< 8 July	10 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Lions[edit]

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

Non-notable. British university sports teams are not generally notable in ANY sport. Teams are often unheard of and usually unfollowed within their own institution, never mind further afield. American Football itself enjoys nothing beyond niche interest in the UK. There appears to be no reason to believe this is one of the exceptions.

A google search (once references to Birmingham Lions Club are stripped out) provides little beyond sites directly related to the team and its rivals. All I could find was the obligatory mention on the "other sport" section of the local section of the BBC's website, which hasn't been updated for 4 years. There is also a single two minute filler that was used on Five's NFL coverage (A show that went out in a graveyard slot (either 7am Sun or after midnight)).

In terms of news coverage, a google news archive search (with similar note about the Lions Club) returns an average of one to two articles per year carried in either the Birmingham Mail (circ 67000) or the Birmingham Post (circ 12000). This is hardly indicative of a team that is even followed by a local audience never mind further afield.

A further note is that the article is unreferenced. The tone of the article is also a tad unencyclopaedic. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, just like all the others... Okay, I'm ready for a bulk delete...--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We can't do a bulk deletion for these articles: there's only two left: these lot and Loughborough Aces, and that one's already at AfD. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much like the others, they're a non-notable British Uni sports team. All I can find are mentions on either their or their rivals' websites/uni sites. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails the notability standards applied by WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Pfainuk talk 14:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely devoid of reliable sources and fails WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 01:32, 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 redirect to David Hasslehoff#Personal life. Courcelles (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ann Hasselhoff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

She's the daughter of the Hoff, and that's it as far as her notoriety goes. This bio was deleted before after an AfD, I don't think anything has really changed in those four years. She's had some minor acting roles and there's some tabloid gossip focussed on her father, but nothing to indicate that we should have a biography on her. Fences&Windows 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think anything has really changed in those four years" -- The hamburger video! She filmed that in 07 I believe.--Milowent (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, exactly! Some more tabloid gossip, but nothing of note. Fences&Windows 20:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect stub to David Hasslehoff#Personal life where she and that video already have sourced mention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Article of no encyclopedic value, individual not notable.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong? With this individual failing individual notability, a redirect will delete the article and simply send readers to the one place within Wikipedia where she has sourcable[1] encyclopedic context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MichealQScmidt. There is no independent notability but this is a plausible search term. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 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 redirect to The Lives of Mount Druitt Youth. JForget 00:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Adam[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about a person who has directed one local documentary. Some local news coverage of the person, but it appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE. WP:ONEVENT also applies here since the single movie is the only claim to notability. VQuakr (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Lives of Mount Druitt Youth. Delete – Notability is based on a film that appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. WP:ONEVENT applies. ttonyb (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as director does not have the individual notability his film might. Now, I was going to suggest a redirect to The Lives of Mount Druitt Youth as that spammy article might be salvagable... but it's iffy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lives of Mount Druitt Youth, as the article is salvagable and I am doing just that even as I come back to opine here. The director may be BLP1E for his film, but many first-time directors are... so that is not really a black mark. But as the coverage he has is in context to the film he directed, I can save that article far more easily than I can the article about him. The redirect is now a decent option. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Taking my own advice, I have now improved the article The Lives of Mount Druitt Youth to make it a suitable home for a redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect seems like a reasonable solution in this case since the film article now appears likely to survive. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-publicising director of a single home movie documentary with only local newpaper cites.--Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 14:33, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slingshot paintball[edit]

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

Arguably non-notable variant of paintball, cited only by a booklisting on Amazon.com. Searches for other sources could not find anything of substance. Plausible contender for a redirect to Paintball. Jwoodger (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A better redirect might be Paintball variations. Jwoodger (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Harmless -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an argument for keep. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the current article has no reliable sourcing, nor can I find any reliable sourcing. Note that the one book used as a reference attributes the invention of the game to "Ron M. Smith", who just happens to be the author of the book, which happens to be self-published througn Lulu. Far from "harmless", this article fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also note the username of the creator of this article - User:Ronysmith. -- Jwoodger (talk) 23:44, 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, JForget 23:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one self published ref from the inventor of the sport. --Leivick (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slingshot --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerg to Paintball variations. Seems like that would be the most compatible article for a simple solution. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'comment - What would you merge? The sourcing is to an unreliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Knee-jerk reaction? :) Unless any other sources are found, deletion would be the best alternative. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources, even in passing. Therefore, no need for a redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:18, 17 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. none of the provided sources were in fact reliable NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Aditya[edit]

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

Unsigned musical artist; no coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps eligible for speedy deletion. Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - argument for retention added by creator to article talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read on the notability criteria for musicians , Criteria for musicians and ensembles and Salman Aditya at least meets three point of the Criteria.

1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

http://aerophonesonaeroplanes.blogspot.com/2010/05/salman-aditya.html

2.Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Place 2 (second) in Australian Psychedelic chart

http://www.mp3.com.au/Charts/Artists/Psychedelic

Place 3 (third) in Australian electro Chart

http://www.mp3.com.au/Charts/Artists/Electro-pop

5.Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

http://musicbrainz.org/artist/8ad699fa-3e15-4ff2-8280-2011f21b98d0.html thank you

can we close this discussion now ? thank you (Tommyvarcetti (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'm not sure either of those 3 points get him across the notability guidelines. 1. That blog is not a reliable source. 2. Those are very minor charts - certainly not recognised "national music charts" - the website gives no indication how the chart is worked out or what are its criteria for entry. 3. Two self-published albums does not mean "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". Those criteria aside, I haven't found any independent coverage of Salman's music. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines. Most of the points are made by Favonian above, but just to emphasise the blog is definately not a reliable source and so far I have not found any others.--SabreBD (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found more Reliable source about Salman Aditya.

Source No. 1, Its from The Biggest Music Webzine in Indonesia

http://deathrockstar.info/mp3/

Source No. 2, Its from an University Blog Article

http://blogs.unpad.ac.id/salmanaditya/2010/06/07/who-is-salman-aditya/

Source No. 3, Its from Jpop Sites, Jpop is very popular music sites in Japan, and you can not add your own self on that sites. http://www.jpop.com/Salman+Aditya#

Source No. 4, Salman Aditya songs lyrics is all over the place

and more

Source No. 5, Its from Elbows Music Blog Aggregator http://elbo.ws/artist/salman-aditya/

Source No. 6, I've found Salman Aditya song in Mixx http://www.mixx.com/stories/18121045/salman_aditya_petitio_principii_mp3_4shared_com_online_file_sharing_and_storage_download

I've Found out that Salman Aditya is working with an Indie label from Malaysia, And his songs is already sell on Emusic and Itunes

I think that's all.. thank you.. : ) (Tommyvarcetti (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure that any of those sources meet the standard of being reliable sources. 1. is just an MP3 download site, where Salman's first listing has only received 201 hits. 2. is a blog article written by Salman ("by salmanaditya). 3. The way that it is written certainly does not look like it is reliable "independent coverage" (eg "you can contact him at myspace). 4. Those websites allow anyone to submit their own lyrics. 5. is an aggregator that gives one listing, which only lists one of Salman's singles in a long list of others. 6. It seems anyone can submit content to this site. As for the Indie lable from Malaysia: I'm not seeing it. This mentions his album is released on the label of "Salman Records / Routenote". RouteNote is a self-publication vehicle for online artists. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input mate. : )

1. I think You have to know that Its not just an mp3 download site, but also a reviewer site. All mp3's of that site is a great quality from reliable artists. I think soon Salman Aditya review Article will be on that site. And just for you know its Salman Aditya's newest tracks, upload by the sites on 8 July and now its has 455 hits and counting..

