< 7 July	9 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article was deleted (as A10) for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 09:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Series Elimination[edit]

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

I think this article should be deleted as it has small notability, cites no references, and is a list as its only content.DeadlyOps (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. The article may also qualify as a speedy delete under section A10 if this content already exists in the Total Drama Island article. I'll report back in a jiffy. elektrik SHOOS 20:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, elimination tables already exist in Total Drama Island and Total Drama Action, respectively. Battleaxe9872 20:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it does. (Is essentially the same as Total Drama Island#Elimination table. I'll tag the article with db-a10 promptly. elektrik SHOOS 20:40, 8 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Krieglstein[edit]

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

Biographical article fails WP:BIO. I heretofore list the individual's accomplishments and explain why they do not establish notability as defined by Wikipedia.

Co-founded Swift Kick: the company itself is not notable
First person in line for Barack Obama's election night rally: not notable, nor even an "accomplishment"
Third runner in The Today Show's Race to the Altar: not notable
First student from the College of DuPage to be named to the USA Today All-USA Academic First Team: interesting but not notable
Received Campus Speaker of the Year award from the Association for the Promotion of Campus Activities: again, interesting but not in and of itself notable

In support of the individual's lack of notability is the fact that the creator and significant contributor to the article (Dkriegls, who accounts for 60% of the article's edits) appears to be a family member of the individual and has even written about himself in the article and included a picture of himself with Tom (flagrant self-promotion). The individual has received some glancing remarks in reliable sources but only for news artifacts trivial in nature.

I appreciate the main editor's efforts to format the article according to Wikipedia standards, but in order to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia, articles not meeting notability requirements must be deleted. —Eustress ^talk 00:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. —Eustress ^talk 00:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, your precis has certainly left some seemingly-important things out, such as Krieglstein being the subject of an interview in PC World. — goethean ॐ 00:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, didn't mean to leave anything out.) Yes, he spammed Facebook fans of Star Wars. But again, he was not interviewed for any expertise but merely because he happened upon a glitch. Could have happened to anyone with a Facebook account. —Eustress ^talk 00:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interpretation, the word spam not occuring in the article. — goethean ॐ 01:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, does not convey notability. —Eustress ^talk 01:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotion page for individual who clearly fails GNG with flying colours. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability and appears to be self promotion per nom. Mo ainm~Talk 18:29, 12 July 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. Withdrawn -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Stevens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply being a bishop doesn't seem to be a significant enough claim of notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, being an Anglican bishop is considered notable per se. This needs to be sourced better, but that's another issue. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my own information, is this fact included in one of the notability guidelines? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but at every recent attempt (since at least Feb. 2007), to PROD or delete the biography of a bishop of a major church, has ended up in a "keep." How this was deleted back in 2006 only the Lord knows. The Anglican church is the 2nd largest church in Australia. Literally millions of Anglicans around the world (and Episcopalians in the United States) pray at least once a year for the health of Bishop Stevens. Have you Googled his name? I added a few citations, but if I listed every citation it would run into the thousands. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC) PS I found 22 such sources here. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not all bishops are notable, he has been shown thusly. I have added several citations and more information as to why he is notable, and have improved the article sufficiently for it to be kept. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian's reasoning (Bishops and higher or equivalent in non-Christian organized religions are indeed per se notable) and his improvements to date. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not in any notability guidelines, but it looks like a lot of people use "bishop and above" as a rule of thumb for clerical notability. In other words, it falls under WP:OUTCOMES. Anyway, all the normal bishop-type things are now in the article. St Anselm (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any bishop in any church with a valid claim for apostolic succession is prima facie notable assuming the individual's existence and ordination can be verified.Minnowtaur (talk) 10:35, 9 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHYFM[edit]

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

Non-notable band as of WP:BAND. Battleaxe9872 23:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Page claims future fame, so WP:CRYSTAL applies here as well. VQuakr (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope that the article, WHYFM, doesn't get deleted. A lot of people in the area i live in love this band and they are really great. The people would love to know more about this band using Wikipedia. I really hope Wikipedia would understand and think about leaving the article up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylercarroll1992 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a good reason to keep an article; please read WP:POPULARITY. Anyway, delete. The article is barely even a stub, which is probably because sources can't be found. It doesn't even state who the "two known members" are. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7: band with no indication of notability. --Closeapple (talk) 08:28, 9 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Collins (Pea Shooter)[edit]

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

I removed a WP:BLPPROD tag from this because there are sources cited, but I don't believe that those sources, or the subject's achievements, are enough for us to consider him notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge basic fact of 2009 championship in to World Pea Shooting Championships. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fails WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT Mo ainm~Talk 18:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seriously, Pea-Shooting? For lack of a WP:ATHLETE guideline for this "sport" I'm going to fall back on WP:GNG and say he fails that. -Drdisque (talk) 18:17, 13 July 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) 14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeno Sustac[edit]

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

This guy does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as called for by WP:N. Let's go through the references used. Footnote 1 is a resume on a mediation page, and obviously not independent of the subject. Footnote 2 merely mentions that he sits on some mediation council, but does not offer "significant coverage" about him. Footnotes 3, 5 and 7-10 are articles he has written, but which do not provide "significant coverage" about the subject. Footnote 4 merely cites a work he has written, while footnote 6 mentions in passing that he attended a meeting. In sum, none of the references used demonstrate the degree of notability expected for stand-alone articles. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there's something special about him not noted in the article -- and if there is, I can't find it. Article says he's "arbitrator of the Court [of] International Commercial Arbitration"; yeah, him and another over 100 people. (I've updated this to "an arbitrator" and corrected the court name, among other things). He's co-president of the Romanian National Union of Mediators; if that body were sufficiently notable to have an article, I'd suggest redirecting to it, but no such article exists. TJRC (talk) 01:19, 9 July 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) 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Septuple champion[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 3rd June 2010.
WP:NRVE "No reliable sources found to verify notability". This term applies to anyone who's won something 7 times. There's no indication that it applies solely to boxing. Papaursa (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- although "Seven-division champion" is a more popular name, if we used that name, there are [1] several] possible references that can be used. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 00:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title does not appear to be notable in itself. I do not see any difference between this title and something like 'seven-time Wimbledon champion' (for example). Hypothetically speaking, someone could be notable for being a seven-time Wimbledon champion, and there might even be a few people who are seven-time Wimbledon champions, but that does not make the title notable—unless it becomes well known and widely used in its own right. Janggeom (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Triple Champion, Quadruple Champion, etc. to Boxers with multiple world championship titles. None of them are notable enough to stand on their own, but are collectively worth an article IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure any of these articles need to remain. All of that information is already in the articles on the individual boxers, so I'm not sure that any new information is being added. One thing that bothers me is the description of winning multiple divisions. For example, 3 of Manny Pacquiao's 7 titles are featherweight and 2 are welterweight--just different organizations. Seven time world champion I would buy, 7 divisions doesn't mean quite the same thing. Having said all of that, it would be OK with me if someone merged all of those articles into 1. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pacquiao had 9 world championships, seven in different divisions. The main difference with seven-time Wimbledon champion is like this is the grand slam in any form (annual/career/boxed set). A seven-time Wimbledon champion is like a seven-time middleweight champion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I take Howard the Duck's point about 'seven-time Wimbledon champion' perhaps not being the best analogy (though my basic question remains). I think Clarityfiend's suggestion of merging the articles could be a good compromise, and I also think that 'boxing' should be added into the article title(s) in any case. As Papaursa noted, anyone who has won something seven times qualifies as a 'septuple champion' (if no activity or discipline is specified). Just a few thoughts. Janggeom (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, winning three championships in three separate weight divisions in boxing is a considerable feat; now with the several in-between weight divisions (the junior- and super- weight divisions), winning seven has now become sorta "The Treble"; as Apples below notes, only Pacquiao has been recognized universally to do such a feat. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Pacquiao is the only seven weight champion it seems silly to have an article. Having Héctor Camacho on it is a complete joke. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all I was going to say all of those articles should be removed, but I like the idea of merging them all into 1 article and titling it so that it's clear it refers just to boxing. Astudent0 (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all 110% agree with above. Merge all similar articles into one, rename resulting article to make it clear it describes boxing. - OldManNeptune (talk) 08:59, 15 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SeishinDo Kenpo[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 3rd June 2010.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" Papaursa (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not appear to be a notable martial art system. Janggeom (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanuces Ryu[edit]

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 3rd June 2010.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" Papaursa (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sanuces Ryu is already described at Kumite-ryu jujutsu and, therefore, does not need its own article. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not appear to be a notable martial art school. Janggeom (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find independent sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 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 already speedily deleted by Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glen James Ocha[edit]

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

non-notable murderer, WP:BLP1E Hekerui (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - he "was Florida's 60th murderer executed since 1976." Bearian (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted can some one please close this? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:46, 9 July 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 article and deletion debate both speedily deleted (deletion debate later restored) cab (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BazY Rayaneh[edit]

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

Written in a non-English language. Battleaxe9872 21:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no educational value for this wiki. Hekerui (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional Keep~~ Delete. Non-English articles should be tagged with ((notenglish)) to give someone a chance to translate them so we can actually read them and decide whether they contain anything of value. That usually gives them two weeks, so I'd say keep it that long - unless someone can read it and tell us roughly what it's about sooner than that. I've tagged it now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete, as it's just a promotion of a software-related blog - see translation below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would keep, per Boing! said Zebedee, but Google translate says

CrossFit is a blog that the subject of games and software
Forums and computer magazines. This blog its work since 1389 has started Solar
You can check this blog and games Vnrm software download all you need. BazYRayaneh.Blogfa.Com SaberHayati.Gmail.Com
Part of the blog:
Modified films and sound games to movies and sounds prima facie case Rad Game Tools Software Download and install this software and video files to audio formats and BIK (video) or SMK (sound) convert. After you enter that you've installed your game, part computer search word in parentheses (BIK.) to write the movie game is found. (You can also call for the word in parentheses (SMK.) search in the box-type) or search and play videos and sounds of your find. After conversion film or sound you change your name to the film or sound for you and it Rajaygzyn. When you run the game looking for film or video or voice instead of the original sound will be played.

I'm inclined to call this an advertisement, or at least a non-notable website. —fetch ·comms 23:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I just got nonsense when I tried Google Translate - I wonder if it isn't really Arabic? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Persian, not Arabic. cab (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the name of the blog "بازی رایانه" literally means "computer games" so it's almost impossible to search for in Persian. There is a possibly-notable magazine by the same title [2] but I don't think this article is describing that. The link in the article http://BazYRayaneh.Blogfa.Com is not affiliated with the magazine; it looks like a warez blog where you can download serial number generators and the like. cab (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a blatant advertising. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 05:27, 9 July 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save the date (event planning company)[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement. Also, the external links take you to articles with nothing to do with Save the Date.

Battleaxe9872 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:lkutaj Every link within this article references Save the Date. You might actually have to read the entire article instead of speedily scanning them and then marking this for deletion.

Also, the page does not read like an ad - it was done in the format of other event planning company Wikipedia pages which are live: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Consulting_LA and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Affairs_(Event_Planning_and_Production_Company) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkutaj (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the tone is a bit ad-copyish but the organization would seem to pass the notability threshold - although I would like to see greater depth as to why this company is notable. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly. The "references" added establish that the business exists, but they fail entirely to establish that this business has encyclopedic significance. Appearances in a list of wedding planners, an anecdote about the hiring process, or a side mention in an article about the low pay of interns do not establish that this business has had any significant effect on history, technology, or culture. And thanks for the tip about those other non-notable businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Good nomination. completely against WP:Advertising and no notability whatsoever. --_Sulmues^{[[User_talk:| Let's talk ]]} 16:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. Sources currently listed in the article do not pass WP:RS nor do they establish notability. An observation on both the original author and the nominator: First, the author: The original author's first edit is this, which hints (but proves nothing) that this editor could work for an advertising agency and be attempting to "advertise" for this company by increasing their web presence. He/she sure seems to know a lot about it. Also note another article this user created: Jennifer Gilbert (founder of Save the Date). Their whole contribution history looks suspicious. Next, the nominator: this article was nominated for deletion two minutes after it was created. That kind of behavior is disruptive and is specifically discouraged in the instructions at the top of Special:Newpages, where you presumably found this article. Please give editors a chance (i.e. a couple of hours, at a bare minimum) to create the article before you nominate it for deletion. Feel free to tag it with cleanup tags when it is first created, and then maybe come back the next day and nominate it if it hasn't been improved. Better yet, patrol new pages from the back of the queue. SnottyWong ^yak 23:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^spout 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for ((Rescue)) by anonymous IP 64.255.164.103 [3] in seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per Sulmues and Smerdis. GregJackP Boomer! 16:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems as it is a notable company because it mentioned in Time and Inc --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. The only reason anyone outside of NYC has heard of it is because its owner was on The Real Housewives of New York City. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:19, 16 July 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. extransit (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tonetta Chester[edit]

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

This article is about an author who has published one book ("Her second book, Sunshine through Darkness, will be released in summer 2010"). The subject of the article does not appear to meet inclusion criteria outlined at WP:AUTHOR. Also, there are no references independent of the subject. Peacock (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's done well for herself but how is she notable? Eddie.willers (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about her or her one book in reliable sources. Note that Google Books indicates it was published through Wheatmark self-publishing company. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The article under discussion here was tagged for ((Rescue)) by anonymous SPA 64.255.164.103.[4] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. Original author of the article is a WP:SPA, indicating a possible conflict of interest. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - not notable, no sources to speak of. GregJackP Boomer! 12:35, 14 July 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 as hoax: see evidence that it was a waterworks before construction -- The Anome (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seething Wells Halls[edit]

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

This is a blatant hoax. The buildings currently used as a halls of residence were previously a waterworks according to [5], which is a government document and almost certainly a reliable source. Claritas § 20:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax or not, this information is unverified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced article, no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would meet WP:Notability from Google News, Books or Scholar searches. Qwfp (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CB. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:10, 9 July 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nautural Selection (film)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Independent movie. No assertion of notability, and the only sources are IMDB and Twitter. Nothing worthwhile on Google. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:FILM Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clearly non-notable film; probably COI (and who knew about my trips to the bank?) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, practically no content Hekerui (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userfy ~~Delete~~ as currently WP:TOOSOON. As the film article is only two days old, I was going to suggest it be userfied back its author, User:WindarProd, but learned he is indef-blocked[6] (see User talk:WindarProd). Anonoynous IP 64.255.164.103 tagged it for rescue, so I stopped over and did some cleanup before coming here. As the film is in post-production, and since userfication to the author is out, might we consider WP:Incubation? It gets released and gets coverage and it might return better than ever. If it does not and it will go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. Note, Michael, that the user was indef-blocked for username violation and is in the process of requesting an unblock to change his account name. "indefinite" does not mean "permanent." --Chris (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, and noted. As the editor is requesting a return a userfication will encourage good faith efforts by a new editor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 22:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The article under discussion here was tagged for ((Rescue)) by anonymous SPA 64.255.164.103.[7] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. Incubation is a plausible fate for this article. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 22:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, author requests deletion (via unblock-en-l), notability not established. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 14 July 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Caton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP / new user who had trouble completing the nomination. The reason for deletion is given below. decltype (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Statement

Deletion of this BLP is proposed for the following reasons:

1. Unsourced claims. This article contains numerous unsourced claims, indicated by "[citation needed]," "[chronology source needed]," and "[dubious – discuss]." One even says, "On XXXX[chronology source needed]..."

