have been in excess of 50 child actors playing each role, thus there is nothing unique about this subject's appearances in the roles. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability may be found when a particular individual's unique contribution is recognized, critically acclaimed, and becomes part of enduring historical record. And per WP:NTEMP, notability is not dependent on continued coverage after a career ends. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has now been expanded and cited. It seems of the many who played Artful Dodger in Oliver!, this individual's performance on stage received critical attention which has made it into the enduring record. So... his career, though apparently ending in 2001, pushes the WP:ENT for significant roles in notable productions and WP:GNG for coverage. Just took some work. More to be done, yes... but apparently do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly minor jobbing character and former child actor who stopped working in 2001. Borderline WP:BIO fail, but keep for reference. Good solid sources. A definite keep. scope_creep (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adam Searles was chosen by Producer Cameron Mackintosh to record the original cast album of the 2004 production of Oliver in the role of the Artful Dodger, following his acclaimed performance in which he opened the show in the role and closed the show in 1998. Mackintosh also chose Searles to play Gavroche in the London production of Les Miserables and subsequently chose him to be part of the Dream Cast in the 10th Anniversary Performance which was filmed, recorded and broadcast. Searles also appeared with Russ Abbott in Cameron Mackintosh's production Hey Mr Producer as the Artful Dodger. I believe that this actor is very noted and unique in the roles he has played as his portrayal of these parts have been publicly documented. The article has been expanded with more references including video references and the career of this actor is not yet over. This article should be kept as a reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrproducer78 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trotter Prize (Texas A&M)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Trotter Prize (Texas A&M)

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

This award does not seem to be notable. The sources of the article are very thin, mostly press releases and blogs, and even then only mention the prize incidentally. (Google searches show almost nothing for "Trotter Prize." Some results were for horse racing.) Wolfview (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I added the ((notability)) tag, for what it's worth. I assume it exists, and there's probably a legitimate source at the Texas A&M web site, but that doesn't help notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have to be careful of the Margaret Trotter Prize as well, which had an article on it for about five days before I redirected it to her page. Texas A&M WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think Texas A&M made a strategic and scientific mistake in giving the award to a creationist pseudoscientist (though given their naming of the prize as in "Information, Complexity and Inference" perhaps it was deliberate in which case I'm surprised that real scientists are accepting it), I doubt it is "world-renowned" as described by The Christian Post, I think it's prestigious only in very limited circles, I can't tell if it's creeping towards or away from pseudoscience, but despite that I do think there is sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass WP:N. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Christian Post, an online news service started in 2000, may or may not be a reliable source. However their article only mentions the prize in one sentence. It doesn't tell us anything about it.Wolfview (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to single that particular one out (I mostly cited it for rhetorical purposes) but in general, I think collectively the sources add up to being sufficient to pass WP:N. I don't think it's a meaningful award, or important, but I do think on a purely legalistic standpoint it passes WP:N by the skin of it's teeth. We're having an AFD discussion 'cause it's not clear - otherwise it would have been a speedy, right? Perhaps I'll be !voted down and it'll get deleted, but in my mind, stupid as it is, it passes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge A notable award and lecture series that has received some substantial coverage and a bit of controversy. Seems like it might bloat the school article, so probably best to keep it independent. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't merge. Like all science prizes, it should have it's own article. It been given to some of the finest scientists that have ever lived, and it's clearly notable. The article needs some real work. scope_creep (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All science prizes" sounds very broad; my high-school science prize shouldn't have it's own article, for example. Equally, if I made up "The me_and Award for Science" and gave it to a bunch of notable scientists, that wouldn't make the award notable. And the award is not "clearly" notable, or this discussion wouldn't be going on! me_and (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "The me_and Award for Science" would be more likely to be an actual award for Science than this one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of the citations are to people who have won the prize, but there is no coverage of the prize itself. One cite from a secular humanist newsletter has a very small blurb about the prize, but I still think it is a bit shy of the notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per User:WLU and Freakshownerd. A significant (and mildly controversial) award from a major university, so I see no good encyclopedic purpose to be served by excluding this content from the encyclopedia. Given that conclusion, the question then becomes, what is the best place to put the content? I agree with Freakshownerd that there's too much to fit into another article, so keeping this separate article seems best. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas A&M College of Science. The sourced information about the prize can be merged quite comforatably into its parent organization's article. If it assumes greater importance, expand it out. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus of this discussion is that there is insufficient sourcing for an article at this time. I am happy to userfy this article if someone wants to hold on to it and add sources if they appear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Mixes (Avril Lavigne album)[edit]