2,3,4,5 Yeah i think your right..haha

6. I think not anyone can submit content to these sites. In RouteNote musicians and everyone can submit their songs/ creation, but only songs that have pass verification,with artist whose a member of PRO (Performance Rights Organization) such as BMI,ASCAP,etc and have a label can be approved on itunes.

I've found another source, its from japanese music sites. I think its meet the standard of being reliable sources

http://www.muzie.co.jp/artist/r009425/ (Tommyvarcetti (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - despite the val;iant efforts at sourcing, I see no coverage in reliable sources with the epmphasis on reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, only user generated content. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 14:45, 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 of the discussion was: speedy delete. Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) has speedy deleted the article per A7. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Non-admin closure[reply]

City CarShare[edit]

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

Kind of reads like an advertisement, with no 3rd. party sources. Leaning on being non-notable as well. Battleaxe9872 22:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Also, I'm going to report the user because of his/her username. Claritas § 22:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unfortunately, the references used confirm that this entity is not notable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable; will be blocking user per Claritas's UAA report after I'm done here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have received an e-mail from the creator of this page Ccsorg (talk · contribs), and his/her e-mail adress is highly suspicious (marketing@citycarshare.org). It indicates WP:COI problems between the creator and the article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 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. going by the acceptance of the delete arguments at the end of the discussion based around close examination of the sources and the weakness of some of the keep arguments the consensus is close enough to delete that it falls within adminstrative discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix of Complex Negotiation[edit]

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

Original research; no sources indicate that this is a well-known or widely accepted concept. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from the massive list of references, it seems that this concept meets WP:GNG. I've read the few which have internet links, and they use it prominently - whether the rest are false is hard to tell, but based on the two which are accessible, I'd give this is a benefit of the doubt. The article is rubbish, but that's not a reason to delete, and there seems to be more than just a single study to this concept. Claritas § 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Claritas; we need to clean up and rescue this very poorly written article. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^gab 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for ((Rescue)) by User:Bearian in seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Weak keep - While the subject is notable, the article is terribly written at this point. The list of "further reading" is 10 times longer than the article itself. In my opinion, the list of further reading should be moved to the talk page as a repository of potential sources, and the article should be stubbed until someone can actually provide some sourced prose. SnottyWong ^gab 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can we verify all these references? many of these references are not specifically about the matrix but negotiation techniques that may involve the matrix eg "An Approach to Visualize the Negotiation Preparation Step". checking google: nothing in gnews, nothing in gbooks, 1hit in gscholar. also in Portuguese, limited for the manual: nothing for gnews [2], a few hits in gscholar [3] and 1 hit in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to find a paper entitled "An Approach to Visualize the Negotiation Preparation Step" using Google Scholar, then that title is what to put in, not the completely different search phrases used in your external links there. Uncle G (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so I have searched, and found nothing but the original conference paper, which is uncited in g scholar00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete. It's nothing but a list. 'Article' asserts no facts, cites no sources, and much of it is not even written in complete sentences. Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources seems entirely written by the devisers of the techniques, almost all of which were either self-published or published by their own universities. There needs to be some evidence that it has been widely adopted more generally, or at least widely discussed more generally, by third parties. If kept, the list should of course be trimmed to the essential ones, which would normally be the books plus whatever is the best material among the internet publications. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, too, was this article itself. The searches that I did to improve the citations turned up the consultancy that many of these people work for, which the account name of the article's creator unambiguously denotes. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - As DGG said, though many of the sources do exist and do pertain to the topic, most, if not all, are written or contributed to in some way by the creator of the technique. Though a badly written article is no reason to delete an article, a list of research papers written by one person does not exactly establish verifiability or notability. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:47, 17 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) 00:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janata enterprises[edit]

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

NN enterprise, no sources, de-Prodded by IP, probable promotion Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I should note that the AFD notice was removed as well by a new editor in an attempt to keep the article, I surmise. There's no sources listed, so it fails WP:V. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a Consumer Electronic Showroom and retailer chain of showroom carrying fine Furnitures, T.V, LCD, Refrigerators, Computers, Laptops and all major Consumer electronic goods. (from 1981 to till date). This is obvious advertising; and this one is probably not the first such business, and as such this one has no "long term historical" significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the actual article under discussion is Janata Enterprises. The original author has been recreating the deleted page over a redirect at Janata enterprises. The content appears to be the same. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam and having no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable retailer, no references given, and I can Gfind no reliable sources other than directories. Boing! said Zebedee (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden Lane (Band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band as of WP:BAND Battleaxe9872 20:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - not notable whatsoever. -- Jack?! 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - two notable members of the ensemble. one was in major label group, The Jenkins, and the other is related to one of the great bassists of all time, Phil Lesh. -- savemesfUser talk:savemesf 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This still doesn't make the band notable. Please see WP:BAND. -- Jack?! 21:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, savemesf, notability isn't inherited. Delete. Even their official website (which is really just ablog) says they have no albums out. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources available. Completely non-notable. Possible COI. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 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 deletion of the snowball variety. Marasmusine (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"TNA Impact 2011"[edit]

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

Unreferenced speculation: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Any referenced content from WP:Reliable sources should be merged to TNA Impact! (video game)#Sequel until there's a reliable release date and details of the game. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Checked the SouthPeak Games website and can't find any official announcements. -- Jack?! 20:56, 9 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) 16:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability. Redirection would not work as the title of the article is actually in quotes, making this an implausible redirect. –MuZemike 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source I can find is from an unreliable dirt sheet site. Fails WP:V for now. Vodello (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. - fails WP:CRYSTAL and also is not a plausible search term, as there are quotations in the article name. I have already created a redirect for the title without quotations here. --Teancum (talk) 13:09, 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 merge to Associated state. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states with affairs controled by others[edit]