These unsourced claims account for over half the paragraphs in the article.

WP:BLP is clear that unsourced material is not permitted:

Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced--whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable--should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. WP:BLP

Moreover, many of the sources are primary (original documents) that are not referenced to a secondary source, and the secondary sources are from a small group of news media (several references to PRNewswire, a couple to BusinessWeek, one to Parade magazine), contrary to WP policy:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. WP:OR

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. WP:BLP

WP:N/CA says, "multiple sources are required, not just multiple references from a single or small number of sources" and "ideal sources are books and scholarly articles offering substantial treatment of the individual and the background for their involvement."

According to WP:BLP, "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to."

2. Mention of uninvolved people. The article mentions Caton's ex-wife, current wife, and minor son, along with the dates of the marriages. It also mentions his grandfather. These are contrary to Wikipedia policy:

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. WP:BLP

Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. WP:BLP

3. Superfluous structure. Two sections ("Issues related to Federal Charges" and "Background on legal issues" have vague titles and only one or two sentences in them.

4. Not notable. To the extent Caton is known, it results from his entanglement with the FDA. However, Wikipedia policies point out that this is not sufficient to warrant an article:

Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. WP:BLP

In accordance with WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, perpetrators and victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically inherit the notability of such crimes nor do they automatically qualify as being notable enough to have stand-alone articles solely based on their status as perpetrators or victims. However, the victims and/or perpetrators of notable crimes may have articles under certain conditions. Notability with regards to this is normally defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. WP:N/CA

Caton's problems with the FDA cannot be considered a "high-profile crime" or "notable crime."

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." WP:ONEEVENT

Not only is this "one event," but many of the sources are not reliable (i.e., nonexistent).

Caton's one event was his entanglement with the FDA. Although this occurred over an extended period, it is still one event, and he would not be known otherwise. Although he has some minor accomplishments, he would be unknown if not for his problems with the FDA.

Just deleting the material related to points 1, 2, and 3 would leave a very short article, even more unfocused than it already is, and would not address the notability problem.

Finemrespice (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I'll wait for a 25 words or less argument. Mandsford 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25-word or less argument as requested - deletion may be warranted because he fails WP:GNG as the only coverage he has received is in violation of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E. I'm currently neutral. Claritas § 21:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I get the gist of things, I believe the nominator feels that the subject of the article is lacking in notability outside one event, and that there are unsourced items in the article that could be damaging to others related to the subject. If I'm incorrect, please feel free to correct me. And apologies to Mandsford are due, as I went over 25 words. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and consider me Neutral as well. However I should point out that there are some sources that are in the previous afd that may be useful for this discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize the arguments had to be 25 words or less; the info page seemed to stress citing relevant WP policies, and I thought I'd seen longer arguments. However, Claritas and Umbralcorax, thanks for your contributions. I'd revise Umbralcorax's summary slightly, as follows:

Subject of the article lacks notability outside one event, and the article contains numerous unsourced claims, including some that could be damaging to others related to the subject. Finemrespice (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we were just joking around. Did not mean to come off as snarky. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, we are all just joking. It's kind of a fine line between not saying too little and missing an argument, or saying so much that people misunderstand (one of the reasons that we all talk in these cute little abbreviations like "WP:N" and "WP:BLP1E". I'm concerned about claims that could be damaging to other people. Mandsford 01:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article subject meets notability test, validated in earlier request for speedy deletion. Individual is well known, published and iconic in relation to Vegan foods, GMO controversey, alt-med, legal issues surrounding FDA regulations and cancer issues - to name a few. Recent dialogue has been infused with emotion in regards to perceived bias in article. Jettparmer (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Original deletion discussion Articles for Deletion - Greg Caton Jettparmer (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator of the earlier AfD reversed his vote for deletion in response to the appearance of new sources, but these were generally inappropriate under WP policies (see point 1 above). Therefore, there were no votes for deletion. This article has changed significantly since the earlier deletion posting, but the sources still have the same problems with establishing notability and with suitability for a BLP. Also, the subject's "iconic" status in vegan foods is such that there's no mention of it in the article. He wrote one book on the topic, self-published, now out of print. Giving a talk at a biotech symposium does not confer notability. The rest is FDA problems. Finemrespice (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Keep, see below) Get this guy outta here. Most of the article and references are about his legal troubles, plea bargains, bankruptcies, moving offshore to avoid regulation, etc. - it all makes him sound like a total quack. Either he is a quack and shouldn't be here, or he is not a quack and this article violates BLP guidelines. Either way, delete. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ouch! I think Caton makes more of an impact as an entrepeneur in the food business who eventually got into trouble through expanding his markets. There seems to be some notability for him beyond the current sensational arrest - it's simply what piqued my interest in him originally. Jettparmer (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article violates BLP guidelines, then it shouldn't be so hard to bring it in line with BLP guidelines. --Dyuku (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." — Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut (1953-1994), late of CalTech Finemrespice (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So why don't you try some practice, such as fixing the article. --Dyuku (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you think it shouldn't be hard, feel free to try. Finemrespice (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously, since the US govt thinks this guy is so important that they created a big international incident with his deportation, then he's important! --Dyuku (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm changing my "delete" vote to "keep", based on updates to the article that make it a little more clear just who and what this guy is. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the editorial contribution! Jettparmer (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

"Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." WP:N

"[I]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." WP:N

It was not a "big international incident," and bringing him back from S. America does not confer notability. Finemrespice (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rationale for deletion is false: the article is sourced, if the overall tone is negative that is simply a reflection of the real world, which apparently considers this gentleman to be a snake oil salesman. That's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said! --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You may want to take another look at the rationale for deletion. The article doesn't meet Wikipedia's own policies for sourcing or notability. At the risk of repeating myself:

1. Many statements are literally unsourced (e.g., "[citation needed]").

2. Many others use primary sources without reference from a secondary.

3. Still others use multiple references from a small number of sources rather than multiple sources, such as Parade, BusinessWeek, and PRNewswire—not exactly "scholarly articles offering substantial treatment of the individual...."

4. It mentions uninvolved people. "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members...."

5. It was written mostly by a person who admits to a "dim view of alternative medicine." Therefore, if, as you agree, the overall tone is negative, it's reasonable to assume the author has chosen to present it that way. "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once...."

6. This is not even to mention the notability issue. Finemrespice (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment: I just noticed that Finemrespice, the nominator here, is an SPA. I also just noticed that he/she appears to be the only advocate here for deleting the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Response

1. If the tone of the article is negative about this person, it is because the reality is negative - as brilliantly pointed out by Guy. Any negative tone is not the result of someone "choosing to present it that way," it is a matter of public record. Mr. Caton himself admitted (through his guilty plea) that he is guilty of defrauding customers and violating FDA regulations. Mr. Caton himself admitted (in his patent application) that he was in violation of his probation. And it's not some Wikipedia editor saying that his "cancer cure" is worthless; it's the United States Food and Drug Administration. If we can't quote the FDA on something like that, who can we quote?

2. Far from being biased against him, the article bends over backward to give his side, supported by non-neutral references like Natural News.

3. I don't know where you got the claim above that he has to be the subject of "scholarly" articles. That's not a requirement, except for academics, which he is not. The requirement is that he be the subject of "significant coverage in independent reliable sources." Things like Parade Magazine and Business Week are independent reliable sources, and they have definitely given him significant coverage.

4. I agree with you about his family members, and it might be a good idea if somebody deleted the references to his wife and son. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment: An SPA so far—I had to open an account to post an AfD. However, as WP:SPA points out, "a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, perhaps we can "Assume good faith." (WP:AGF))

(SPA is not an accusation of wrongoing, it is a statement of fact: "This user has made few or no contributions outside of this topic." That is a true statement with regard to you. Our editing histories are an open book here. Yours confirms that you registered as a Wikipedia editor purely for the purpose of deleting this article, and that has been your sole focus here. That is not a criticism, it is a material fact, to be evaluated by the closing administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

(I said nothing to imply that I thought SPA was an accusation of wrongdoing. However, you're coming late to the party—there's a history here you're unaware of.) Finemrespice (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as being the only vote for deletion, there was only one in the earlier AfD (until the commenter reversed it). You yourself were for it before you were against it. And two people are neutral, which means they don't oppose deletion. However, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." (WP:AFD) Finemrespice (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

1. I'm glad you also agree that the overall tone is negative. However, your argument represents a logical fallacy. If you have experience writing, you know that the selection of facts and the words used to describe them determine the tone of the piece. Since you're seeing only what the author decided was relevant, you don't know about facts that may have been omitted because they don't correspond to his agenda.

Actually, I researched the guy myself and I have made several edits based on that research. It was based on that research that I changed my mind. Earlier I wanted the article deleted because it made him sound like a quack. After independent research, I decided that if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck... --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my response in the next paragraph. Finemrespice (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as believing what the press or any government agency says, I'm old enough to have acquired a healthy dose of skepticism. Caton points out that he signed the plea bargain reluctantly, because he felt he had no choice, even though it wasn't accurate. He never disputed that he violated probation (and explains why).

The FDA is known for its advocacy of, and revolving-door relationship with, the pharmaceutical industry. Many books have been written about this, including by doctors and insiders. If nothing else, the recent revelations about the relationship between the oil (and coal and timber) companies and their ostensible "regulators" at MMS and Interior, the biotech industry and USDA, and the banking industry and the Fed should convey the problem by analogy if you're not aware of it. The phenomenon is known as "regulatory capture."

Most advocates of alternative and unapproved medications (in which group I think you probably fall) are great advocates of conspiracy theories. They believe that Big Medicine and Big Government are conspiring to suppress effective treatments. They have to believe this, because it is the only way they can explain why (if their treatments are so effective) doctors and pharmaceutical companies have not embraced them. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want to watch out for sweeping generalizations—it undercuts your claim to objectivity. And as Henry Kissinger said, "Even paranoids have enemies." From what I've seen, most advocates of conventional medicine (in which group I think you probably fall) think everything is fine as is, even though hundreds of thousands of people die every year from doctor error and adverse drug reactions; the only acceptable tools are drugs, surgery, and radiation; the cost is astronomical; and the results are unimpressive. Many doctors are, in fact, interested in holistic medicine; others are unable to escape the effect of their schooling or their state medical boards, which are typically a bastion of conservatism. We know why pharmaceutical companies are uninterested in holistic remedies: they can't patent them.

If you can't extrapolate from the collusion between other industries and government (Regulatory Capture is, in fact, a Wikipedia article), you might be interested in this quote from an article by Shannon Brownlee in the April 2004 Washingtonian: "More than 60 percent of clinical studies—those involving human subjects—are now funded not by the federal government, but by the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. That means that the studies published in scientific journals like Nature and The New England Journal of Medicine ... are increasingly likely to be designed, controlled, and sometimes even ghost-written by marketing departments, rather than academic scientists." Not such a ringing endorsement. Finemrespice (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. See 1. "Bends over backward" is in the eye of the beholder. If you consider Natural News "non-neutral," what about the reference to Natural Causes: Death, Lies and Politics in America's Vitamin and Herbal Supplement Industry? Fox News is a mainstream outlet—would you consider them a neutral source if they were quoted?

I have accepted Fox News many times in the past. My point was that Caton's defenders are represented and quoted in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I must have missed them. Still can't find them. Finemrespice (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. I notice that a number of people here think they know what a WP policy says, perhaps having looked at it at some point, but aren't familiar with the actual wording or details, which may not say what they think it says. The claim about "scholarly articles" is from WP:N/CA (quoted in point 1 of the nomination statement), which perhaps you would agree is relevant here. An article in Parade and a review in BusinessWeek about a book that mentions the subject hardly constitute "significant coverage."

This article appears fully in compliance with WP:N/CA. I have said my say. You have said yours. I will leave any further evaluation of sources to other readers here - and to the closing administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. I agree. Feel free. Finemrespice (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva Torah Ohr[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Also, lacks third-party verification beyond confirming that the buisness exists. Battleaxe9872 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Educational program with no assertion of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Chabad outreach, of which this is but one small example. IZAK (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable and advertising. Once the article exists we might want to hijack it to create an article about R' Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg's yeshiva, Torah Ohr which has a good deal more history and notability. Joe407 (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um Joe: No "hijacking" necessary, in any case that would defy WP:ETIQUETTE. Many institutions and people share the same sort of names. That's why there are WP:DISAMBIGUATION pages or other methods. In this case, a typical Wikipedia solution is Yeshiva Torah Ohr (Chabad) or Yeshiva Torah Ohr (Florida) and the other could be Yeshiva Torah Ohr (Israel) or Yeshiva Torah Ohr (Jerusalem). But it's just that this particular institution (i.e. Yeshiva Torah Ohr (Chabad)/(Florida)) is simply not notable, it's not even a "yeshiva" as such from the one self-promotional link, it's just another way that Chabad conducts it Chabad outreach, and can be legitimately used as an example there. IZAK (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I generally give some leeway to articles about schools but this "study program" doesn't approach meeting the WP:ORG criteria. No need to keep it as a redirect. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:21, 11 July 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 close, nomination retracted

Verbti[edit]

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

Unsourced stub on an alleged figure of Albanian folk mythology. Was originally sourced to "Encyclopedia Mythica", recently debunked as a thoroughly unreliable source (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive214#Unreliable source alert: "Encyclopedia Mythica" (pantheon.org)). Was previously included in a group AfD of Enc.Myth.-related articles which was speedy-closed, but no improvement has been seen on the article since. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The term is explained in great detail by this book: Elsie, Robert (2001). A dictionary of Albanian religion, mythology and folk culture. p. 259. ISBN 978-1850655701. I'm also troubled by the fact that pantheon.org/articles/e/eisa.html is described as "total nonsense" in an effort that ultimately resulted in blacklisting the website, because the content of that page is echoed by a number of books, one dating back as far as 115 years. — C M B J 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources is demonstrate through GoogleBooks. Claritas § 20:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above, which are not the only ones. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retract nomination, the Elsie source is good enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 8 July 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 - when nominated, this article was an unsourced one-liner. It has since been substantially expanded with the addition of a number of sources. There is a clear consensus in the discussion that notability requirements are now met. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perendi[edit]