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

This album does not appear to be an official release by Avril Lavigne. Her website and her record label (RCA) don't mention it at all. In fact, the Sony CMG website has recently removed it from their own website. The ONLY place this cd can be found seems to be amazon.co.uk. Whether it's a real album or not, it is clearly not a notable one. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless the artist put their stamp on it, remix albums are almost universally unnotable. No sources and no official logos even on the MS Paint-quality album art. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, it has not had a chance to establish notability, hasn't even been released yet, and has 6 acoustic songs that are not remixes. Apparently Sony CMG is releasing a lot of "essential mixes" albums on September 20th, like Timberlake, Kylie Minogue, Usher... take a look here. It is possible, with such high profile artists included in this series that a month from now, these compilations may be notable (I understand the futility in may and not had a chance, mind you). - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete per discussion, but I would still suggest incubation in the case that it is released, if not, we can always rebuild it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theornamentalist (talk • contribs) 11:08, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Delete – There is no proof that the album is even being released, especially if its own distributor removed it from its own website. There has been no coverage on the release, no statement by the artist, no statement by the distributor or manufacturer or label, no reason for its existence. As for waiting for the article to become notable, that would go against anything I've ever learned on Wikipedia being a viable tertiary source of information for only notable topics. Notability should be established first, and then the article can be reinstated. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is an official album that will relase by Sony BMG. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article has zero verifiable sources, and it's advertising for a product which may or may not become available in September. scope_creep (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreleased, no reliable sources, fails WP:NALBUMS. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Quote WP:NALBUMS - "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." This information has neither been confirmed by the artist nor their record label--which is not the record label this CD is possibly being released through--Sony CMG. Best policy in favor of deletion here. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I wonder why Sony took it off their website... well, if it comes back up, I would support keeping the article or rebuilding it, as I'm sure you would. Anyway, on a related topic, I was checking out her discography and I found a few EP's which I believe should be included in this discussion:
Control Room – Live EP
Live Acoustic (Avril Lavigne EP)
Angus Drive
Yes, these are "released" (some as download) by a notable artist under her record company (per WP:NALBUMS), but there is virtually no reliable independent coverage, in fact, almost no coverage besides tracklistings on websites that are either music databases or selling it. These EP's do not typically offer new tracks or b-sides, just live stuff or songs that already appear on a record, which I've seen countless times be deleted, like Radiohead (bolded simply because they are by most accounts a more popular band) articles on EP's, live stuff like this. The Kohl's citation has absolutely nothing about sales figures for these albums, which could support the idea of each having an article, but I have found nothing about those figures; where did they come from? Anyway... I would like to hear your rationale for keeping these, as I've seen you've contributed to them, but have not nominated them. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have zero rationale for keeping them. They are not even on my watchlist, or my QuickLinks in my userpage. Usually the edits I make to these types of articles are just as an inclusion to edits I make to the entire Avril Lavigne realm. The reason I nominated this Essential Mixes album is because it was a new article that seems to be causing confusion as to its authenticity. As for the EPs, they could come or go and I would have no opinion (I probably wouldn't even notice). I don't have an opinion either way on those. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're not understanting about it, this is an official album, that will relase by Sony BMG, please see here and here, will you see that source are good and in fact is really this album. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 16:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for those Vitor! well at least the first link is promising - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your second link doesn't have anything about it - searches on the site give this and this. The first link, from "BRPress", doesn't quote any official source for its information. If Sony had this on their website but have taken it off, I think BRPress in Brazil may be behind the times rather than ahead of them. There isn't enough here to satisfy WP:NALBUMS - wait until it is actually released and acquires some independent comment. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I've begun to lose interest in this. For the record, the Portuguese site states that the release date has not been set for the album yet, but is due by October. This may be why it has not been included with the upcoming release of the 7 other "essential mixes" (some of which have articles on WP) Hopefully, my final words on the matter:

If this is in fact an arguement of WP:CRYSTAL, I would say that it may be hammer resilient. It has cover artwork, a tracklisting, approximate release date (with.... controversy!!) If it should be deleted because the release is between a month and two months away, besides the other information we have at hand which opposes the criteria for deletion... delete it. It will be rebuilt before you know it.
If this is a matter of notability or WP:IDONTLIKE, I am curious as to why 3 other EP's have not been considered by the nominator for deletion; IMO and prediction, a full album like this remix will likely have higher sales than what is claimed (without citation) in the other three articles. If Control Room – Live EP, Live Acoustic (Avril Lavigne EP), and Angus Drive get AFD'd, I would support deleting the "Essential Mix" article, as we would at least be consistent: Major label release (tentatively for E.M. and uncertainty in its official release should look back at bullet 1. above regarding WP:CRYSTAL), notable artist. That's what they are riding on, that's what "Essential Mixes" is riding on. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a correction, the Portuguese site does have a confirmed date for the remix album of September 20th. Avril's fourth official album has yet to be given an official title or release date (which is due by October). My opinion on the EPs are delete as well (if you wanted to know). They are stubs which have no chance of growing and have little to no reliable third party sources. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ok, my Portuguese is not as good as my Spanish, which is... not that good. ha Anyway, I'll put those for now. And what I dislike most about this is my personal desire to keep albums/EP's like these, but my need for consistency, which must abide by current policy... - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese (actually Brazilian) site does say 20 Sep, but I wouldn't call that "confirmed" as they give no source; yes, it may pass WP:HAMMER, but what it doesn't pass is WP:V - the artist's site, the only source cited in the article, doesn't mention it, nor does her record label. There is no reliable source, just internet rumour. References are not optional. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're are so nut. I quit this article. That's why i don't contribute here(wiki-en). Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now. Wikipedia is based greatly on discussion, but that means you need to be open to any outcome. If this article is deleted, it doesn't mean it won't return in the future. It's the notability we're arguing about. If and when the album is released, it may or may not gain greater notability. If it does, then the article can be reinstated. There is no reason to take things so personally. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Passion, Pain & Pleasure. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passion, Pain & Pleasure[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Passion, Pain & Pleasure

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

We can not base an article on sources from Twitter and Amazon.com. There is not a single reliable second party source for anything on this page. Since theres not a source for it I am to assume tracklist and release date are fake so it fails WP:CRYSTAL Red Flag on the Right Side 23:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate until the album is released or at least a track listing can be confirmed. The Amazon.com link is dead, the link from Trey's official website is simply a comment section, and the Twitter links are really bare URLs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or redirect (my vote will go with the most votes of either choice). Something like this should have been created in a sandbox. ---- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 04:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. According to this page on Trey Songz' official website, [24], the album will be released September 14, and is available for pre-order. Also, he is currently on tour promoting the album, so I wouldn't quite call it WP:CRYSTAL. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 16:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think it violates WP:Crystal, but it is plain advertising. Some advertising executive is wetting his whistle somewhere, thinking lets advertise it on Wikipedia, put it in 2 months just before launch, that way we will get some free advertising, with a reduced chance of removal since it's so close to release. Its not factual with no verifiable sources. Delete it. scope_creep (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 07:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Teams[edit]

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

Was deleted by PROD earlier this year. It is a misleading title, as it only covers a fraction of the actual teams out there, is only a current snapshot of the situation (not covering defunct or merged teams) and Category:Rugby_league_teams does the job much more effectively. It should be deleted, and if it is deemed that the cat alone isn't enough, then re-created with proper capitalisation, proper referencing and a complete scope, or renamed to Current Rugby league teams in fully professional leagues... which I don't think is warranted. The-Pope (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's redundant to Super League and to National Rugby League, and although I appreciate the contribution from a relatively new (6 months ago anyway) Wikipedian, I don't see any information in here that isn't in there. The gist of the article is that there are two major leagues on opposite sides of the world, and then it names the teams in the two leagues. It's covered in more detail in the other articles. Mandsford 00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Aggregate article that seems to be duplicating information from two base articles. No need for it. scope_creep (talk) 3:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete what scope_creep said; article seems to be a unreferenced list in disguise. Ryan Norton 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not a worldwide list, and unsourced. Other articles have better detail. Techman224^Talk 22:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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