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

Ridiculous topic. Pure original research. Inclusion criteria will always be hazy. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not original research, but some sources would be useful. Eventhough the information are already on other pages, I thought putting it togheter on a list would be useful - not all of this countries are nominated associated, for instance. Maybe linking the Associated state page with it would be better than the opposite. Regards.Gvogas (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "state whose (diplomatic and defence) affairs is controlled by others" is formally known as an associated state. See ISBN 9780742500099 page 31. Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I misunderstood the nature of the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Associated state. All of the info in this article is already there. Wolfview (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Associated state. The content appears to already be there, but I actually think the table is a useful way of presenting the data. VQuakr (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with VQuakr. Even the information being on the article, the table is very useful. In addition, not all these states are known as associated.187.36.142.110 (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Associated state - this table would be useful once sourced, but I can't see it standing as an independent article. Claritas § 12:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with that. Wolfview (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this, I'm convinced and agree that merge to Associated state would be a better option.Gvogas (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Merge to Associated state appears the best option.187.59.235.200 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the nominators view that this is a ridiculous topic, since it is obviously encyclopedic. Keep or merge with the other article if its not seen as making it too long. Dream Focus 00:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for ((Rescue)) by anonymous IP 32.174.83.114 [4] in seeking assistance with its improvement. ---- 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Associated state per WP:CFORK. SnottyWong ^chat 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Associated states are a wholly different animal. Merging these two topics will create more trouble than it's worth. Ladril (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Associated state. With the proper hierarchy on the list (that already exist on the article - which states are in formal association, wich are in comparable relationships), the table can be clear and useful - and even expanded for the non-sovereign associated states as Niue and Cook Islands.Zé Carioca (talk) 21:10, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Kessler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete basic issues of notability have yet to be addressed. Mr. Kessler has books to publicize and sell, but that alone isn't very substantial. His inclusion seems to be based on the notion that anything connected with the State of Texas is of extra consequence. I would respectfully disagree. Shockoegrind (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - sources not significant or independent enough to establish notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. Upon closer inspection, the person does seem to pass something along the lines of WP:ACADEMIC. However, I maintain that the sources aren't as great as the other voters seem to think. Only the Houston Chronicle article and the Texas Senate resolutions appear to be independent sources, and in the first the coverage isn't really significant while the second offers a resolution that's not directly about him. The rest are not independent (for example, he was on the editorial advisory board of the Handbook of Texas) and can't be used to establish notability. So the article does need more independent sources, but that's an editing issue.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Texas Senate resolutions, newspaper articles, and Handbook of Texas entries are all widely accepted WP:RS and help to establish notability. I would ask the closing admin to keep in mind that the nominator has under 50 account contributions, with the majority of the edits involving changes to their own talk page and edits required to nominate this article for deletion. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is demonstrated by substantial coverage in secondary reliable sources. Although we're required to assume good faith, it is difficult to do so under these circumstances. A new editor should not be nominating articles for deletion within his/her first edits.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability demonstrated by sources, clearly meets WP:BIO/WP:GNG. I suspect that this is a bad-faith nomination. Claritas § 13:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a hasty nomination by a very new user with hardly any edits [5] who seems bent on deleting this topic. At any rate, there was already an earlier AFD in 2007 and it was agreed to let the topic stand. This article is part of an informative and growing group of articles relating to Jews and Judaism in Texas (such as History of the Galveston Jewish Community, Congregation B'nai Israel, James Simon (Businessman), Henry Cohen Community House, Rosa Levin Toubin, Simon Theatre, Simon family, Joe Levin (Businessman), Alex Simon, Sam H. Toubin, Temple Freda) that taken as a whole are a valuable set of records about a topic in a key US state. This article cites adequate WP:RS to meet WP:N for the requirements to be kept. The nominator is requested to reconsider his hasty nomination of this article. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for founding historical society, adequately sourced. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. Per all of the above keeps -- no reason to keep this open any longer.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 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) 00:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rab Corbett[edit]

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

Non-notable prank. Zero ghits on Books or Scholar. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. -- Jack?! 20:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Looks like self-glorification at its worst. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion candidate in my view - possible G3, borderline G11, definite A7. Ben Mac Dui 20:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 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) 00:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Salehi[edit]

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

This article has remained unsourced for over two years. I found no independent coverage of the subject to verify that he meets specific or general notability requirements Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 20:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given by nominator. -- Jack?! 20:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 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 merge to University_of_Maryland_College_of_Behavioral_and_Social_Sciences. (or a more suitable target) Black Kite (t) (c) 12:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland Mock Trial Team[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is to have won the national championship in "mock trials". Mock trials not being very notable, winning it also isn't. Notability of narrow scope. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Maryland College of Behavioral and Social Sciences --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should've included more in my original post. Notability is not established for this particular team. The only ref given appears to be a press release. Quick google news archive search coverage limited to school newspaper. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a university student organization, a multitude of which have pages on wikipedia. Furthermore, mock trial competitions--including those the UMD team has competed in--are discussed to some extent on wikipedia, so I would not call into question the notability of the topic. However, I will take Omarcheeseboro's suggestion and move the content to the UMD BSOS page.CampTenDMS (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that other less-successful teams have pages on wikipedia, i.e., Brown University Mock Trial, so I'd urge you to practice consistency in your targeting of pages for deletion.CampTenDMS (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's understandable that you would bring that up, but check out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also there's no need to do anything with the article until this AFD is closed. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is premised on the nominator's personal opinion that mock trial competitions aren't notable, hence even a team that's won the national competition five times wouldn't be notable. Why do they hold these every year anyway? Why do colleges and high schools bother competing in these damn things? Why does boring shit like this get described at all in the press? [6].

Mandsford 00:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No assertion is made in the article that mock trials, mock trial teams, or school groups are notable. Instead, I think the article does a good job of explaining why, as a thing, this particular group is notable. Regardless of the field, attaining ~20% of the national championships in a competition seems notable to me, see Mock trial#Past championship results.JamaUtil (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This group was good enough that a rule created to prevent 1st and 2nd place from being the same was dubbed the Maryland Rule, as described on that page.JamaUtil (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The bar for student organizations needs to be maintained by a close reading of the rules on WP:ORG. Has this group "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"? The lone reference in the article is a University of Maryland press release about the group's success. A google search reveals similar "press release" type coverage but this was not picked up in the news. More importantly there is nowhere for this article to go. I think this accomplishment definitely deserves mention, maybe in a couple of different articles - and it is already mentioned in the article about Mock Trials - but it is just not worthy of its own article based on the notability criteria. If I click on the link to this article from the Mock Trials article I get no new information nor do I believe that there is much information to provide. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This entry was created four days ago so I forgive its small size. Here are a few independent sources that cover this topic as a main subject: The Diamondback,Baltimore Sun. And there are of course the PR type articles in other places. I notice that this team seems to be covered more often as a secondary subject, as some random paper like the New York Daily News talks about a beating of another school. I think this article should get time to grow on its own, it was proposed for deletion about 4 hours after creation. Really? Qoforensics (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University of Maryland College of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Coverage does not appear to be significant enough for a stand alone article. --Pink Bull 02:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - into University of Maryland or to University of Maryland College of Behavioral and Social Sciences - this is a student club that is not even close to the notability required for it's own article. Codf1977 (talk) 09:27, 18 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) 04:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue Rare and Unreleased[edit]