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

Unsourced sub-stub on an alleged figure of Albanian folk mythology (cf. Prende, a related article). Was originally sourced to "Encyclopedia Mythica", recently debunked as a thoroughly unreliable source (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive214#Unreliable source alert: "Encyclopedia Mythica" (pantheon.org)) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this source covers both Prende and Perendi. Does WP mean that it's taken from Wikipedia? --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually I found many more sources. See this for Prende and Perendi, which comes much earlier than WP. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 20:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Websters source you quoted first is indeed copied from Wikipedia ("WP"). "Wicca Love Spells" sounds unreliable. Some other sources might work. Is there something in that Elsie dictionary? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes indeed, not only that (p. 257) but also in the Routledge dictionary, for both Prende and Perendi [8]. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 20:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can see "Prende" mentioned on Elsie p.257 (as a synonym of Saint Paraskevi of Rome), but no mention of "Perendi". Am I missing something? The Routledge dictionary link doesn't show me enough text to judge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Beware of citing Icon Group International books as sources. Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of these search results indicate that this topic is worthy of inclusion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, all these sources only mention "Perendi" as an Albanian name of God, but not as any separate mythological personality. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although there's something interesting, at least from an etymological perspective, here. So, from that source, I could write something along the lines of "Perendi is an Albanian name for God. It is thought to derive from the name of a pre-Christian sky god, etymologically related to names of ancient sky deities in several other Indo-European languages, such as Lithuanian Perkunas and Vedic Paranyas." But where? As a standalone entry, this would probably go against WP:NOTDICT, because it's purely about the word, not about the hypothetical deity itself (about which little or nothing seems to be known). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple reliable sources verify that Perendi was a distinct Albanian mythological figure: (1) "PRENDE is an ancient Illyrian love-goddess who was the consort of the thunder-god Perendi", (2) "Prende (north Albanian Prenne) Old Illyrian goddess of love, the female partner of the thunder-god Perendi. Today, she is nothing more than a Catholic saint, but in Albanian folk-belief she still rates 'queen of beauty' ... As is usual in many cultures, here too Friday is the day sacred to the goddess of love." — C M B J 23:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be more careful about detail: this does not show a "distinct Albanian mythological figure". Everything we've seen about actual Albanian culture shows only a name for "God". It's conjectured on etymological grounds to have been a distinct deity in pre-Christian, i.e. pre-Albanian times. And please don't cite items like The Secrets of Love Magick or Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases: the first is clearly not a reliable source, the second is sourced to Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see how the second book could be any more unequivocal in that Perendi and Prende were once distinct Illyrian mythological figures, and it was published before either of the two Wikipedia articles were even created. I did not ever cite Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases, because, as you said, it cites Wikipedia and is not a reliable source. Seeing as modern usage of Perëndi is similar to that of Allah, we could perhaps move this article to Perendi (folklore) and disambiguate the main entry. — C M B J 09:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read more closely what I wrote: I said Perendi is not described as an Albanian mythological personality. About the Webster's Quotations, that's where your first link [9] seemed to lead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec): I really don't see how the split/move scenario should work out. What exactly would "Perendi (folklore)" be about? We essentially don't have anything about modern "folklore" regarding this name (unlike about Prende); we only know it's a name of God. And the ancient ("Illyrian" or otherwise pre-Christian) tradition is not part of "folklore", and we basically have no concrete information about it either, other than a piece of etymological conjecture leading to the hypothesis that such a god existed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the mythological figure of Prende seems to have transcended both Illyrian and Albanian cultures, it is at least vaguely possible that Perendi has as well. I found this source, but the implication seems ambiguous at best: "... the god of lightning and thunder ... Perendi of the Albanians or ancient Illyrians". Either way, for the sake of AfD, the difference is trivial; nonetheless, it was a keen observation. The folklore really is that Perendi was a mythological god of thunder, which in retrospect shares a common theme with Perun and Perkūnas. Perendi was derived from the same source as the other two, but it was adapted to Illyrian culture, as observed by becoming the consort of Prende. — C M B J 10:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to be aware how speculative this all is. The book link you cited now is to a work from 1829 – a time when Indo-European etymology was in its infancy, linguistic relationships of Albanian hadn't yet been researched at all, and knowledge of Illyrian was absolutely zero. There's no way that source could possibly be reliable. And you seem to be unaware how thorough our ignorance of Illyrian and the other ancient Balkanian cultures still is today. You sound as if we knew something about Illyrian gods. We don't. Nothing. The Illyrians didn't leave any written records. The only piece of evidence everything here is based on, is the mere fact of the existence of this word in modern Albanian. Everything else is conjecture: that it was a pre-Christian god, that that god would have been a sky/weather god, that he was a "consort" to a second deity related to "Prende", and that the pre-Christian culture in which all this happened was the Illyrian one (the latter conjecture is based on the hypothesis of Illyrian descent of the Albanians, which is taken for granted by some authors, but treated as a highly speculative conentious hypothesis by the actual experts.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have good secondary sources from Orel and Gramkelidze, as well as many tertiary sources (dictionaries of mythologies). If any, we should do a redirect to Perëndi, but I would disagree, because the latter would be standard Albanian, hence the move is a little controversial. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 14:47, 9 July 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. Merging can be considered at editors' discretion, but it appears that some additional sourcing leads to a consensus to keep the article in some form. ~ mazca ^talk 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prende[edit]

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

Unsourced article on an alleged figure of Albanian folk mythology. Was originally sourced to "Encyclopedia Mythica", recently debunked as a thoroughly unreliable source (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive214#Unreliable source alert: "Encyclopedia Mythica" (pantheon.org)) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This source, Elsie's Dictionary of Albanian religion, mythology and folk culture, describes "Prende" as a synonym of "Saint Paraskevi" or "Saint Veneranda" (Paraskevi of Rome in Christian tradition), though possibly connected to the cult of a pre-Christian goddess. Might be worth merging. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple sources verify that Prende was a distinct Albanian mythological figure: (1) PRENDE is an ancient Illyrian love-goddess who was the consort of the thunder-god Perendi", (2) "Prende (north Albanian Prenne) Old Illyrian goddess of love, the female partner of the thunder-god ... 'queen of beauty' ... As is usual in many cultures, here too Friday is the day sacred to the goddess of love.", (3) "Lady Prende (Geg Zoja Prenne), also known as the Lady of Beauty (Geg Zoja e bukuris), was venerated in northern Albania in particular by women. On her feast day, July 26, ...". — C M B J 23:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't access Elsie's dictionary now (used it way too many times), but we have this online article on Prende The third saint to be mentioned in connection with the Albanians is rather special because, strictly speaking, she does not really exist. Saint Veneranda, Albanian Shënepremte or Prende, known in Geg dialect as Prenne or Petka -- Greek Paraskevi, Ag. Paraskeuhv, Romanian Sfânta Paraschiva, was originally a pre-Christian deity and came to be identified by the Catholic Church with Saint Anne, mother of the Virgin Mary. In Albania, she is known at any rate as Saint Veneranda. [10]. Basically the pre-Christian Prende was identified with Saint Ann in Christian times, however Elsie specifically mentions that Prende was a pre-Christian deity. In addition to Elsie, we also have other sources. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 14:59, 9 July 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 Girls 4 Harps[edit]

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

Musical ensemble which appears not to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. They've received significant coverage in some local papers, but The Times coverage seems to be pretty trivial. Claritas § 19:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep—I've added a couple more references indicating that they have significant coverage in diverse local papers. This isn't merely a regional phenomenon but a nationwide one; it just so happens that local papers do the reporting. But local papers in Birmingham and the Cotswolds etc. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 19:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This coverage still seems very borderline to me. Can we add any other information about them apart from the two statements placed ? What "award" did they win ? Claritas § 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it "seems very borderline" or not is entirely immaterial. So long as there is significant coverage in reliable sources the article is fine. There is so it is. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came across them when they were broadcast on the BBC. I'm not sure how we cite airplay but notice by this reputable national broadcaster seems good evidence of notability. As The Times has noticed them too, we have enough for this stub. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the local coverage scattered geographically is a weak reason for a keep, but this source confirms the BBC broadcast that Colonel Warden saw giving strength to keeping this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard them on a different show. The event you found was a live broadcast which seems even more notable. Well done. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More confirmation of BBC airplay: [11], [12] and [13], and BBC listing of a performance: [14] (sorry, I don't read Welsh: I cannot tell if it's a performance that the BBC will broadcast). Further asertion of broadcasts on BBC and ITV, and international tours: [15]. A Google search for "Barkham Harp Quartet" will yield more sources because that is an alternate name for the group. Clearly meets WP:N and WP:V. I42 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 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) 14:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pain, Death and Love's Lost Cause[edit]

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

The name of this album has not yet been confirmed, which leads to some confusion, and this source does not count as a reliable source. I recommend this page to be deleted, until it's confirmed by the band themselves or their label or management. Alex (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER, as the editor who redirected it to the band article I agree w/ the nom. The source for the title is unreliable, and the title has not yet been officially announced. Even if it had, no other details (track listing, artwork, etc...anything you'd need to build a start-class article) have yet been announced. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on here? This article is blank. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had redirected the article prior to Alex101 nominating it for deletion. I believe he felt it appropriate to take it one step further and delete the redirect, as it is not a confirmed album title. It probably should have gone to RFD rather than AFD. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this title is not confirmed, I'd say delete. 68.171.231.21 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a source has been added confirming the album title. I'm not sure how reliable that source is (which is why I tagged it), but if it does turn out to be reliable, keep. Otherwise, redirect to Social Distortion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That source was already present before the nomination, and is addressed by the nom. It is an unreliable blog. There's no point in redirecting to the band article if it turns out this is a fake title. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia supports facts not speculation or rumors. Yes, Social D has a new album coming out this year, but I doubt it will be called Pain, Death and Love's Lost Cause. OttoBR (talk) 17:59, 9 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford James Hayes[edit]

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

Apparent autobiographical article about an author of questionable notability. No significant coverage from independent third party sources, and his books all appear to be self-published. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - virtually NO real presence online in any reliable sources; nothing can be verified about this "author". Bearian (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:35, 9 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rieko[edit]

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

original research and fringe theory posing as scholarship Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because it's a hoax, synthesis and a POV fork of African philosophy. Claritas § 19:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree its a hoax and synthesis--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I support moving Rieko (given name) to Rieko if this article's deleted. Claritas § 19:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot (1980 band)[edit]

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

This group likely fails WP:Notability. RG (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this band. Their discography indicates that they out one EP and one song for a label compilation, and the one ep, Slipknot (EP) only ever had a press run of 5000. Searching for sources is confounded by Slipknot (band). However, using a a variety modifiers on the search to filter results turned up no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage of this band appears to exist. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find anything myself other than random forum and blog posts. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note that number of copies for an album release is not a distinct criterion for deletion, and this band is at a disadvantage in online searches because they're from the pre-internet era. Also there is the enormous problem of confusion with the other Slipknot. Regardless, my conclusion is the same as that of Whpq above. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this band actually does not exist in 1980s and is actually slipknot tribute band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syxxpackid420 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC; no coverage in multiple reliable sources, don't have multiple releases on notable labels. The band does appear to have existed however and is not a tribute band. Possibly worth adding a note somewhere on the Slipknot page to avoid confusion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:00, 13 July 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 SNOW delete Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pull a Family Guy[edit]

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

I'm not sure that "Pull a Family Guy" is a term at all, much less that it is notable. This article is pure WP:OR and includes rumours about other shows. This is not encyclopedic. — Timneu22 · talk 17:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:OR- [correction]. No significant coverage in reliable sources of the term. We really need a speedy deletion criteria for articles like this...Claritas § 17:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be speedy, but the term has been used, so it's not made up. — Timneu22 · talk 17:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there's a difference between "something someone made up one day" and "something you or your friends made up one day".....Claritas § 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, isn't everything the result of something that's made up? :D — Timneu22 · talk 19:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, yes. There needs to be a cabal decree on this....Claritas § 20:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure unsourced WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, but Delete - Unsourced OR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism with few sources and none cited. It should be noted that Family Guy was not the first show ever to return from being cancelled; for example, Cagney & Lacey was cancelled in 1983 and brought back in 1984. If you don't think that the gap between that show's cancellation and revival was long enough, consider The Jetsons, which was cancelled in 1963 and brought back in syndication in 1985 with all of the main original voice cast members despite the 22-year gap. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unrefed and OR that really isn't needed on Wiki.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 21:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A little more snow. Carrite (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with Carrite and urge everyone to get out their shovels. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- inaccurate neologism. Reyk _YO! 04:02, 10 July 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Blues[edit]

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

Webcomic which fails WP:WEB - no significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. The one Army Times article doesn't seem enough to base the whole article on, and seeing as its published by his employer, it's probably not independent. Claritas § 17:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – doesn't seem to be notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 19:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a webcomic, not notable to have an article the same reason our webcomic may not be notable outside wikipedia--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've managed to bring the total number of sources up to three. Also note that the AirForceTimes is an independent civilian publication, which is most certainly not his employer. — C M B J 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States Air Force certainly is his employer. Unless AirForceTimes is unaffiliated with the American air force, which I somehow doubt, it's not an independent publication. In any case, there's only one reliable independent source for the article, which falls short of WP:WEB. Claritas § 09:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Air Force Times is operated by a for-profit civilian company that is in no way affiliated with the United States Air Force. This is evidenced by the assertions at the bottom of the page. Joint Task Force Bravo and Air Force Public Affairs Agency do share a common parent employer with the author of the webcomic, but they do not hold any stake in the webcomic itself, which was not created as part of official duty. — C M B J 10:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a significant lack of multiple independent and reliable sources who discuss this webcomic. While this is not the only criteria to establish notability, the others do also not apply. --84.57.164.11 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 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 National Highway 2 (India). Sourceable information can be merged, and if significant coverage can be demonstrated then the article can be spun out again in future - though, as stated, Kanpur Bypass may be a better title at that time. ~ mazca ^talk 14:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpur over-bridge[edit]

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

Was nominated for A3 speedy, but the template was removed by original athor, which I have warned him about. There's no real speedy category to put it in to since he has added content, however it's just this person's opinion on a bridge, which is totally unencyclopedic. WackyWace ^{you talkin' to me?} 16:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure WP:OR essay, plus no verifiable evidence of notability provided. Even a plain vanilla google search[16] returns only the hits to Wikipedia and nothing else. So fails, WP:V as well. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does appear that the bridge exists and is notable to the people in that area... had to search real hard... but unfortunately, I couldn't find anything that would satisfy WP:RS and as such the article falls into the realm of WP:OR. Pmedema (talk)
Comment: Perhaps the term "over-bridge" is confusing Google. From what I see in Google Earth, this article probably describes the Kanpur Bypass, an elevated highway that runs along the south end of the city. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Kanpur Bypass. An article, even a stub article, about the longest elevated highway in a state of 190 million people is something within the scope of our project. — C M B J 00:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Kanpur Bypass. Per CMBJ's convincing argument.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability has not been demonstrated. (If someone can add reliable references demonstrating notability of this structure, I would reconsider.) I suggest that a section be added to National Highway 2 (India) which discusses the Kanpur Bypass and this elevated expressway. That way this topic can be covered within WP. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge to National Highway 2. If more sources can be found, it can then be unmerged and expanded from the current content. Dew Kane (talk) 01:29, 13 July 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, nomination withdrawn and no delete votes standing. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Maldoff[edit]

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

I don't think this person passes the notability threshold. The 3 sources already included in the article are all primary sources: the first is a link to the law firm for which he works, the second is a link to the school with which he is affiliated, and the third is a link to a homeless shelter of which he is president. A google news search comes up with nothing. A regular google search returns the sources that are already included in the article, and very little more. SnottyWong ^confess 16:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google news with 172 hits, many books and also some scholar; sufficient coverage to meet WP:N. Dewritech (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dewritech. Nsk92 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - Withdraw nomination - Sorry, this was a mistaken nomination. I didn't search google news correctly, and it's clear that while this article needs better sources, there is plenty of coverage. SnottyWong ^converse 18:06, 8 July 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) 14:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. Radhakrishnan (engineer)[edit]

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

Nominating the article for deletion on behalf of User Milasa (talk). The concern is: This article should be deleted immediately. The notability value of the subject is zero. Dear writer of this aricle(?) please dont msuse the pages of an encyclopedia.Milasa (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K._Radhakrishnan_(engineer)" Salih (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Notability issues. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AFAIS fails WP:N Arjun^codename024 18:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage consists of him speaking on behalf of the power authority in his role as cheif engineer. There is no soverage about him. Being quoted in newspapers does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Delete. There's someone with the same name who is speaker of the Kerala assembly — probably enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN. But I can't find any evidence that they're the same person, and the electrical engineer has news coverage that covers him only trivially. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker of the Kerala assembly is a different 'K. Radhakrishnan', who is clearly notable. Salih (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. If that's settled then I'm changing my opinion from a weak delete to a delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being KSEB chairman is not notable enough--Sodabottle (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Consider his contributions to energy conservation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.12.145 (talk) 08:45, 12 July 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) 14:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Cuk[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable as an actor, athlete or entrepreneur. I can't find any third-party sources that provide non-trivial coverage. Pichpich (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Also fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - doesn't simply showing you link to well recognized 3rd party entertainment web site: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0191310/ verify actor/entertainer credentials for Vladimir Cuk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.182.153 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does not. All IMDb indicates is that he did indeed play these parts but it does not give evidence of a significant career. All of his roles are supporting cast/extras in movies which are themselves fairly obscure. Pichpich (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not "co-star" in Celtic Pride or Forbidden Warrior as the article states. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER and is also very POV and factually incorrect in some spots. -Drdisque (talk) 18:21, 13 July 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 already speedily deleted by Bwilkins. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In for the job[edit]

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

Unnotable movie. No CSD applies to movies. I don't see how this is relevant, based on this simple search. — Timneu22 · talk 13:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of the existence of this film. Possible hoax. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - G3 applies. Fæ (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G3. It's hard, though, to prove something doesn't exist. We'll see how it goes. — Timneu22 · talk 14:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is an alleged movie; according to the article this is a plot synopsis: there where two brothers stranded in the desert with no food or water and where digging for water when they stumbled upon a pipe they climbed inside and found a camel lolwtfbbq hi callum. Looks like an obvious hoax, as well as patent nonsense, to me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - obvious G3 material that needs to go POOF! - Pmedema (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Keep" arguments were not policy and guideline based. "Delete" arguments were. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communiqué "Geochange"[edit]

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

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)).

I don't quite see notability as demonstrated by independent coverage here. It may be the editor hasn't quite read WP:MOS (Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes, Elchin Khalilov, World Organization for Scientific Cooperation provide ample evidence of this), but this seems to fall even below that bar. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google returns 54 results. I should also add that the article is a copyvio from the official website. Renata (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This forms part of a set of articles about organisations involving many of the same people with very little in the way of independent sources to confirm notability. I'd be happy to see them all at AfD. Mikenorton (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability either in the article or in a Google search. The phrase "signed by representatives from following countries" seems to mean simply "people from the following countries filled in the on-line petition", i.e. these people were not representatives of the indicated countries. Nor does it seem that the listed agencies are affiliated with this Communiqué in any official capacity. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the author has made the necessary changes to the article "The phrase signed by representatives from following kountrius" was changed to "The communique online signed by scientists from following countries" EIC (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Nothing has been done to address the notability issue. ttonyb (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think the significance of articles considered by independent sources. Links are listed at the end of this paper show the importance of the article. I think that the question of relevance can be removed from the agenda EIC (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont agree that the article is the copyvio from the official website. I deleted the text from article which is copy from official website. - Ismail Valiyev (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Nothing has been done to address the notability issue. ttonyb (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In google have many links about Communique "Geochange" and other organisations. - Daniyel (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)— Daniyel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – None of the Google hits meet the criteria in WP:RS. Nothing has been done to address the notability issue. ttonyb (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability issues. Scientists signing an ePetition does not seem like a terribly important event. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability issues. ttonyb (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is not official a position of these countries. This, simply private position of scientists from the same countries. - Ismail Valiyev (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In google have many links about Communique "Geochange" and other organisations.--Aydın Çaldıran (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC) — Aydın Çaldıran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A simple count of google hits does not count. We need reliable sources, actual legitimate media, to cover this. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Qalsın. --Cekli829 (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "keep" without a valid, policy/guideline/rule-citing reason will be discarded. This is not a simple vote tally. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many scientific signed communiques are professionals having scientific ranks and scientific degrees of the professor and the doctor of sciences. The most part of these scientists world famous in sphere of sciences about the Earth and other areas of a science. Many scientists are heads of scientific research institutes of national academies of sciences of the different countries, heads of scientific laboratories and geological services and departments, rectors of large Universities. From the signed communiques of scientists pages in English, Russian, German and other versions Wikipedia have a part. Nobody can call into question professional level or a celebrity of these scientists. I ask to pay attention, that it is the communique - not the formal initiative. It is the true democratic initiative around extremely important problem for all mankind. Why about 300 scientists from 78 countries which have huge authority and the importance in the theirs countries have spent time to sign the communique and to give the comments and recommendations? It has very simple explanation. These scientists understand huge importance of the problems considered in the communique for mankind safe development.

Many mass-media in which the information on the communique is published are the most known news agencies and newspapers in the countries. For example "Kazakhstan Today" - the largest information system in Kazakhstan. The newspaper "Evening Moscow" - one of the most popular newspapers in Russia. News agencies of other countries also are recognised newspapers. I think, that it is very actual and timely article necessary for Wikipedia. 375geo (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 375geo (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 375geo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.Subbalakshmi[edit]

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

Delete. No article references concerning this musician, mentions a few concerts played. Notability not established, fails WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't seem to make claims that would satisfy notability criteria, and the only reference given is to her brother's personal website. I have been unable to find any reliable sources to verify this article. --Deskford (talk) 10:54, 9 July 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 closed as moot: the article has been substantially rewritten. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalty[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - article is unsourced for 18 months, is an unsourced list of this concept in several different fields. I am not passionately for deletion, but wanted to raise this for discussion. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is unsourced (fails WP:V) and contains too many quotations for a Wikipedia article. The article may serve a better purpose at Wikitionary and quotes at Wikiquote. Andrewmc123 12:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. I've added some basic disambiguation material to the top of the page; the original text is now beneath. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. The original material is original research; the portions added as a disambiguation page might be worth keeping. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the real original material in this article was in part taken from the 1911 Britannica's article on loyalty. The material here has been added since, with almost all of the original Britannica content lost over the years to random editing. Moreover, the material in the article at the time of nomination most definitely was not original research. Josiah Royce wrote an entire book on his conception of loyalty. He called it The Philosophy of Loyalty. It was published in 1907 and has sparked further discussion on the subject of loyalty, referencing Royce, since. The notion that it is "original research" to state that in Wikipedia, and to make a start at explaining what Royce stated (as others have analysed it since), is ridiculous, and an abuse of the original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not an abuse of the original research policy to say that most of the article is uncited original research when it in fact is. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry for "loyalty" reads in its entirety:
    LOYALTY, allegiance to the sovereign or established government of one's country, also personal devotion and reverence to the sovereign and royal family. The English word came into use in the early part of the 15th century in the sense of fidelity to one's oath, or in service, love, &c.; the later and now the ordinary sense appears in the 16th century. The O. Fr. loialte, mod. loyauti, is formed from loial, loyal, Scots leal, Lat. legalis, legal, from lex, law. This was used in the special feudal sense of one who has full legal rights, a legalis homo being opposed to the exlex, utlegatus, or outlaw. Thence in the sense of faithful, it meant one who kept faithful allegiance to his feudal lord, and so loyal in the accepted use of the word.[17]
    The entire bit about marketing, the Bible, Plato, animals, etc. is summoned out of thin air. The so-called real original material was speculation based on love of one's "family, gene-group, and friends," and similar musings. originaldiff from current Nor is there a question of whether there is something to be said about loyalty, but whether those things aren't already said (and better said) in the articles brand loyalty, allegiance, fidelity, etc. Hence the propriety of keeping this as a disambiguation page and getting rid of the original research that formed the entirety of the article prior to this AfD (the word's etymology and definition aside). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You didn't read the references section of the current article to spot the Britannica notice, and you haven't read the whole of the version that you've just linked to, either, else you would have found where the text that you quote is right there in the article. And no, the Biblical reference isn't "summoned out of thin air", either. My goodness! One could source that particular view of loyalty to several centuries' worth of written word. You are grasping at straws, here, attempting to justify what is an unjustifiable bending of the original research policy completely out of its proper shape. Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll ask you not to tell me what I've read and haven't read. I did not deny that the EB text was in the article: I was saying that attributing the article to the EB cannot stand when that is all the EB said: the definition and etymology. Watch it with the incivility, would you? It causes you to mistake the positions of others. And the juxtaposition of Biblical references is a synthesis. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Disambiguate - per WP:NOTDICT, and the arguments above. Claritas § 20:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The arguments above aren't particularly good. No-one at all seems to have noticed this article's origins in Britannica, indicating that no-one has read the current references section, let alone looked at the article's history. And philosophical discussion of the subject, by philosophers from Plato to Royce, is erroneously labelled "original research". (Unless no-one read that part of the article either.) Uncle G (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article. I was probably slightly influenced here by the status of the nominator. Claritas § 13:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the SEP can have a lengthy article on the subject, and philosophical treatises on the subject by people from Josiah Royce to Richard P. Mullin (see chapter 15 of ISBN 9789042016354, for example) have been written and published over the past century or so, which this article did indicate at the time of nomination, it is a shame that Wikipedia editors can only envisage a disambiguation. Really all of this belongs at loyalty (disambiguation), because there really are a lot of sources discussing this subject in depth, from which a viable article can be built. Other encyclopaedias have done so. Indeed, this article began from an article in another encyclopaedia on this subject. Uncle G (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Uncle G. The concept of loyalty is one of the prima facie absolute moral values. There is plenty of academic writing on the subject. We should dis-disambiguate the content and start a full fledged article.Greg Bard (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I surely would have no objection to creating a separate disambiguation page and moving the disambig content there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split per Uncle G. Loyalty is a biological (and philosophical) concept that undoubtedly warrants its own article. — C M B J 23:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important moral virtue which is the subject of thousands of books. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very important concept that is the focus of tons of commentary and analysis. It is articles about broad and historically significant concepts such as this that we should work on improving and as such, this is one of the last subjects that I'd think of ever deleting. A disambigutation page may be appropriate for convienience sake, but if we decide to go that route, we should set up another entry which focuses on the moral concept of loyalty. Them From Space 02:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a vital concept. — goethean ॐ 05:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loyalty is perhaps a simple concept, but it is an important one. Honesty, respect, courage and honour are difficult subjects to tackle for an encyclopedia. But when you consider the ways these concepts are treated across different cultures and philosophies, it becomes apparent that wiktionary is not sufficient to satisfy a thirsty mind. If loyalty does not meet the criteria for inclusion, then neither do any of those, nor any other virtues. That said, this article could use a lot of heavy lifting and there should be a disambiguation page at Loyalty (disambiguation). Gobonobo ^T ^C 07:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loyalty is an important concept. Its gets plenty of coverage in the news and books(click the Google news search at the top of the AFD for examples). As often as loyalty comes up in the news, it should be a clear case. There are loyalty oaths, and the opposite of loyalty is treason, a very serious crime punishable by death in some cases. Dream Focus 10:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Kudos to Uncle G, who has entirely rewritten this page. I have moved the disambiguation material I added. Since this page no longer is the page that was nominated, I suggest closing this discussion as moot, and will do so later today unless someone objects. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As nominator, I do not object, and second your Kudos to Uncle G.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 9 July 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conduit (Series)[edit]

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

This article is simply a duplicate of The Conduit, which the author acknowledges because he linked to that when he create it. The article should probably have been speedy deleted under category A10 and possibly still could be, although the article is now three months old. Note that this article now contains additional biographies of characters from the game not in The Conduit; these have recently been merged in by the same author because the separate articles on them have been nominated for deletion - but there is no consensus yet to merge, and if there is they can still be merged to an appropriate target; there is no need for them here. Delete as an unneccessary duplicate or an inappropriate fork of the original. I42 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was planning on editing anything that didn't make sense, add tables and all such to the article as I will do to make it more graphic than The Conduit and Conduit 2. --Schmeater (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are things to consider doing in the original article. We don't run parallel articles on the same subject. I42 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I'm considering those things and I'm going to take more than add. --Schmeater (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep except with major revisions. Currently, I think it is good. Although I am slightly afraid that it might sound like an advertisment in its current state. However, the plot information and series background are both good. The Conduit is indeed a notable series because of its significant media coverage. Marlith (Talk) 04:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There just isn't enough coverage to pass WP:GNG when it comes to the series as a while. Individual games maybe, but only one has been released. Not enough notability to warrant a series article. --Teancum (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! As more information comes out, we cannot put it all into Conduit 2. I'm cleaning up this article. I can add more coverage! --Schmeater (talk)