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

This article does not provide any sources and is of no use to Wikipedia MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a huge Kylie fan, but I'll still have to say delete. I would normally suggest a redirect to Kylie Minogue, but aside from there being no sources, the article appears to just be an unnecessary content fork ("...an attempt to track down the missing songs, demos, and published songs that we never got to hear"?). The creator also hasn't been on Wikipedia since the article was created in December 2008. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not unusual or improper to have an article about unreleased recordings by famous singers and/or musicians. The article should be improved and sources added. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If sources can actually be added, I have no problem with a keep. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a devoted Kylie fan myself, I can safely say that this article is a hefty helping of original research at its finest, and will probably never rise above that. It is highly doubtful that any reliable sources will be found to source the majority of the content, because most reliable sources don't delve into songs an artist doesn't release or that were leaked on the internet (illegal downloading and all). Even if reliable sources could be found, these songs aren't notable. They were recorded by a notable person, but that's where the notability ends. While the article is somewhat interesting and rather helpful to a fan looking for unreleased booty, most if not all of the content included in the article can be found on various fansites which is where content like this belongs. In fact, most of the content here is basically culled from a a Kylie fansite that specializes in detailing Minogue's lengthy discography. While comprehensive and a fairly reliable sources for fans to rely on, fansites in general are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. That being said, some of the content can be added to various articles relating to specific albums which include the supposedly "rare" songs (ie tracks that were eventually released on Hits+ or re-released/special edition albums). 70.242.12.110 (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreleased songs are not notable, unless they're by a major artist (pass) and are covered by multiple reliable sources (fail). It looks like a single fan site is the source of all of this, which pretty much makes it WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 07:06, 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) 00:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viruses in the Resident Evil series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): No reliable third-party publications on the subject. The book biohazard archives was published by Capcom, the developer of the game series, and thus is not an independent source. The Resident Evil Archives book is a translation of the Japanese version published by BradyGAMES in North America. The other three books mentioned by Crotalus horridus in the previous discussion do not deal with the viruses but merely mention them while discussing the game and movie stories. If more sources turn up, an inclusion in a new section of the series article might be reasonable. Prime Blue (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Besides unsourced as the nominator said the topic is profoundly trivial. I would also bet that this article is longer and more in depth than many on real life viruses, which affect the lives of millions of real people. Wolfview (talk) 20:00, 9 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) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no significant coverage that tackles this topic. Should be handled in the same way that other sources do - in the plot synopsis of the relevant games. Marasmusine (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found no significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 13:12, 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) 00:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DASS-GUI[edit]

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

A seemingly non-notable software package. I can find no hits on it in Google news archive, and the only matches in Google scholar are two papers by the authors of the system with nobody else citing them. The article has been under "improvements" from anonymous IPs for the past month that mostly consist of adding promotional language to it and spamming wikilinks to it (mostly since removed) to many other not-very-relevant articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nominator. I watchlisted it when it was created to see if it improved, and it really hasn't. Syrthiss (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 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) 00:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Depofi[edit]

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

Multi-instrumentalist, composer. Lots of name dropping but no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no significant coverage about him. His name is mentioned here and there but that's not sufficient for inclusion. - Whpq (talk) 16:53, 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 SNOW delete as unverifiable and a likely CRYSTAL to boot. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Mirror Magic[edit]

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

Unreferenced, a Google search does not reveal anything. There appears to be no way to verify the information. Bramble claw x 18:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no proof that such a game exists. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a borderline hoax. Sixteen Ghits: two are from gamegaze.net but literally give no information about the game, and the rest of the hits are either Wikipedia or sites that backlink to Wikipedia. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ghits. -- Jack?! 20:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found. Jarkeld (talk) 08:12, 10 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) 16:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refinery CMS[edit]

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

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

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

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

Promotion for non-notable software product; article by employee. The only independent source is [7], which is just a brief mention. Haakon (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, deleting this article is a step backwards. Below is a list of independent sources that build Refinery CMSs credibility:

Blog Articles[edit]

CMS Articles[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.133.165 (talk • contribs) 2010-07-09 21:33:06

Delete - no significant coverage by reliable independent sources to speak of.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear references listed above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.133.165 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC) — 60.234.133.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (to the author) If you can improve the article sourcing I will give you a keep vote. I checked the CMS and seems good enough to have some independent coverage. Note thought that blog articles are rarely considered notable. Also, the number of followers and google group members cannot be used to establish verifiability (WP:V) and notability (WP:N) - these things that are necessary to get a wikipedia article. Pxtreme75 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added more independent sources to the article establish notability (WP:N) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.161.119 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — 60.234.161.119 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. This is an improvement but you need more references from third party sources. The site's blog references can not be counted in favor of notability. You need reviews on major technology sites or/and research papers. Currently only the CMSWire article can be used to this end (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-cms/refinerycms-a-new-solution-for-the-ruby-on-rails-world-004939.php) - and it is not enough. Pxtreme75 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly. A software product needs to have "long term historical notability" to support a stand-alone article. This is an open source content management system written in Ruby as a Ruby on Rails web application with JQuery used as the JavaScript library, and as such is one of many similar packages, and every single bleeding one of them imagines that they merit an encyclopedia article. Not even the independent review establishes that this has had any significant effects on history, culture, or technology, and without that kind of significance, NO. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rating this open source project as non-notable is like saying that the Ruby-language community is non-notable, since RefineryCMS is of the top popular CMS for that language. Ruby itself is somewhat a new player in town, which make "long term historical notability" criteria relatively impossible to meet in a such emergent domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixcharles (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC) — Unixcharles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- We can't suspend rules for this project alone. If there is no independent coverage in reliable, independent sources, then there is no notability, period. Haakon (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've updated the article to include a reference to notable Rails hosting company Engine Yard who partnered with Refinery CMS in December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.161.119 (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases are normally not counted towards notability. 07:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable product as can be seen by very few reliable sources providing coverage. Promotional article is just spam really. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that the concept of this project is not fully understand in this discussion, its not comparable to other CMS like Drupal or Radiant. This project is a structure to provide a standardized platform for the development of custom content management system using Ruby on Rails. I would say that Refinerycms is somewhere between cms-product and development tool, making press coverage or review unlikely. I haven't see any independant coverage that meet your criteria for DataMapper, Sinatra, Nodejs, etc... with popularity comes notability, and 500 github follower mean that 500 developer are getting notified on every single change to the code, which seem to me like important number and similar to previously mentioned development tools. As for the -written by employee- fuss, I haven't seen anything non objective in this article, but I don't mind rewriting it, which is not the point of this discussion anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixcharles (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet notability because it is yet another super-duper-widget erh, uhm, CMS 'solution.' A 'solution' BTW, which is full of DRY CRUD. Even says so, right there in the ad, erh, uhm, 'article.' Oh yeah, reads like an ad, too. Toss it.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are you saying that we should delete the article because in your personal opinion it's not a good product? DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any value judgments about the product mentioned in the 'article' in question. The badly-written ad copy that is the article in question states that the product is based on DRY CRUD. But you would have know that if you had read the 'article' before deciding to comment.Mtiffany71 (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

based on DRY? you know that DRY is simply a software engineering concept? Can we restrict this conversation to web developer since this is what its all about? About the sound-like an ads (I think its off topic since this discussion is about notability), but I don't mind re-writing the article so that Its not written-by-employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixcharles (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 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. no evidence that the article meets the criteria for the profession DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Taranova[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Prodded by Voceditenore (talk · contribs) with the reason After exhaustive searches in multiple languages, I can find no reliable sources to support the claims to notability in the article decltype (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera. – Voceditenore (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid this still does not pass notabilty criteria for musicians. A scan of a letter saying that she completed a master-class over 15 years ago and some amateur YouTube videos are not enough. There is no independent published coverage to verify a significant career or impact – only a couple of trivial notices about free or semi-private concerts in Canada. In the case of opera singers, in lieu of multiple, significant, and independent coverage, other criteria can apply, i.e. documented proof of one of the following:
1. winner of a major national international singing competition
2. two or more recordings with a recognized classical music label
3. two or more leading roles on the main stage of a notable opera house/company (not student or 'young artist' productions)
4. a concert career as a soloist with major orchestras.
None of these are present. Ms. Taranova may well be talented, but Wikipedia articles aren't about talent or potential, they're about documented notability. Voceditenore (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too was unable to locate any substantial references in English, French, or Russian. One of her you tube clips does appear to be a tv apearance, but the date of the broadcast is not given. It's possible she may be notable, but until some reliable sources proving that are found I say delete.4meter4 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --GuillaumeTell 23:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I performed a quick search and found on Wiki significant number of opera singers also not meeting notability criteria you’ve mentioned here. Could you please give the link where these criteria are listed? A scan of a letter placed is only to provide a “proof” for the “jury” for authentication of the recommendation. In maestro Di Stefano’s master-class were participated quite a number of singers but personal recommendation was provided only to Mrs. Taranova which is also “evidence” of notability. Also wondering where did you get info about free concerts and what did you mean by “semi-private concert”? For Mrs. Taranova never worked for free or subsidized her own participation in any of musical events world wide. Generally saying I can see pretty significant traffic on the article since Dec 2007 (unfortunately no data between Aug 2006 and Dec 2007 available) which is proofing that personality of Mrs. Taranova definitely getting interest from readers. Another point is that if the maestro considered Mrs. Taranova worthy of his personal letter then information about her personality will be worthy public attention (including of course maestro’s biographers and fans). Here I can see also benefit for Wiki to get more readers/users and possible contributors by keeping the article (and encourage everyone continuously update it). Another side will be contributing by adding materials/facts/documents/links/etc as well. Thank you. User:Beno287 10:26 13 July 2010 (EST)

For musicians and singers the most relevant notability guideline is WP:MUSIC. You can also look up WP:CREATIVE for general creative professionals. General notability principles are explained in WP:NOTABILITY. Plus you really need to read up on WP:V, Wikipedia's verifiability policy. A private letter posted on someone's personal website does not qualify under WP:V and consequently cannot be used to demonstrate someone's notability. Sources that could be used to demonstrate notability are things like newspaper articles, books, magazine articles etc. Nsk92 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip. Unfortunately no criteria applicable to opera singers found there so far. Sorry, but I would not consider written recommendation (from well known and reliable specialist) after a master-class (which is professional activity not a cocktail party!) as a “private letter”. As for other sources you’ve mentioned I’ll do the further research not hesitating to gain more knowledge about. User:Beno287 11:38 13 July 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beno287 (talk • contribs)

By a "private letter" I mean any letter sent to/given to a specific individual. The same would apply to a letter from a government agency or some organization to a specific individual. Such letters, even if the recipient scans them and posts them on his/her personal website, do not satisfy WP:V requirements and cannot be used as sources to justify notability. Nsk92 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:V a letter from government or organization is considered as reliable source – a document. So in that case written recommendation (from maestro Di Stefano) together with official letter (from Jerusalem Music Centre) becomes the document. I did not specify that document has been taken from individual’s web. Of course birth or tax receipt can’t justify notability, but written recommendation supported by official letter can. User:Beno287 12:21 13 July 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beno287 (talk • contribs)

No, a letter from government or organization is not considered as reliable source per WP:V, until and unless it is publicly published by that government organization itself, on its own website or in print. Until and unless that happens, it remains a piece of private correspondence. You should really spend some time reading the various policies and guidelines first, particularly WP:V, WP:RS and the like. You might also want to look through various other AfD discussions and places like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Nsk92 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beno287, just to clarify, the main criteria that apply are those listed by Nsk92. In practice, at AfDs for opera singers the other criteria (which are adapted from the Criteria for musicians and ensembles) can be used to establish notability as an alternative (and only one of them is needed) provided there is verification for it. This is absolutely essential. The article so far supplies no verification to support any of the possible notability criteria. Attendance at a master-class is not evidence of notability. Literally thousands of students take them. A singer's notability comes from their own performances which have made a sufficient impact for them to be covered in depth in independent published sources, not from how famous their teachers were. I think you are also confusing notability with talent. They are not the same thing. This and this are examples of AfDs for opera singers which resulted in delete. This and this are examples for singers which were kept. Please read them and the articles themselves. They'll give you a better view of what is required. Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 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) 00:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear Kitty Studios[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, lacks third party sources that verify significance beyond confirming that the company exists. Battleaxe9872 17:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to have improved the tone, as your point is well taken. I am also gathering more outside sources. KingTor (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Completely non-notable. Very few Google hits. Also exists a conflict of interest. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 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) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tewwy[edit]

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

Article is completely unreferenced and may not meet the notability guideline for music. elektrik SHOOS 15:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 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) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Librarianship in the 21st Century[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic essay that seems promotional of the linked blog and niche topic ElKevbo (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator says, this is an unencyclopedic essay. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And a plagiarized one too. [8]. "Oh, Miss Pringle, where's the copy machine? I don't want to check out a book, I just want to print something off the internet..." Mandsford 00:49, 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) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furst Media[edit]

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

self-referenced vanity piece, no outside notability shown Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. This is apparently a local publisher of free street tabloid style magazines. I looked but could find only false hits and press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 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. Renata (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - The Movie[edit]

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

No reason to have its own article. Trim it down and put it back where it belongs. BLGM5 (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I have tagged this for A10 CSD, since it's been copied and pasted from Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (film)#Plot, and was created earlier today. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:53, 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. I can't see that any of the Keep rationales address the WP:COATRACK and notability issues brought up elsewhere. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmailer Paradox[edit]

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

A terrible WP:Coatrack for a particular WP:POV about the Israeli-Arab conflict, masked as an article about mathematics. Remove the overly large quote and the politics, and there will be only one line left stating the paradox' existence. Pgallert (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article received severe criticism at WP:TDYK today and was quickly removed from the suggestion page by an anonymous user. --Pgallert (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was the one who reviewed the article for T:TDYK, giving it "severe criticism" and a 'no' answer. I think the article should exist, but not in its current form. I think it should be pared of pro-Israel political POV and given a wider scope. The paradox should be related to multiple scenarios, not just Israelis and others staring each other down at the bargaining table. Some observers say that Turkey is using the Blackmailer's paradox; this should be mentioned. The repeated game theory breaks down in politics in cases where one key person has a term of office in which he feels he must achieve greatness or fade from history—that person will not easily leave the room empty-handed—he plays as if there is only one game, not repeated games. Other bargaining theories should be compared to the article topic: Pareto efficiency, Trembling hand perfect equilibrium, Selten's subgame perfect equilibrium, etc. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Binksternet: obviously notable maths theorem, but needs extensive copyedting. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator is completely correct on this one-- it's a coatrack masquerading as an article about mathematics. The Arabs are the blackmailers in this charming little story, while the Israelis are the victims. Yeah, no POV here. Coming next, "Ali Baba and the square root of 1600 thieves". Mandsford 00:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I and other editors have worked on cleaning up the article and making it more focused on game theory. That the subject is notable and backed by reliable and verifiable sources is clear. The need for cleanup is not a valid rationalization for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to disparage you, but I am a bit... underwhelmed by your "cleaning up and making it more focused on game theory": some spelling, some wikilinking... Good copyediting, but hardly issuing the very real content issues raised by BinkSternet, Mandsford, and Pgallert. Same goes for user:Cobaltcigs' edit:[9]: paragraph formatting and stuff, but no content change. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Case:A wikipedia editor finds himself in a virtual room with an article by a winner of the Nobel Prize in economics noted for his work in game theory. In the article the Nobel prize winner describes a mathematical paradox. Discovering reliable secondary sources that portray the described paradox as notable albeit new, the editor creates an article. When sources appear giving other examples of the blackmailer paradox, they can certainly be included in this article. However, at the moment the sole published formal example, written up by a Nobel prize laureate, happens to be about Israel. Deleting the article on that grounds seems to me to amount to nothing more than WP:I don't like it.AMuseo (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a gold medal with Nobel's picture does not make every single word coming out of your mouth scientifically valid, much less wikinotable ^walk victor falk^talk 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a scientifically established topic in game theory: Zero google scholar hit. Googling "blackmailer paradox" "game theory " -wikipedia -israel -arabyields 15 non-relevant hits. The 1 google book hit ("Inside the Economist's Mind: Conversations with Eminent Economists") is an interview with Arumann by Sergiu Hart about how he was brainstorming in a seminar and came up with a thought; I'd like people to read pages 386 and 387, from "Arumann: One of them was the blackmailer's paradox[...]"[10][11]. This one and a half page, my fellow wikipedians, is the sum total of the whole world's academical cogitations on the blackmailer's paradox, independent of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Pretty weak sauce to make a game theory dish. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is only one source for this concept, an opinion column by its inventor, and since multiple independent sources are required, the concept is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 17 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 Pennridge School District. Most of the information can not be found on published sites, and because of this there is little to no cited information to actually merge. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pennridge North Middle School[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Middle schools are not inherently notable.