What establishes notability here? I understand you want to contribute, and I'm glad you are, but articles must meet the General Notability Guidelines and be referenced with reliable, published sources. I can't find any reliable sources in regards to the series as a whole, nor the characters themselves - only sources on one game or the other. Also, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Series articles should deal less with telling things from an in-universe perspective, and more about the development of the series, the reception, sales, legacy, etc. It has to have some background, sure, but it needs to be balanced, much like The Conduit is. The series hasn't been established by reliable sources as notable at this point. However, I'd be willing to have this article userfied to your own personal user page so that you can continue to develop it. It may be notable once the sequel is out and the media starts to cover the series, but right now there's no coverage at all on the series as a whole. --Teancum (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, two games do not a series make. Come back in three years when you have another two games in your series. The "article" is just a bunch of in-universe babble which should already be adequately covered in the main game page, which it is (kudos to whoever made the main article so good, btw, it looks almost GA quality). Axem Titanium (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how does Halo become a series at three games (I'm talking about when it's page was made). --Schmeater (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it had multiple books released at that time as well. --Teancum (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:WAF material limited to a single sentence about E3. The bulk of this content should be handled in the plot synopsis of the two games. Marasmusine (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know the full plot of Conduit 2.--Schmeater (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which, no offense, even further proves the point that its not time for a series article. --Teancum (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there might be enough common elements between the two games for a series article. Once the game comes out it is more likely. This is a better way to cover some of those common plot elements too. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has undergone further changes since nomination: the game articles have been removed leaving only the character / faction sections; the article should probably therefore be renamed appropriately. Note that the separate AfD on the separate character articles at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Drudge is running in parallel and now essentially concerns the same subject. I42 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger issue is that there isn't enough coverage on the series to pass WP:GNG. --Teancum (talk) 21:07, 13 July 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) 14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DualBackup[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources cited, and none found on searching. PROD was removed by an IP editor with teh edit summary "I propose to change PROD to CLEANUP and REFIMPROVE as software products may not have third-party references. Most information will be from their official websites (e.g. the Memeo and Zmanda pages". This is nonsense, as articles on software have the same requirement for independent sources to establish notability as any other articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the author has not established notability for the product. I can find no online English-language reviews of the product. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article author - I created this article because it one of the free backup products I am using. The other one is SyncBack. I think the information in WP may be useful for other users too, so I spent some efforts to create the page. I understand that amount of effort is not a sufficient reason for a page to be kept in WP. It will be great if it can be kept for future improvement. Thanks for everyone's efforts to make WP a good knowledge base. - Seakskyk (talk) 4:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment again - I would like to write something about the software notability. For users that need to back up their data on-site for rapid data recovery and off-site to prevent data loss due to disaster such as fire, this product is notable. Unfortunately, it seems that none of the users are columnists of the New York Times. Opinions from backup software users will be appreciated. - Seakskyk (talk) 9:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment in reply Notability in the context of these discussions is defined by WP:N and other guidelines linked from there. This is absolutely different than the usual dictionary definition of "notability", and this leads to some confusion on a regular basis. To be clear, the purpose of WP:N isn't just about a product or person or whatever being "good enough" to be notable. It's instead largely about the idea that to write a useful, neutral article about something based on something more than the authors personal research, as a modest protection against biased articles as much as anything. I can say (in this context) that the product is non-notable, but that I'm personally planning on looking to see if it is useful to me (which I am), without irony. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched for sources myself, I don't see the existence of multiple, independent, WP:NPOV [{WP:RS]]'s. As such, I believe the article fails not only WP:N but WP:V. Note that there is no separate notability guideline that has reached consensus for software (there are at least two failed proposals), but even if there were, I don't believe there is any conssensus that a specific subject-area notability guideline actually overrules the general notability guideline of WP:N, so even if there were a subject-specific guideline, it is my opinon that the GNG would still apply. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:43, 10 July 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) 14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bona Mangangu[edit]

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

Appears to fail to meet WP:AUTHOR. I find nothing on Goggle news archives or articles on LexisNexis or anything significant on Google scholar to show he is widely cited. Fæ (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although a Google search generates a few hits, the principles of WP:AUTHOR are very stringent, and this subject is a long way from meeting them. Peteinterpol (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google translate of French Wikipedia suggests L'Harmattan is a vanity publisher. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:21, 8 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gyokusen[edit]

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

Notability not established, unsourced and probably just promotional. Eeekster (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article at this point give no information that would make me believe it is a notable brand of bottled water. My searches have not produced anything to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 10:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to verify notability, and a brief Google search in Japanese does not throw up any obvious mentions. Possible hoax even? --DAJF (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to actually exist [18]. Whether it actually comes from Japan is another matter entirely. My guess: shanzhai. cab (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DAJF. I also searched in Japanese and found the above link, but no coverage in reliable sources. cab (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - I trust that a thorough Japanese search has been carried out. Claritas § 22:25, 9 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Chukwuma Obi[edit]

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

WP:PROD contested by article creator with no explanation at all. Non-notable youth footballer with no first team appearances at all to date, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Angelo (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inter's club website confirms he has yet to start for their first team, although he has played in the World Football Challenge. Google provides nothing to suggest he's notable in any other way. Delete this for now and recreate (with sources!) if and when he makes his competitive debut. Bettia (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bettia (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, recreate if/when player becomes notable. Giant Snowman 04:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having never started for inter, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and there are insufficient sources for him to be generally notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:02, 14 July 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silvertone Records (1930)[edit]

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

Contested PROD - Un-sourced 1 line article on a "short-lived British record label" with no claim to significance. Unable to find sources that appear to be about this company as opposed to the US company of the same name Silvertone Records (1905) or the later British one, also of the same name Silvertone Records (1980). Codf1977 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A 15 minute google search found most of the information now included. Perhaps the remedy is not to use automatic tools to try to delete stubs, but rather a little bit of "elbow grease" to bring it up to at least minimal standards. I had no prior interest in the topic. It just goes to show that seemingly inadequate articles can, given sufficient time and minimal effort, be useful and useable. I hope the nominator enjoys his period of retirement.smjwalsh (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-verifiable. All G-hits refer back to this article. In any case, would not there have been legal action by US-Silvertone against another record company of the same name, albeit in a different market? Eddie.willers (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and well done for fleshing out the bones, adding refs etc. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the US company was non-operative from 1931 until the 1940s, and the UK company was only active 1933 to 1935, it would have been a difficult case to bring. Also, as it was the Great Depression, it was probably not cost-effective to pursue. Anyway, hope recent revisions to the article may convince you to change your opinion.smjwalsh (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concerns of original nominator now addressed. Article has potential for improvement and sources identified that would allow that.smjwalsh (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The need for the article is self-evident in its current state, but the case for deletion wasn't particularly credible from the start. Chubbles (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above and it now has some references. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good job by Smjwalsh |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now fully expanded and ref'd to show notability. Recommend nom sends all record labels to AfD first, instead of proding/speedy tagging them. There's no harm done if they are completly un-remarkable and get deleted this way. Lugnuts (talk) 12:26, 14 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bowker[edit]

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

Non notable director of local youth theatre group, fails WP:ARTIST, WP:ENTERTAINER –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find no notable references to him, or to his theatre group (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamo Youth Theatre). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication he meets notability guidelines. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 10:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ENT. -Reconsider ! 02:23, 14 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Youth Theatre[edit]

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

Non-notable youth theatre group, fails WP:ORG –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I can find is self-published sources (own site, Facebook, Myspace...) and a couple of mentions in local news. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my searches turned up the same kind of information, there is not enough to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 10:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:44, 8 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weasels in fiction[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The references cited do not amount to significant coverage. Apparently created in an attempt to reinforce the notability of List of fictional weasels, which has also been nominated for deletion. Gobonobo ^T ^C 05:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since neither source is specifically about weasels in fiction this looks like a violation of WP:SYNTH. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources have the word weasel in their title and the second of them is entirely about fiction too. This is therefore highly specific.

Ha ha ha ha! That's almost classic SYNTH. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While that is a classic WP:VAGUEWAVE. What is the synthetic proposition advanced here? Please state this and explain how the article goes beyond the sources supplied. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as demonstrated by the sources. The other article is irrelevant per WP:WAX. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- incidental sources that briefly discuss a subject in the context of something else do not confer wiki notability. I realise that you have your own version of what should be in wikipedia but it would be nice to see the occasional AFD argument that actually chimed with policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is not a policy and so this point is also counterfactual. That guideline gives as an example of trivial passing coverage, a one sentence mention of an unrelated topic in a biography of Bill Clinton. We clearly have more substantial sourcing than this here and, given that our topic is a newly created stub, there is no evidence that further detailed sources are lacking. The relevant policy here is WP:IMPERFECT which specifically encourages us to support the creation of modest stubs and to develop them further. Our policy also enjoins us to preserve respectable sourced material rather than to delete it. Policy-based argument therefore clearly refutes your position which seems to be just WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a strong dash of WP:ADHOM. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONUS its for you to prove the sources exist, not for us to prove that they don't. You can't prove a negative with sources anyway. Can you provide detailed sources that discuss weasels in literature? Concerning your second point, N is a very strong guidelines and is close to policy and, in any event, I used policy in a general sense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have two good sources already which are quite satisfactory to support the points made in the article. There is not the slightest policy-based reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*cough* it appears that only you hold that view. Don't you find it worrying that after making so many contributions to deletion debates that you still haven't got a clue about how to evaluate notability through sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly worries me. SnottyWong ^speak 14:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No, every permutation of a possible combination is not notable. Google books makes finding reliable sources much easier but also makes it easier to find permutations of random nouns (not even really much of a permutation here). Peaches in fiction could easily get a bunch of keyword hits from James and the Giant Peach alone, and probably a lot more from smut, but that doesn't guarantee inclusion. This article uses the example of one work, with two sources, one of them is a scientific discussion about weasels, and the other is actually about "Goblins, Morlocks, and weasels: classic fantasy and the Industrial Revolution." ~~And lest you think we've left this topic under-covered we have List of fictional weasels which appears to be in no danger of leaving us.~~ If this AfD passes then the Morlocks in fiction article is due. Shadowjams (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Morlock which covers that topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes. Morlocks are a fictional race of humans in the far future and so there are no real ones, as there are with weasels. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two refs are easily dealt with in appropriate articles. Delete as not notable and per WP:NOT. Also WP:SYNTH per Spartaz. Verbal chat 07:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic really hasn't received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Colonel Warden has a history of creating articles in order to advance his line of argument in AFD debates - in this case the AFD for List of fictional weasels - and while this in itself is not a reason to delete, when compounded with the complete lack of significant coverage of the topic and WP:SYN issues, this is a clear candidate for deletion. Claritas § 08:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I see no indication that CW created the List of Weasels article. That said, it's at AfD now. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no notable references to the concept in general - finding ~~references to~~ examples of individual fictional weasels and constructing a general article from those is Synthesis. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided address the concept in general and do not dwell on any particular fictional weasel. Your argument is therefore counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I meant was "finding examples of individual fictional weasels..." - amended above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the excellent delete arguments above. I'll also add that this is a sad and pointless attempt to legitimize this. Reyk _YO! 09:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Apparently a bad-faith, pointy creation by Warden, which is about par for the course. ~~WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists like this are simply not encyclopedic material, like the "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" example from WP:SALAT~~. WP:SYNTH seems the way to go for this one. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not called a list and does not list particular weasels. You do not seem to have read the article - how was your vote canvassed? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassed? There is only one organized AfD voting block on Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a list, it looks like I was in haste this morning and pasted text here meant for the other dumb weasel AfD. As for canvassing...er, no. I occasionally look at the day's XfD discussions and participate in ones that look interesting. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was created solely in an attempt to prop up List of fictional weasels while it is at AfD. SnottyWong ^yak 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Spartaz Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:28, 8 July 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) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Z Szilagyi[edit]

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

Local lawyer running for local prosecutor office. All coverage is in local home-town newspapers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and my own standards for attorneys. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, I think may perhaps not have been just a candidate, but may actually have won, though that is not clear. He appears to have some coverage over the years in over 100 articles in a number of papers, such as the News Dispatch (Michigan City, IN), Herald Argus (La Porte, IN), and Post-Tribune (IN) (see here and here and here as well).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 7 July 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! 05:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tip of the hat to Epeefleche for noting he may have won, but... He's just one of the winners in the primary election, [19], so he's currently just a candidate running for a very local office (prosecutor of LaPorte County, Indiana). Being such a local officeholder is not sufficient notability, let alone a mere candidate. TJRC (talk) 19:17, 9 July 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. The article meets all policies and guidelines for inclusion. It is appropriate to bring contested merge discussions to AfD to see if there is consensus for such a merge. After discussion here, no consensus for a merge was found. SilkTork *^YES! 08:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dover (Cotswold Games)[edit]

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

Robert Dover is notable only for starting the Cotswold Olimpick Games. There isn't anything else remotely notable about him that isn't already mentioned in that article, and there never will be.