Completing AfD process on behalf of 69.181.249.92. Astronaut (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too new, too small, without evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the high school/school district, per standard practice. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in with the school district. The district is notable, and this school doesn't appear to be. Them From Space 19:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Pennridge School District per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Megre per above Dew Kane (talk) 01:33, 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) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laszlo Ritter[edit]

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

This article is about a painter that provides no sourcing, and I can find no coverage about him. I can find no indication of any exhibitions let alone any significant ones. AS such notability is not established as there are no reliable sources. Furthermore, a complete lack of sources means this article fails verifiability Whpq (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in article and all that can be found online are mentions in a couple of private galleries ([12], [13]); also a Spanish biography but repeating this article down to the misspelling of Rosenstiel. AllyD (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Sustainable Energy Agency[edit]

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

Non-notable proposal and a lack of reliable third party sources to establish a notability. It is even hard to identify the subject of this article as most likely this is a same organization as International Sustainable Energy Organization. However, there is no reliable sources to establish this linkage. Also the International Sustainable Energy Organization seems to be non-notable organization by luck of reliable sources. There is no proof that this organization has actually any activities. The article about the International Sustainable Energy Organization was previously speedy deleted based on A7. Beagel (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found many possible sources at Google books and Google scholar. it looks like a serious energy policy proposal, and would fit in very nice into Energy law, once it becomes reality. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is very unlikely it will become reality after the establishment of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). After IRENA process started, even the draft statue was removed from the web (restored the link today by using web archive page). So it could be served as background information to IRENA or some other international renewable energy article, but I still have some doubts if there is enough information for a separate article. Beagel (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. A merger would also be acceptable. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Another dubious article from sockmaster Mac, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac/Archive. Johnfos (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Similar to the nomination, reading this article, I have not been convinced that this organization... exists. Maybe it would have been better worded as a proposed organization. But the 2 references that I currently see are not sufficient to keep this. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The google books and scholar refs are sparse, and appear to use the phrase descriptively rather than as a proper name. Further, I searched the Gale/Proquest database (millions of articles from many thousands of offline periodicals, all major newspapers, alternative press outlets, etc) and found only two hits, where the phrase was also used descriptively rather than being particular to any one specific proposal. I'd personally like to see such an organization formed, but until one is, or until proposals for such become more broadly reported, I don't see how we can have an article about the prospect. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:31, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of space pirates[edit]

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

List which is in violation of WP:NOTDIR because it's just a cross-categorization of fictional characters who are pirates and fictional characters who spend their time in space. I can't see Space Piracy being an encyclopaedic topic, and there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources. Claritas § 20:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Claritas. Also, it's mostly original research. Reyk _YO! 23:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pirates in space is hardly an obscure grouping, it's perfectly serviceable as a navigational list without being based on an existing article. One of my regular tricks with lists like these is to pop over to World of Spectrum, a database of games etc. for the crusty but popular British computer, and see if any results pop up. Cosmic Pirate and Kosmik Pirate did. There are several Tenchi Muyo characters classed as space pirates who have their own articles, the extremely notable Metroid series has space pirate baddies (don't take my word for it) and umpteen more besides. I don't see how such a basic concept could possibly fall into OR territory, and I don't accept that this is a trivial intersection. At worst it could be merged with List of fictional pirates (which I'd still oppose). All it needs is some tables and for character articles to split away from works which strongly feature space pirates. Someone another 01:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems wrong with this AFD, it's not listed on the AFD pages (checked 7th, 8th and 9th), there was a previous AFD (it's on the list talkpage) and clicking on that links to here. Someone another 01:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD page must have been deleted or moved to another location. I'll add it to the log now if it's missing - must have been Twinkle misfunctioning. The sources you've pulled up aren't reliable - I'd really like coverage in reliable sources to show that Space Piracy is a notable concept. Claritas § 09:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is unlikely that sources are going to conspire to enable an article on this trope, but it is a common one that has been around for donkeys, is still in regular use and is used by both the East and West. I'm not sure why you think Computer and Video Games is an unreliable source (Future plc), World of Spectrum is not a source itself but it carries scans of magazines which are (look further down the listings). Someone another 10:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider magazines to be reliable sources for indicating notability, because the quality of their reporting is extremely variable. This may well be a minority opinion, as there's nothing in WP:RS about citing magazines. Claritas § 13:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that as your opinion but can't support it, magazines have been and continue to be invaluable sources for popular culture and entertainment subjects. If you have a look at this you'll notice an entire section about space pirates and several examples. It also dates the trope all the way back to the 1930s. Someone another 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTDIR. Random, trivial intersection of arbitrary criteria, no notability of a "space pirate". Tarc (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, every list is a directory, that is why we add them to Wikipedia, it organizes what is already in Wikipedia. That is what lists are for. WP:NOTDIR only warns against making lists of red link items. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Delete. Mostly original research, and even if it wasn't, there still is no claim to notableness of the topic "space pirate" anyhow. Delete. Melanesian obsession (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Blocked sock-puppet:[14] 00:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Useful list with links. Tomas Jennings (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) — Tomas Jennings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep while somewhat silly, is a reasonable list and fits in with all the other poorly sourced lists that we have here at Wikipedia. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to sit this one out. Not because I think Claritas' arguments regarding NOTDIR regarding fictional lists have an iota of merit--they do not--but because I think the inclusion criteria are particularly muddy. "Pirate" is a loaded term, much like "terrorist". Space piracy is an absolutely notable concept, but our efforts might be better spent actually making an article on the evolution of the concept than trying to salvage a list with unclear inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Space pirates are a well-established trope. Valid structured list per WP:LISTPURP, serves as navigational aid, and also includes short overview information over each article.^walk victor falk^talk 00:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'd rather see us write an article on space piracy or the space pirate trope in literature rather than just have a list, I don't see anything wrong with this one. While I am generally sympathetic to the idea that lists of this type are trivial intersections, where there is a common and recognized theme or trope they can be appropriate. As for definition, space pirates are almost always called space pirates in the source material or at least pirates. There's no need to add to the list based on "I know it when I see it" it should be based on explicit authorial or critical labeling. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:29, 17 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shenley Training Centre[edit]

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

Training grounds are not automatically notable, since notability is not inherited from Arsenal FC. The training centre itself fails WP:GNG as it has received little to no coverage in the media; from several internet searches I could find nothing even approaching significant coverage of the centre. Additionally, the article is written like an advertisement. Big Dom 09:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the facility is massive, and integral to an iconic football team. I just wish the article did more than rephrase the facility's website. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep - This article needs a lot more referencing. If this can be provided from reliable third-party sources, then the article should definitely stay. – Pee Jay 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing quite a lot of coverage, in particular this, this, this and this. The article needs a lot of work, but I think it can be rescued. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per rationale above. Giant Snowman 17:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alzarian. I get the feling that this deletion may have only been called because someone can't be bothered to improve it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:14, 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 speedy delete as attack page, per explanation below that the references do not contain what is claimed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six Families of Berlin[edit]

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

Although I have removed most of the unsourced and apparently libellous assertions, this remains an offensively racist article. The only references are to German language newspaper articles. The term "Six Families of Berlin" apparently does not exist outside this article -- all of the few Google point to clones or mirrors of this.

The original Prod tag was removed without any attempt to improve the article, by an editor who is facing a topic ban from ethnicity, race, and religion-related articles.[15] I believe this removal was not in good faith, and repeat the proposal to delete this anti-Muslim propaganda pierce. RolandR (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started an AfD just after this one which had not been entered completely but I've now deleted mine. I searched for the term "Six families of Berlin" in vain, and also noted that the article has a reference to 12 families. I also note, if only for interest, that the article's creator had uploaded an image copied from a neo-Nazi website. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article reads well enough and is extensively referenced. We might want to retitle for accuracy as it appears the clans operate in cities other than Berlin. Or maybe a merge into known German crime syndicates?--Wittsun (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -this is pure synthesis, and an attack page. The topic itself isn't notable, and this is in blatant violation of Wikipedia's policies on controversial information concerning living people. I can't see how this article is factually accurate - it seems to be based on scare-mongering tabloid journalism. Wikipedia's article on Lebanese diaspora suggests that there are only 50,000 Lebanese in Germany, so this article seems to be branding all Lebanese as criminals. Claritas § 09:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure synthesis, with low-quality sources, and even of those I found several that do not support the claims made. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we need some German speakers to help us with this - I have tried to summon a few. The boldest claims really need to be sourced. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? It's pretty obvious with De-0/1 that each newspaper article simply deals with individual crimes committed by Lebanese or Lebanese gangs, and the article fallaciously links all of them together. Claritas § 13:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've checked some of the sources - my summary is above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Here is an exerpt from one of the articles: "Muhammed B. gehörte beim Überfall 2004 zum Umfeld eines der bekanntesten kriminellen Clans in Berlin, der Familie El-Z. "[16]. I think most of the editors here are objecting for personal reasons rather than considering the veracity of the info which is both substantial and useful. Non-German speakers are not capable of evaluating the primary sources.--Wittsun (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a worldwidely recognised article, as the nom mentioned the only sources are German. Minima c (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of WP's articles aren't worldwidely recognized, and there's nothing wrong with dependence on German sources. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OS at best. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a German speaker, and looked through most of the articles - no mention of any Six Families. Sources are a combination of instances of crime "families" or gangs and instances where more than one family member was involved in a crime, but none of the sources allege the sort of scale or scope the article makes a claim to. The largest "family" appears to be a 400-member street gang. Total OS. Kate (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If none of the cited sources use the term "six families of Berlin" (i.e. "sechs Familien von Berlin", "sechs Berliner Familien" or something like that), then delete. If any of the sources do use the term, please post links to them here. --JN 466 14:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for numerous reasons. The prod should've been left to run its course.radek (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - obvious racist engaged in bogus original research and fraudulent synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:ATTACK and WP:UNDUE. In fact, I'm taking this to WP:ANI. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it looks like the creator has been indefinitely blocked already, but I'm still ANI-ing it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:47, 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 delete. As the last comment points out, sources are insufficient to meet GNG (and certainly doesn't meet WP:ATH for what that's worth). Userfied. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benik Afobe[edit]

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

A contested WP:PROD, the article is about a 17-year old reserve player of Arsenal with no first team appearances to date, and only appearances with the English U-17 side, which are definitely not enough to ensure notability. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:ATH. Angelo (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE having not played at a fully-professional level of football yet. No significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG either. --Jimbo^[online] 12:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above, without fully professional appearances or significant covergage this player clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, recreate if/when player becomes notable. Giant Snowman 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable footballer who fails Wp:ATHLETE and Wp:GNG and recreate if he does become notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty sure he passes the WP:GNG, I think WP:ATHLETE is totally discredited so I give no weight to what it says. If it's deleted you can userfy to me, as I deprodded it. Fences&Windows 18:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ATH is a guideline that gives rise to a presumption of notability. Applying it in that way, we can deal with its deficiencies. This guy is a reserve player for one of the biggest clubs in the world and has received a long list of international youth caps. There is a good amount of coverage such that I agree he probably makes it past the GNG.[17] Arbitrary notability guidelines can be helpful, but on occasions we need to be overlay them with a bit of discretion and common sense. This such a case. Other cases are for athletes who technically meet WP:ATH but are plainly not notable and have received minimal to no coverage. It goes both ways. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that his sporting appearances alone shouldn't count towards automatic notability, but I think there's enough coverage in GNews to push him over the notability theshold by a convincing margin. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is someone possibly willing to show me such reliable, independent, third-party sources covering the subject in sufficient detail? All I can see is just six sources in the article: three are not independent (The FA and Arsenal FC, respectively), one is not coming from a reliable source and is not really covering the subject in detail (Goal.com), one comes from a blog and does not cover the subject in detail as well (The Guardian), the last one is a mere chronicle of a U-17 game. If these sources establish notability, then 80-90% of 15-year old guys playing for Arsenal might be notable on their own (seriously). --Angelo (talk) 10:25, 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) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page 80[edit]

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

I'm a little on the fence about this one. I'm not sure this band passes WP:BAND because not only can I find no evidence of them even having any albums in the works, but the only non-blog article I can find about them is a brief mention in a local newspaper (which actually seems to be about another band. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That one article in a local paper is about this band. However, beyond that, there's no coverage that I can find. - Whpq (talk) 17:03, 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 speedy delete. Already speedied. Fences&Windows 20:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Filmore[edit]

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

a lot of little things cobbled together and a lot of vanity fluff, but no notability Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - "best known for minor roles in the films...." Bearian (talk) 16:36, 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 speedy delete - simply a recreation of GRAND SLAM BEAUTIES which was deleted after unequivocal AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four Pageants + Miss TQI[edit]

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

Recreation of PRODed article. Seems similar from the description to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRAND SLAM BEAUTIES. Unsourced replication of entries from the articles of the individual pageants - with the addition of a pageant with no article and no sources. noq (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Estevez[edit]