Its silly to have such a short stub article. Better to delete it, and redirect it to the Games article instead. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cotswold Olimpick Games, as I tried to do earlier. Very little is known about Dover other than his organisation of the Games, and it's impossible to discuss him without focusing on the 17th-century political and religious significance of the Games. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the proposer does not in fact want the article deleted but rather redirected. Presumably there will be zero support for deletion. Should this be closed now? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it shouldn't. Parrot of Doom 13:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you seriously expecting support for deletion? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lets just keep the crystal balls out of it, ok? Parrot of Doom 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about Dover. He is an important part of the Cotswold Olimpick Games, as founder, but it has a 400-year history, and it unbalances the COG article to require it to maintain the life of Dover as a sub-article. What happens if later editors decide to pare down the material on Dover in COG? Where does that material go. Answer: the article on Robert Dover. QED. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "sub-article" you allude to amounts to less than a single paragraph. On the other hand, almost 50% of this one is about the Games, not about Dover, so it's rather easy to see which article is unbalanced. Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said it was the requirement to maintain that material that would unbalance the article. In terms of word-count, your "almost 50%" is almost exactly one-third. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it is precisely 42%. Your maintenance argument is an empty one, as there is nothing to maintain. It is exceedingly unlikely that any further light will be shone on Robert Dover's life other than what we already know, which is almost nothing beyond his involvement in the Games. Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Down to one-fifth now. Your confident predictions about further information on Dover seem misplaced, since I have just added a small piece about his possible involvement with the Gog Magog games (with two references). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you haven't. You've simply added some unsubstantiated speculation about something he may have been aware of. But what's very strange is that you haven't troubled to mention his recusant background, in particular the Catholic education that he received while in Wisbech Castle. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I have accurately reflected what a second source (Galligan) says. The speculation, if that is indeed what it be, is Galligan's not mine. Do you have a source that refutes it? I haven't yet got round to further expanding the article, please feel free to do so with the material you describe: thank you for your even-handed bringing it forward in support of my point. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How can ill-informed speculation be refuted? The fact that the real authorities on Dover and the Games do not mention any influence on him from the Gog Magog Games ought to speak for itself. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The suspicion that "the real authorities" are the ones that support your point is no doubt unworthy. The point I'm trying to make is that within a day or so of serious attention, two lots of material -- the Gog Magog Olimpicks and the Catholic education at Wisbech -- have surfaced. This comprehensively refutes the argument made by the nominator that There isn't anything else remotely notable about him that isn't already mentioned in that article, and there never will be. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I see, the accusations of dishonesty on my part have now started. The Games article uses the undisputed experts in the field, including Francis Burns, secretary of the Robert Dover's Games Society. None of them support your claim, and neither is it what the source you have used says; you have embellished what it actually says to suit your own ends. His Catholic upbringing is significant to Dover's story for a reason connected with the naming of the Games as the Olimpicks, as the Games article explains, nothing more. How are you going to explain that in this forever-destined-to-be-a-stub? Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I unreservedly withdraw any imputation of dishonesty, and apologise for any offense. Please be so kind as to do the same with your use of the word "embellish". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←)However, I don't accept your reasoning on the Catholic upbringing. Firstly, this is potential material that was not in the article at a time when the nominator stated that there could never be anything new. Secondly, to maintain that it's significant only because of its connection to the games is petitio principii. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you accept my reasoning or not is immaterial to me, as I am simply reflecting what is said by the reliable sources you so studiously ignore in favour of school text books that you choose to misinterpret, and, yes, embellish. Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reject those allegations, and note that you do not (cannot?) refute my points. Clearly this part of the discussion has degenerated into personal recrimination. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please lok at the article's talk page, where I have demonstrated your logic error. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is Advanced PE for Edexcel, a school textbook, really considered a reliable source? Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's a school textbook? Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And why would that make it unreliable? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you've never known a school text book to over simplify because of its audience or just get things wrong because, well, it is just a school textbook? Where do you think school textbooks get their information from? They're not usually at the forefront of what Wikipedia would term original research. The original, higher-quality source needs to be found and used instead. Nev1 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The text book doesn't appear to support the claims inserted by Kenilworth - see [20]. Also, it does indeed simplify the subject, as the other sources I've read are ambiguous about the year in which the games started, where as this is certain. Parrot of Doom 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it does. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So are you going to find the original source, or are you going to insist on using second-rate ones instead? Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Secondary != second-rate. Where did I insist on using this source? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course secondary sources aren't second rate, but if you bother reading what I said it's clear I didn't say that. I said a school textbook is inadequate. You added it, so take some responsibility. It's already been demonstrated that the source over simplifies things. If you don't remove it, I will as it's clearly not good enough. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Simplifies != over-simplifies. Where was the latter demonstrated? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        One example was given above; the date of the first Games is unknown. Here's another: it's also not certain in what year Dover went to Cambridge University. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If you think the two books used support the claims you've entered into this article, then why not join in the discussion on the talk page? It seems to me as though you're searching Google Books for any hint of this subject, and using the results to support your own research. Its easy to prove me wrong. Parrot of Doom 18:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not refusing to, I'm just trying to do several things at once here! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Williams reference also contains material on Dover's reputation as a wit and poet, not remotely connected with the games. A second refutation of the nominator's argument, after MF's suggestion of his recusant education. (And a third by my reading of Galligan). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another reference with further information, not connected with the games: this time family data. That article on the Cotswold Olimpick Games is going to look a little top-heavy if this is all copied across. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good luck to you if you think you can turn this stub into a well-referenced article about an individual known only for his instigation of the Cotswold Games. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dover has a fairly long biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. If he is notable enough for a biography in the definitive dictionary of British biography, first compiled over 200 years after his death, how on earth is he not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, which contains articles on any number of minor contemporary celebrities who will have been forgotten about in a fraction of that time? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and why is he notable? You should read his entry in the ODNB, most of it relates to the games. Parrot of Doom 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have done. My comment stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's not a simple question of notability, it's a matter of how would the subject best be served on Wikipedia. If, theoretically, all the information on Dover was incorporated into the article on the Cotswold Games as part for the background to the subject, exactly what would be the point of having a separate article for Dover? The ODNB entry says as much about the games as it does about Dover himself; more in fact. Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article as it stands is informative, well-referenced and says plenty about Dover himself. His notability is established by his contribution in founding the Games and the fact that he is the subject of a biography in the DNB and mentions in plenty of other sources. I really don't think those wanting to delete the article have a leg to stand on. In which ways does he fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The answer, quite clearly, is none. I do not believe that Wikipedia would be best-served in the slightest by merging this information into the Cotswold Games article. There is, I know, a tendency for some (and that is some) editors to prefer long, general, multi-section articles over shorter, more specific articles. I'm afraid I don't subscribe to that view and it is not a view which is particularly mandated by any of our policies or guidelines. If a 3+ paragraph article can be written about Dover then that article is clearly worthwhile. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 7 July 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! 05:47, 8 July 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Gibbins[edit]

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

Contested prod, tag was removed with a WP:INHERITED reason, but notability isn't inherited. This entry doesn't meet WP:GNG / WP:BIO, there isn't one trivial mention on mainstream New Zealand news websites: ODT, NZ Herald, Stuff.co.nz. TVNZ has one mention but it is a different person. XLerate (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —XLerate (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed that she has not been noticed as Chief Guide in New Zealand, let alone the other position she holds. It seems to me that this is an article that needs rescue not deletion, but I will hold judgment for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any mention of her on the websites of either the Guides or NCWNZ. Wayback has three past NCWNZ presidents listed but not her[21]. XLerate (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She seems to have a section in "New Zealand Activists: Nándor Tánczos, Vince Siemer, Brian Tamaki, Kerry Bolton, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Marilyn Waring, Tim Selwyn" see this amazon link. Can anyone in NZ find this book? --Bduke (Discussion) 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpt on Vincent Siemer appears to be a copy of the Vince Siemer article. XLerate (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like the sort of trivial article that is far too common in wiki. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. The Helen Gibbins married to Michael Palin is more notable than this one, but neither deserve an article. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale of Bduke.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the leader of a group comprised of 20,562 members, and also of another group representing women voters in that nation that has been around for more than a century. Both organizations get ample news coverage, and have their own Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 01:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see her name on those sites, but I don't see the name of their current leaders either. Is this a hoax? Does that organization have someone who is a Chief Guide? I searched the site for that and found zero results. site:http://www.girlguidingnz.org.nz/ "chief guide" Dream Focus 01:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until there are reliable sources mentioning her, there is no way to create an article involving her, or even know if the claims on her article are true. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These two searches can't find anything on her, and Google Books doesn't recognise the volume Bduke linked above. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 07:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That search is for "helen gibbens". Article is at "Helen Gibbins" (almost equally uneventful search)--ClubOranje^T 10:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derp, don't know how I made that typo. Gomen. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 10:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link works for me. It gives the book title and a "Product description" that increases the list of names in the title to a much longer list that includes the name "Helen Gibbins". Could someone in NZ look for it in a library and not just rely on the internet? --Bduke (Discussion) 09:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in 3 NZ library catalogs and didn't see it, do you see it available in any NZ library (list here)? XLerate (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The link is fine; I was referencing Google Books, which is entirely distinct from Amazon. Also, FWIW, I'm unable to find either the book name or the publisher credited on the Wellington city library website. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reserved judgment above, but I am coming down for delete, as it just seems there are no sources to support an article on someone who it seems ought to have been noticed by many. If sources turn up in future, it can always be recreated. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing verifiability. The claims, if true, may be notable, but there is no corroboration for any of this in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverifiable claims, lack of reliable sources. SnottyWong ^talk 18:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 18:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for ((Rescue)) by User:Kintetsubuffalo in seeking assistance with its improvement. ---- 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the article. I have just added several credible references. BTW, My wife knows her from 'way back', and we have visited Helen Gibbins' home during a visit to New Zealand; however, I realise that is not "credible evidence".- Peter Ellis - Talk 03:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ScoutWiki is publicly editable, so it's not a reliable source per WP:SPS. Also, following the link to it, I can't find where *it* cites Helen Gibbins being Chief Guide to. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Scoutwiki article was originally copied from wikipedia, so I have removed that reference. The other reference to a group of teachers is not acceptable either. Peter Ellis may know that is the right Helen Gibbins, but we do not. In all the work I have done on Scouting pages here, I have never found the search for references as difficult as this one. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Even if a reliable source could be found (and I'm yet to sight one that passes WP:RS) it would seem Gibbins fails WP:GNG. It shouldn't be this hard.--ClubOranje^T 05:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of flat out deletion, what about moving this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article incubator/Helen Gibbins until something can be found? Peter Ellis is clearly not a hoaxer and wrote the article in good faith. There are but 4 million New Zealanders, perhaps their Internet culture is such that they don't post such things, yet maybe something can be found in literature... just a thought.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that generalisation. Look at Peter Jackson for example - over 1,000 articles containing his name on the NZ Herald website. If anything being a smaller country makes it easier, not harder, to get your name in the newspaper. I also don't think there's enough content to worry about incubating. XLerate (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a specious argument if ever there was one. The man made one of the most successful movie trilogies ever, was knighted, and is perhaps the best known New Zealander today. It's like comparing the police chief of Hermosillo to Robert Rodriguez.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to say perhaps famous people don't get much coverage on the Internet here, but that's simply not true, they get heaps. The issue isn't if notable people get coverage, but the notability of this person. XLerate (talk) 13:09, 11 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Logic and Computation[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Article creation premature: this journal has not even published a single article yet and its homepage indicates that it is not indexed anywhere. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals). Crusio (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a new journal that has not been published yet. Delete it and let it be recreated if and when the journal becomes significant. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unpublished, and so it can't really have much hope of satisfying notability criteria. Once it's published, if reliable sources can be found to support its notability, it can be re-created. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Not indexed anywhere, the editor-in-chief is an Assistant Professor 9a junior academic rank), and there is basically no editorial board[22]. Nsk92 (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above comments, non-notable. No reliable sources on the article. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:12, 11 July 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 merits of Wiktionary aside... Courcelles (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of adjectives ending with 'ly'[edit]

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

I'm not sure what to cite in this case, but I'm not sure that a list of words is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If any other editor with more experience comes along, please weigh in as this is the reason I listed the article on Afd in the first place. elektrik SHOOS 04:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the article could be more appropriate in Wiktionary or another sister project. Mimosa.cb (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Reyk _YO! 05:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Exactly like Reyk says. It's a directory type listing. Not encyclopedic. Shadowjams (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ORLY? Lugnuts (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an adjective meaning "like a French airport", as in "man, that bidet in the restroom is so Orly!. Mandsford 13:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an arbitrary list, with no real encyclopedic justification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though it may need to be converted from a list into a short article. I believe that this article could be useful to a Wikipedia audience. The article is not better suited to any other Wikimedia project. The information in this article would not be reached more conveniently by placing it elsewhere. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:SALAT#Lists_of_words. While they may be a source of confusion sometimes, as most "-ly" words are adverbs, it really isn't notable enough a topic for an article. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of these reasons. Note also that -ly is a still productive part of English word formation; a day or so ago I saw a drummer being described as "Stoogely", and I knew what it meant without looking. Even if we had a place for lists of words like this, this isn't a closed class at all. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, they were daily, early, elderly, friendly, lovely, likely, portly, and spindly. My first thought would have been "sly". My understanding is that this type of list was encouraged back in Wikipedia's early days, with the vision apparently being that multiple editors would add their knowledge to build a people's encyclopedia of some sort. It's a beautiful philosophy, but it's always been inconsistent with the basic concept of no original research. Wikipedia became so successful that it (wisely) opted to enforce the OR policy. Someday, Jimbo and the gang might try to recreate that original vision of a "free love" free encyclopedia. Mandsford 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't this something that should be on Wiktionary? 76.66.192.55 (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where they would put the information. Although I've never ever met anyone has ever actually used Wiktionary, my understanding is that you type in a word and it gives you a definition. Mandsford 12:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have "Appendices", see wikt:Appendix:Contents. I use Wiktionary occasionally, it's not much fun to edit though. If you thought Wikipedians were pedantic and unwelcoming... Fences&Windows 23:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very frustrating to edit, they ban you for no reason, for 24 hours as a default penalty, and think they know everything (apparently, there is no WP:IDONTKNOWIT policy, or any policy at all), never leave an explanation of why you were banned, if you ask on IRC, the other admins don't know why any other admin ever banned you, if you ask on their version of village pump, they say it is a mistake, but decline to say why they banned you in the first place. If it's not British English, it tends to get deleted. If it's an obscure technical term or slang term they leave an edit summary of "tosh" delete the entry, and ban you. If you convince the admin who banned you, it is valid, another admin comes along and deletes it, and then bans you again, even though you weren't the one who restored the deleted entry. It's just ripe for someone to sue them for libel. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like "Wiktionarrogant" would be a good word. Mandsford 14:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To quote Tom Lehrer, "Immediately. Immediately. Immediate - L - Y." --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 12 July 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. As far as the specific article under discussion here is concerned, it's clear that we now have a reasonable stub and consensus to keep it. This is not to necessarily excuse the behaviour of its original creator - the only reason this article is up to vaguely encyclopedic standards now is because others have pitched in to rescue it. Creation of contentless stubs to create busywork for others is disruptive, and the next step is probably to consider action against the creator at ANI rather than against the articles at AfD. ~ mazca ^talk 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 Derby County F.C. season[edit]

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

There is no content here only a listing of players. This is one of many that this user has created, although I'm only nominating this one at this time.

This creation cycle has been going on for quite a while and almost all of these articles are the same. They are literally just a roster of players with flags and positions.

These are stubs of almost no encyclopedic value (textbook WP:NOT#STATS), nor do they provide any special advantage for later contributors (over just creating the article from scratch). I would not be nominating if they were of stub class, but these are not. Shadowjams (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 04:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs improving (references, expansion etc.), but not deleting. See 2009–10 Derby County F.C. season for the potential....Giant Snowman 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it needs text. Shadowjams (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I've made a mistake it would be taking it here rather than ANI, because these kinds of mass creations with almost zero content are disruptive, the least important reason being that none of them meet the inclusion guidelines by a longshot. I have no doubt that by the time this AfD is closed the article will have some menial language added to make it pass, or maybe, hopefully, turn into something interesting. I say that not because I think AfD should be a substitute for cleanup, but as an example of why your argument for keeping isn't backed up by my experience here.

To explain that, let's use the example you gave. In that case the original article started out like this and within exactly one hour was this. A full featured article with 30 references, two tables, text, an infobox, and meaningful interesting content (I've learned something about them). Your example was created by an editor that went on to fix up the article (it started out pretty good anyway), not go on to create another dozen (or in this case more) stubs of the next season.

That doesn't even begin to compare to the article I've nominated. I realize (and obviously support) that there's leeway given here for article potential, but it is articles for deletion, not topics for deletion or something else. It's about articles as they are or as they realistically might be. If it wasn't then there'd be no problem with someone going through any red-link listing and creating an article that had as much, probably more, content than these.
My opinion is that you're assessing this topic, not the article. Because no reasonable editor could consider the current content to meet notability guidelines. Shadowjams (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC) (this comment refers to the version as it was one minute before my comment was made)[reply]
Keep, even very cursory editing allows this clearly notable subject to be made into a passable stub article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These sorts of articles can be expanded. Nothing wrong with creating stub articles to get things started. Dream Focus 05:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize why you say that now, but my nomination referred to an earlier version (about 30 minutes ago or so), right before Jmorrison edited it, one that wasn't even stub quality. Shadowjams (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the current version is now worthy of a stub, you can change your vote to keep. Dream Focus 18:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confer 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE The article under discussion here was tagged for ((Rescue)) by User:Jmorrison230582 seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is pretty terrible. I couldn't even tell what sport it was about until I got down to the bottom and saw that it was classified as an English football stub. That's kinda sad. Unless this article gets a major cleanup, then I agree with the nominator that deletion is the only cure for this article. The topic may well be notable, but the article in its current state pretty much needs to be started over from scratch. SnottyWong ^talk 05:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the editor who created it can actually be bothered to write something rather than clogging up the Wiki with this crap. Before its recent "expansion" it didn't resemble a season article in any way whatsoever. Get some match results, transfers, anything interesting and just start again from scratch. It is slightly better since Jmorrison expanded it (although the references are very tangential and exactly one half of the prose is now POV) but I still can't see what advantage there is of having pages like this. Big Dom 08:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of many articles that this particular editor creates and then [23] walks away from. This an example of the WP:Kittens type article, where someone brings a lot of cute little items into the world, even gives them names, and then leaves for others to take care of. I have nothing against someone writing a complete article about the '96-'97 season of Derby County F.C., but the intent here seems to be to write lots of little stubs called "1996-97 _____ season". Because there's no effort invovled, it'll be easy to move on to lots of little stubs called "1997-98 ____ season". Sorry, it's not an accomplishment and nothing to be proud of. Mandsford 13:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid subject for an article - WP:FOOTY's featured content section lists a number of similar articles that have made it to GA standard. There's no reason why this one couldn't. Bettia (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the appropriate forum for the valid concern raised here about this user's creation of sub-stub articles is WP:ANI, not here. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the user has been given a fair warning on his or her talk page that that might be the next step. I think that you've done a great job in rescuing this article after the lone edit by its creator, and if you're a Derby County F.C. fan, then it's been a pleasure rather than a chore. It's only fair that all rescuers be made aware that this is only one of about 20 similar cases so far of someone leaving something for others to rescue. Hopefully, we won't see 20 more homework assignments waiting to be finished by someone else. Mandsford 20:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. I consciously held off from nominating all of them in batch, and predicted that an AfD would send people running to meet my pretty bare requirements for a stub, but there is a larger set of articles here that's at issue. I probably could have done this at ANI, but even after that issue was resolved, the issue I'm addressing here would remain. It's not perfect I know, but it's a toss up situation. Shadowjams (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the condition that... the article is improved to a minimum standard required for football club season articles. This means that we need a full list of the competitive fixtures played by the Derby County first-team in the 1996-97 season and a suitably long lead section. – Pee Jay 22:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first three lines of this article can easily fit into Derby County F.C.. nothing seems to warrant this spin off article. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject in need of expansion. AFD is not cleanup, and articles do not have a deadline.Vodello (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and two wrongs don't make a right and a stitch in time saves nine. I think the guy got the message, which is don't leave a bunch of messes for other people to clean up. Mandsford 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep club season articles are generally deemed notable; article needs improvement not deletion. Eldumpo (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and so it is our firm policy to accept meagre contributions and nuture the resulting stubs. It is also our policy not to issue work orders to our volunteer contributors as they are not staff and we have no authority to do so. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Nfitz (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Oh so many articles are in their infancy. To delete them all would be counter productive --Egghead06 (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The last two keeps seem to be missing the larger point, but I guess I understand that a little. Shadowjams (talk) 08:13, 14 July 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. per nomination withdrawl JForget 00:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Musson[edit]

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

~~Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google News and Book searches bring up zero relevant pages.~~ RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. Can find no reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better refs added, nom has withdrawn, so I change to Keep. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:Notability (people) in the article's references or from Google Books, News or Scholar. Qwfp (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See www.mussonbassoonreeds.com.au/about-us/peter-musson/ for information on Peter Musson Heckel66 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you clarify your !vote, how does this person meet WP:BIO? The URL you mention (which is also referenced in the article) is a primary source and doesn't do much to demonstrate notability here.

Delete. There's nothing in Google news archive about him that would convince me of a pass of WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This person is an important New Zealand/Australian musician. More information has been added to the article and some more reputable references.Rick570 (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know that this is not a democracy. But why, in the "Adf" statistics, is only one Keep vote counted when there should be one other??Rick570 (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how AfD Statistics works, but my guess is that it's because there's no space between the first "Keep" and "See", so the AfD would interpret that as a "KeepSee" vote. I've added a space so that it's counted. Frickeg (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't decided on number of "votes", so it really doesn't matter - it's read by a human admin who assesses the consensus when closing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its still not counted. very puzzling. As I said, democracy is not an issue. So why is it necessary to keep these statistics. Is'nt this page enough!Rick570 (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion is still underway, the keep you mention will be considered by the closing admin along with all the other keeps and deletes (though it doesn't provide much insight on how that editor feels this person is notable, just a link to their business). This is not an automated process. For more information take a look at WP:NotEarly--RadioFan (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Principal Bassoonist with: NZBC Symphony Orchestra; Ulster Orchestra; Durban Symphony Orchestra; Niederrhein Sinfoniker;Queensland Symphony Orchestra and Guest Principal with Royal Philharmonic Orchestra;Gurzenich Orchestra; Australian Chamber Orchestra; Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra and Sydney Symphony Orchestra - is, in my view enough for notability in the field of Australian Bassoonists. There seem to me sufficient citations to support the information in the article which does not seem dubious or self serving. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Withdrawn We've finally gotten through the primary sources and have good references to books and other sources which demonstrate the notability of this musician.--RadioFan (talk) 19:43, 14 July 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. extransit (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken hearts (film)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is an unreleased, non-notable film. Also note that the edit summary upon removal of the PROD read: Despite being unreleased, this page was created to help promote and document this upcoming film from Toronto. Steamroller Assault (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet released and, with a micro budget ($2300), a longshot to be noticed when it is. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreleased and clearly not notable at present. Tricky search subject, as the phrase "Broken hearts" is common, but I can find no reliable 3rd party coverage of the film. Should it become notable after release (which seems unlikely) the article can be re-created. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per our usual practice, unreleased films are not generally notable - see also WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Just not enough available yet toward this film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 9 July 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. PhilKnight (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebridea Harland[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Page created by a user who has also engaged in vandalism, which I realize is attacking a straw man. But a simple Google search shows no other evidence of this person existing, much less being notable enough to get even this poorly made page. Markeer 02:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No GHits outside of Wikipedia on either "Hebridea Harland" or "Herbert Simon Borgnine". Some social media type hits on "Herbie Harland", but nothing that looks relevant. Very likely a hoax. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of existence, let alone notability. It is inconceivable that there would not be easily-found mentions of a former British heavyweight boxing champion. It is not at all irrelevant that the article was created by an editor with a history of creating hoax articles. The one and only "reference" given was a link to a completely irrelevant web page, which did not even mention Harland. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Blatant hoax from editor who seems to have made quite a few similar hoaxes, including a fake Rocky (remake) article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 8 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Dwyer (audio engineer)[edit]

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

Non-notable sound engineer with an impressive resume; however, lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find any significant coverage of him. One of the references in the article does not mention O'Dwyer, and the other one is just a list of work he has done. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both references mention O'Dwyer. Please do not lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.47.35.151 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just cannot find evidence of notability in his field. Sure, he worked on the output of many notable performers but did he invent or innovate within his field? I think not. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:36, 9 July 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. JForget 00:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely Bare[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This type of fluff-and-flog commercial puffery has no place on WP. Carrite (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hi-tech spa chain, which specializes in hair removal through waxing and laser treatments. No indication of any historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Checking the references, one can see that 3 of the 5 given sources are invalid: the Yelp and Cosmopolitan links are user-submitted blog posts, and the CompletelyBare website is obviously self-referential. That leaves the Vogue and Allure links: would these not qualify under the given rules of WP:COMPANY? They are "independent, verifiable coverage in secondary sources"... but does that mask the plain fact that they themselves are puffery? This kind of logrolling is used over and over to justify keeping articles which are blatant WP:PROMO, while far worthier articles are condemned to deletion because they lack such "citations". I don't want to vote Keep here, but I'm not clear how to refute those two links. Should someone do so, I would be grateful and pleased, but the reason I post this comment now is to ask for the community's help in researching the larger issue of "sourcing". Reading through the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard archives, I see several instances of Allure, Vogue and even Teen Vogue being discussed as though they were authoritative. Are they? It is difficult to judge purely from reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources: it says "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable". To my eye, magazines such as these contain a huge amount of unjournalistic writing, and their "coverage" frequently cannot qualify as "source material" even in a subject such as bodywaxing businesses. Can some nice editor give a wikilink to where this issue has been explained/discussed in depth? Thanks in advance! SteveStrummer (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CORP the standard for significance is fairly high. "When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." (When I say "historical, technical, or cultural significance" for short, this is what I mean.) Personally, I think that it ought to be made explicit that this kind of significance is in fact mandatory, at least when commercial businesses are subjects. At any rate, I'm not sure that the sourceable facts about this business amount to "long term historical notability", which according to Jimmy Wales is the actual test. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but my question isn't about notability, it's about the validity of many types of citations. If someone were to successfully persuade the community that bodywaxing holds demonstrable effects on culture, society, etc., I would still like to know if (and why) "high quality" "mainstream news sources" like Vogue or Allure and others would be considered citational. I would be deeply grateful if you or someone else could guide me to a place where responsible editors have attempted to examine this question. This AfD manifests the question nicely, but I don't want to eat up too much space on the page so I won't add any more. But I'll be reading! Thanks to any who may respond with information. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wax, wash, repeat. Article fails WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To be sure, the current wording of the article needs a through going over as it veers more towards advertisement. And rather than taking a stance of "it must be non-notable" and looking for a way to refute coverage in reliable sources, one should actually review the amount and type of coverage and use that as a guide to come to a conclusion. The [Vogue article] is a substantial writeup. The [Cosmo article] is less substantial. But additional research outside of what the article provides shows that they are covered in the [New York Times] as well. The story has even made it to South Africa. Also covered here. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The article in Vogue apparently shows that this establishment invented a kind of bikini wax that is less uncomfortable than others. The other stories are similar. That just might be one for the history books, though the current article itself is rather vague on what is apparently the achievement they're actually known for. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are a high end bikini wax chain that's been relatively successful. Successful enough to be noted by multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability guidlines at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.186.27 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 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. The article can definitely stand to be expanded, but the one source added, although small, proves notability. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin, Self-Revealed[edit]

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

Article has only a few bits of info and hasn't been edited for over a year Mysteryman19 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, won a Pulitzer Prize. Not being edited in over a year isn't grounds for deletion. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has won a major literary award, satisfying WP:Notability (books). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a reference to a Pullitzer Prize, which seems interesting since the first year it was awarded was apparently 1917, same year the book was published... but even with that discrepancy, looks like a lot of books published by this guy that got indexed. It's definitely a stub, and should be expanded, but I don't see any issue with a book of a U.S. Senator (William Cabell Bruce) having a stub article. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the award is listed here. Dewritech (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep now that the Pulitzer Prize (already mentioned in the text) has been sourced. WP:BEFORE would have been the way to go here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, Pulitzer Prize winner. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 8 July 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga custom chips[edit]

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

~~I believe this is advertising, doesnt appear notable on Google news, and all the sites are hosted by the company who makes them.~~ Sadads (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't follow you one bit - what advertising do you mean? The Amiga is computer history and nothing that's been seriously marketed for 16 years. Zac67 (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article, chock full of Advertising language, and any searches on Google are linked to publications of the company that makes it. Sadads (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure we're talking about the same article? Amiga custom chips is about the special hardware that was used in the Amiga line computers from 1985-1994. What advertising language are you talking about? And what's Google got to do with it? And what publications are you referring to? Commodore's? Commodore Business Machines is extinct since '94. The label still exists but it's got nothing to do with Amiga or the scope of the article. *verypuzzled* Zac67 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I'm as puzzled as Zac when it comes to the supposed advertising tinge of this article. It's about components of old Amiga computers, not upgrades or the like, these chips form parts of the computers themselves. If anyone's offering them for sale then presumably it's enthusiasts who've broken up old machines. Not that I'm supporting deletion or retention of the article, just pointing out that advertising isn't in play here. Someone another 20:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I was confusing the sources I found with the article, still not sure if the piece is notable though. Sadads (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perhaps the original nom. was misguided. However, the article is a bit on the stubby side and doesn't really explain why these chipsets are notable. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My point of view is that this is far more retro computer history than advisement. Marko75 (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the history of the Amiga custom chips, I think it should be kept. All the article needs is a little expansion and citations and it's all good to go. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:15, 11 July 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) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudha Pennathur[edit]

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

Needs citations for "Her work has been featured in the Asian Art Museum and the de Young Museum of San Francisco, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in Los Angeles, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Asia Society in New York and many other museum exhibition shops." in order to be considered notable. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references have been added. Please re-review. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FelipeSago (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 June 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, 1 July 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) 00:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't verify any of the alleged facts. In fact, much of it is plain misrepresentation. For example, her sari designs are sold at a few museum gift shops, and are not displayed in museums, see [24]. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 8 July 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) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ditchburn[edit]

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

Contested BLP prod. Singer, no real assertion of notability. The reference added is from a local newspaper which itself does not seem to meet our notability guidelines or our reliable sources guidelines. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 June 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) 00:03, 1 July 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) 00:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those external links (sort of references) aren't enough to establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 8 July 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. In the absence of reliable sources covering the subject in detail the consensus is to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja-Bar[edit]

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

An artist whose first album is not actually out yet, references are about other artists but namecheck this one in passing. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his single is currently charting passes WP:BAND. STAT -Verse 03:28, 25 June 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, 1 July 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) 00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ – Has some degree of notability for the single "Daze" which has charted, and noted in one newspaper source which I added to the article just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't looked at the other two references when I added the one I found. The comment below is correct—the references do not mention him at all; presumably the sources had been accidentally copied from the Soulja Boy Tell 'Em article. Struck my "keep" recommendation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ja-Bar's biography is almost entirely unsourced as two of three references provided do not even mention him at all. Only claim for notability seems to be his song "Daze", but I can't see any charts that actually show its peak. Interestingly, there have been articles of songs with higher peak than Daze's peak, but have been deleted and/or redirected. Karppinen (talk) 12:39, 10 July 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 List_of_Dad's_Army_characters#Recurring_characters. I'll leave the issue of what content gets merged to the editorial process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janet King[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dad's Army characters Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 1 July 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) 00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list as per Jclemens. Could not find sources to WP:verifynotability but there is little harm in expanding the list entry. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:20, 8 July 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Princesses 2009[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 July 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) 00:07, 8 July 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) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Mulligan[edit]

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

BLPPROD tag removed by author, so here we are. This is a slightly promotional (official website, twitter links) page that has no sources whatsoever. No articles link here and the author has no other edits. Seems to fail lots of notability criteria. — Timneu22 · talk 10:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count three source citations in the References section of the article. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a references section, sure, but no way to verify; they are all plain text: Palm Springs Life May 2007, TV Guide January 1995, Who's Who in American art. Google links are all Twitter, MySpace, etc. If there's notability, I'd expect to see a relevant interview or review. If they exist, I'm wrong and that's fine. But, those three "references" don't convince me in the slightest. — Timneu22 · talk 11:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "No way to verify plain text", my eye! That's a very poor show of trying to check a citation. A citation isn't a hyperlink; and a citation that gives the name and issue date of a periodical magazine is a fairly concrete citation that tells you, the reader, what to go and ask for from the back issues archive. Indeed, it doesn't take much working out to infer that a citation in a biography of a Who's Who (in this case Who's Who in American Art) will be the biography of that person in that Who's Who. We're supposed to look and read and engage our thinking matter, not act helpless in the face of something that we cannot just click upon and be spoon-fed. Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Enough with the attacks. This is an AFD. Deal with it. I mean, have you even tried googling this guy? The best I get is a single credit for a theater company. One of the references says TV Guide January 1995. What does that even mean? Was there a feature about him? Did he design the cover? Seriously, if some notability existed, it would probably be in the article. I've tried a number of google searches to get anything at all, but it doesn't seem to exist. — Timneu22 · talk 18:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no attack there. But there is a conclusion that you made a very poor show of trying to check a citation, claiming, as you did, that you couldn't check it because it didn't spoon-feed a hyperlink to you. Have you looked at the Who's Who? It certainly seems that you have made zero effort to do so, given that your immediate response to the above was rather to nominate the Who's Who in American Art article for deletion. You don't appear to be making any attempt to look at the sources cited, or even into working out what is cited. It's fairly clear what TV Guide is. Will your response now be to nominate the TV Guide article for deletion, as well? Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have now searched for several hours trying to find claims of notability, and they don't seem to exist. Can anyone just throw unreferenceable references on a page, and then we are to believe it? I don't. I've tried to find TV Guide archives to see what that ref means. I've tried to determine how the "Palm Springs Life" reference means anything. I just cannot. Again, are these articles about the author? It's a bunch of hocus pocus; if there were valid links or sources about this topic, surely they would be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timneu22 (talk • contribs) 2010-07-02 11:26:18
- I don't think it's a hoax. I haven't been able to find much but there are bits and pieces like this and this, which at least show that some of the claims are true. Trouble is, they don't really show evidence of notability (performances in amateur dramatic productions that is). I can't find him in the Who's Who, but gbooks doesn't have the recent years of it even on snippet view, so he could well have an entry. At the moment it is very difficult to decide because there is nothing to say what is in the purported references, and whether they are significant coverage. Quantpole (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the establishment of notability is quite a challenge on this one. — Timneu22 · talk 15:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come now! You claim to be spending "hours" Googling, but it doesn't take much aptitude with Google Web, or even more than a minute or so using it, to turn up the fact that Palm Springs Life is, as I already said, a periodical magazine. One just puts the name in, and there it is, right at the very top of the results list when I did it. It even has back issues available. This is a very poor show indeed; as is your bad faith assumption that just because Bellagioarts (talk · contribs) isn't proficient at wikitext markup and using citation templates, the citations that xe supplied when you asked must therefore be bogus with no need to make an effort to work out what they are citing. It's not actually hard to work out what Who's Who in American Art, TV Guide, and Palm Springs Life are. Nor is it hard to work out, contrary to the claims that there is "no way to verify plain text" and that you "just cannot" work out the meaning, what "Palm Springs Life February 2007" could possibly mean, given the clear existence of a monthly magazine named Palm Springs Life that's a doddle to discover with the tool that you say you are using. Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've got to be kidding me. Wow, "Palm Springs Life" got you google results? No kidding. Now try finding "James C. Mulligan" in Palm Springs Life. The same with "TV Guide." <sarcasm>For the record, I didn't google just "TV Guide". My guess is that it is a notable publication.</sarcasm> That being said, I can't find anything that really links James C. Mulligan to TV Guide. — Timneu22 · talk 13:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further, are we to trust any article that just throws the text "TV Guide, some random date" as a reference? It seems like this is kryptonite to all things WP:A7! Congrats on finding the loophole! Now anyone can have their own Wikipedia entry! Also, note the reply below that TV Guide is weekly, so having a "monthly" citation for it is absurd. — Timneu22 · talk 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 July 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) 00:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "TV Guide January 2005" is an insufficient citation because TV Guide is a weekly publication. Whoever has access to the source in question needs to narrow down which of the four or five issues published that month is being referred to (and it would be helpful to identify the specific article and page, too). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Puffery, pretty clearly written by the subject of the article. Carrite (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete puffery, vanityspam, etc. There is nothing notable or even verifiable that he's done in his whole life. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - in its present form, this article is pure, unadulterated WP:VSCA with hokum, unverified references tossed in to provide 'credibility'. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:25, 9 July 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 Solar air heat. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar ventilation[edit]

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

"Solar ventilation" doesn't appear notable enough to be worthy of its own article; the bulk of the article currently simply discusses how solar energy is used, and that it is used to heat the air used in a ventilation system in this case. This topic is essentially covered by Solar energy and Ventilation (architecture). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of the above or Solar air heat. Editor has also created Solar air collector and SUN ECO AIR today, all three with a highly WP:PROMO tone and all solely referenced with links to a single company that sells this technology. SUN ECO AIR has just been speedied as spam. Empty Buffer (talk) 11:10, 1 July 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) 00:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteable as promotion. However, it is a subject worthy of coverage. Redirect to Solar air heat, which could well be renamed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:21, 10 July 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) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlets Under 20s[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:N as there does not seem to be any coverage of it in reliable third-party sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

– Pee Jay 11:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 1 July 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) 00:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:NSPORTS criteria for sports teams. Non professional team and no other indications of notability outside of that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:32, 8 July 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 - Withdrawn - Thanks folks, the article is far better. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Bain[edit]

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

Unreferenced biographical article about a minor-part actor who has directed some TV and film. He does not seem to have attracted any significant interest from reliable sources. I could be wrong as the name is somewhat common but he does not seem to meet the biographical notability standards. Peripitus (Talk) 13:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have begun some expansion to the article. The length of this man's career as actor, director, and producer for British television from 1971 through 2008 allow me the presumption that sources likely exist. I'lll search and then add them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is being improved... cleaned up, expanded, and sourcing has begun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 3 July 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) 00:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very familiar face in Scottish television comedy. Definitely notable.--Michig (talk) 06:15, 8 July 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 Thorns (band). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trøndertun[edit]

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

Non-notable demo, Google shows nothing special. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 1 July 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, 8 July 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factor X (Ailyn album)[edit]

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

Live album assembled by fans. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 July 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, 8 July 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route 666 (music)[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 1 July 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) 00:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's notable in Australia and gives many hits. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:51, 9 July 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop Love[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 1 July 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) 00:03, 8 July 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. Chaser (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trucks and Bus Company[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. SnottyWong ^gab 18:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Minimally notable, but I'm not sure how much English-language coverage can be expected about a company in Libya co-owned by the Italians; I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. I added a couple of references. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 5 July 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, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references provided by MelanieN. Passes WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:48, 15 July 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) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmir[edit]

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

This has been tagged as unreferenced and of questionable notability for a year now. The band is apparently unsigned and seems mostly to live on YouTube. Only one of their albums seems to be a physical release and even that might be self-published. It does not seem to have any chart positions against it in Allmusic.There are claims of Billboard chart positions for one of the singles. I tried to verify that but only found them listed on an airplay chart. There are awards listed but no references are provided for verification and it is unclear whether they are significant enough to confer notability anyway. There is also quite a lot of promotional wording in the article.

Note: I am also nominating the three articles on their alleged albums for deletion. DanielRigal (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 July 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, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 18:35, 9 July 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) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Kanpur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced listcruft. List of non-notable buildings. Delete per WP:NOTDIR. SnottyWong ^confess 19:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The topic may be notable, so if this is kept it should be cleaned up ASAP, as it is currently spammy and filled with inappropriate external links. Them From Space 20:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as listcruft. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:07, 3 July 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, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep on condition that there is more than two malls with articles. Currently there looks to be only one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is only one mall with an article linked, although this list pre-dates that article and the creator of the mall article edited the list article too. If we were to be really technical we'd need to see if there've been reliable sources non trivially talking about lists of shopping malls in the city. I don't think that's necessary, but at least 3 valid articles is necessary for a list. Shadowjams (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous nomination. Simply a directory of external links, not encyclopedic. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:09, 9 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cubetoons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Webcomic which fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources comes up through Google, and it's very unlikely there's anything in paper. Claritas § 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I don't consider the fact that it appears on IGN an automatic indicator of notability, because it is not independent of the site. 20:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 July 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, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Publishing something on IGN does not make it notable per se. --84.57.164.11 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:29, 10 July 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. Most people think that there are better ways to organize this information. Sandstein 07:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative regions of Kanpur[edit]

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

PROD contested by my favorite wikistalker. Non-notable, unreferenced list, and a content fork of Kanpur district. Any noteworthy information that could possibly be included in this article can easily be included in Kanpur district#Cities and Towns. This article is unnecessary and adds nothing to the project that doesn't already exist elsewhere. SnottyWong ^confabulate 21:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please explain the distinctions of Administrative regions of Kanpur, Kanpur Metropolitan Region, Kanpur district and Kanpur division? Indian local government isn't my forte. Clearly the structure of a major city like Kanpur has some significance (despite Snotty's claim that it fails WP:CSD A7), but it's not obvious to the outsider if there's any overlap between these articles (that could be grounds for pruning, but which one(s)?).

It has already been claimed that this is a content fork, but the edit histories don't give any evidence for this (Kanpur district hasn't been edited in weeks, nor by the creator of this article) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content forks aren't dependent on edit histories, nor do they have to be created in a proximate time in order to be considered content forks. A content fork means that there is more than one article that covers the same subject. Anyway, There are clearly a couple of users who are simultaneously Kanpur fanatics and also very fond of lists. There is tons of redundancy between these Indian geography articles (far more than just the ones mentioned above), and they need to be condensed. Since this article is barely started and Kanpur district is far more established, this article needs to go. I'm not sure about the division article and metro region article, but we can save those for another AfD. SnottyWong ^confer 22:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what's an "administrative region" and what's a "district" ? It would be a mistake to delete "List of counties of Wales" on the grounds that they're all "counties of Wales", because they're actually different entities. I don't know what applies in India and I wouldn't presume to delete an article on it unless I did so.Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a redundant article. This should be covered either in Kanpur Metropolitan Region or in Kanpur itself. The Division and Metro region artilces should stay. The Kanpur administrative hierarchy is like this Division > District > Metro region/Urban Agglomeration > City/Corporation. All four need separate articles, but this one is redundant.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but refactor. If, as Sodabottle above asserts, the administrative hierarchy is complex enough that it's not bleedingly obvious, then we should have an article on it, and this article title would be an excellent place to put that article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Great, then let's delete this article until someone comes along who wants to create the ideal article you describe. At this point, the article you describe is not the article we're discussing. SnottyWong ^comment 14:25, 3 July 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, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just as a matter of proper organization. India is a huge country and thus has many cascading government subdivisions, but we don't appear to have any other articles starting with "Administrative regions of" that refer to an Indian government level. De-prodding this was worthwhile because these articles are not all well organized, so its good to develop some precedents like that suggested by Sodabottle.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:31, 16 July 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. New sources have been added to the article in the course of the AfD. Clear consensus after relisting is that the sources are enough. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Governor (singer)[edit]

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

unsignificant singer, has not released anything of significance yet, fails WP:N, WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. I cannot find any reliable third party source for his signing to G-Unit. Article should be deleted aand not be recreated until he turns out to be more important. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage, no refs, one sentence article, self advertising... Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Plenty of coverage exists; I'm not sure how it was missed. I've added a sampling just now. The subject easily meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage now in the article demonstrates notability.--Michig (talk) 05:45, 2 July 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, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is informative and doesn't flack, and that's really all that should be asked of music-related articles. Carrite (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Some inline citations would be nice, but the sources listed will do. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:51, 9 July 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) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Kanpur[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork of List of tallest buildings in India. Any notably tall buildings can be moved to that article. The rest of the buildings in this list are unambiguously non-notable. The inclusion criteria is defined as any structure in Kanpur that stands at least 18 m (59 ft) tall. Come on, my house is taller than that. SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 July 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) 23:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are quite a number of List of tallest buildings in [NameOfCity] lists. WP editors seem to have a fascination for lists. Creating the tallest building by city lists seems to be pushing the boundaries as to what we should include in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge into List of tallest buildings in Asia - The tallest building list does not need forks for every city! ~~If you need to fork it out fork it out to continent to start,~~ Continent looks like a fine target or maybe region. Doing it by country, or even city is insane list cruft. Next up, List of foods that are green. Shadowjams (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..followed by a List of plants that are green! -- Alan Liefting (talk)
I'd probably redirect that to Plants :P. Shadowjams (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I might even be ok with list of tallest buildings for countries, and some of the city ones are well developed, but the tallest building on this list is 55 metres (180 ft)! List of tallest buildings in Omaha, Nebraska gets up to 193 meters. Shadowjams (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is any WP guideline on this. Personally, I am ok with lists of tall buildings for countries but for cities is going too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Liefting (talk • contribs) 05:47, July 8, 2010 UTC
Delete per nom although I have to admit that we have currently weak policies on this in wikipedia. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 19:32, 9 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud Abatement through Industry Response (F.A.I.R)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is apparently a recently founded car industry group fighting fraud in the used car market. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 8 July 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.