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

Unimportant sibling to two famous actors, Emilio Estevez and Charlie Sheen. Tailcoating is not a valid reason for an article. Not notable himself Tovojolo (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure that there are "unimportant Barrymores" as well, but it's inevitable that encyclopedia users will be curious about members of a famous acting family who didn't enjoy the same measure of success. Mandsford 01:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think the roles this actor has had are sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, and I can't find sources sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martin Sheen. A couple of middling credits in major films, but not much else. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Try to keep and improve per sources through additional Find sources. If his notabilty were dependent on his family, the nominator's concerns would be valid, but as he has independent notability and coverage, and a healthy body of work as an actor, he easily meets WP:ENT. And yes, just as with his siblings, there will be coverage of him in context to his familial relationships. HOWEVER... I can support a merge/redirect to Martin Sheen as a last resort. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I perused his roles listed at IMDB, and he didn't seem to have "multiple significant roles in major" productions as ENT states. I suppose significant and major can be subjective terms, but it seems to me like he's only had minor roles. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 11:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed significant and major do seem to be subjective terms. Had his roles all been walk-ons or descriptives, they would be far less major or significant. But even as production would tries to cash in on the Estevez/Sheen family name... his later roles do appear more significant than his earlier. It all falls back to coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to his dad. He is border line on reaching WP:ENT. If his article was longer and contained more info I would say keep. For now he can easily fit under his dad. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem here with a merge/redirect.... but hoped through expansion and sourcing to give the article its best chance to survive independently. I suppose one has to look at the article and try to ignore the familial relationships. Can it survive without them? Do any of Martin's kids have articles that do not mention him as father? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can survive on its own. There just is not that much out there about him. His dad has the same birth name as he does so google searches brings up hits but most are about his dad. His roles have been minor. I tried to find info on his song writing with little results. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:ENT. His role in Cadence (film) gets significant press as will be introduced with this Ramon Estevez Also Follows in the Star Tracks of His Father, Latimes.com link. Several other external links have been introduced to the article which should be looked at for preserving versus deletion. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Several citations have been introduced into the article as well as external links. In addition, on the talkpage I've documented a URL that has a substantial story about this individual as a director of a play that he directed Martin Sheen. I am just about at my bedtime and recommend that another editor/admin should review the talkpage and incorporate the URL into the article when the Under construction tag appears. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:57, 9 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! 06:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link, Upcoming plays, Mark Taper Forum can add substantial information about the subject as a director. It directly confirms the blog mentioned above and needs to be incorporated into the article. Sorry, I'm past my bedtime. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:ENT. His role in Cadence (film) gets significant press and was introduced with this Ramon Estevez Also Follows in the Star Tracks of His Father, Latimes.com link. Several other external links have been introduced to the article which should be looked at for preserving versus deletion. More ghits have been generated for the subject by using his correct name, Ramón Estévez. The PDF link above my change of iVote demonstrates the subject has received substantial direct WP:V and WP:RS sources. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - realistically, I think that notability does rub off on family members. Even without his famous relatives, he's still done enough to pass as an accomplished actor. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. Individual is non-notable outside of his familial connections. Minor roles fail WP:ENT. SnottyWong ^express 18:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject merits a Stong Keep as it passes both WP:GNG and WP:ENT with the addition of the LA Times and Mark Taper citations plus all cites presented. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^yak 18:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm satisfied that his film credits are sufficient to establish notability. DWaterson (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Although it seems at first that there's an argument that notability is simply being presumed to be notable based on his relatives, it seems there's enough coverage independent of that relation to keep this. Claritas § 10:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly notable on his own, and the famous relatives only enhance that. I've heard of him and was surprised to see him listed here. JonnyQ123 (talk) 20:35, 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) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Jersey Firm[edit]

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

This article includes no citations. I can't find any citations that arent Myspace-based WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 17:05, 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. clearly not a serious request for deletion. Possibly could have gone to DRV but we have a consensus now Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nitto Records[edit]

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

I do not believe this article should be deleted, however it should not have been speedied without discussion. This was speedied without discussion or attempts to salvage. It is not originally my article, but one I stumbled across two weeks ago in my research, actually filled a gap. That it's been here several years, and has a Japanese Wikipedia article, means it doesn't qualify to have been speedied. Historic recording and publishing companies are inherently notable, it just needs better sourcing. Listing here so that discussion as to notability among the community can be held. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per above rationale. It now has two references - more than enough for a 3-line article.--Technopat (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the moment fails WP:CORP, which is VERY clear when it says ""Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists". Willing to change mind if the coverage can be referenced. As for the accusation it should not have been Speedy deleted - at the time it said "Nitto Records was a Japan based record label from before World War II." which made no claim of significance use of ((find sources)) came up with no WP:RS and still does not. Codf1977 (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the most recent discussion on your talkpage, it seems you are none too careful about what you speedy, and have made several recent errors. My earlier accusation now turns to bad faith on your part, as there are clearly several steps you should have taken aforehand. Instead of trying to justify your scorched-earth methods here, why don't you dial it back a bit.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fine. It may not have had any references then, but it does now. Any other reason for deleting? We all know about notability etc. guidelines here at Wikipedia. What about common sense? This is not an article created by an anonymous user raving about his/her pet "garage band" as someone put it, which is one typical criterion for speedy delete. It is an article created in 2003 by an experienced editor who contributes much knowledge on music-related articles at Wikipedia, and should not have been deleted without discussion, etc. as per Kintetsubuffalo above, if only out of courtesy to another editor and good faith.--Technopat (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe we need to find someone who can translate the Japanese article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Warpozio (talk • contribs)
Keep Now article has been expanded and ref'd. Great work! Lugnuts (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Infrogmation (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still needs some attention, but seems to satisfy the basic notability criteria now that it has been sourced. --DAJF (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable record label, now that it has been expanded and sourced it's clearer why. Maashatra11 (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - Wrong venue, this should have been taken up at DRV. SnottyWong ^yak 19:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^yak 19:29, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Ablan[edit]

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

I can't find any information to prove that this person was real. One "reference" points to a 404, the other to a "page not found". No records at Baseball-Reference.com or TheBaseballCube.com. The only G-Hit for "'Andres Ablan' Royals" is this article. Elaborate hoax. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX - dead links and no G-hits as per above makes this highly suspect. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Yep, it's a WP:HOAX. Let's finish this up quickly. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:HOAX, warn User talk:Paperhouse45 though editing style with reference citations, infoboxes, and category additions makes it seem clear this is a sockpuppet account. Vodello (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:47, 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) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Arnold[edit]

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

Most significantly, ATP.com has no record of a 'Sam Arnold' [18], and this should call into question other claims. As for the other claims, there is only one source (that is accessible at any rate), an apparent Dubai newspaper article, to substantiate them. This despite a number sources being claimed to exist. As for that one, it is conceivable that a Sam Arnold fabricated elements of his bio to the interviewer who wrote the newspaper article - basing credibility on a single source is surely too problematic Mayumashu (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to establish notability as per WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing verifiability. The ATP site includes a ranking search that goes all the way back to 1973. Spotchecking 1990 (I'm not going to go through every week) found no listing for a Sam Arnold. See this example [19]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - Note that the ATP site includes player profiles for players such as this person whose ranking skirted around the 1,000 mark. The lack of any record for Sam Arnold is surprising given this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he never actually competed in the main draws of any tournaments awarding tour points. Mayumashu (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a claim for a ranking so then he would need to have competed, no? -- Whpq (talk) 22:16, 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. unsourced and unverified Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Limited[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any significant coverage for this company. All I see on Google is business directory listings, and there's only one news hit in the archives, which is paid access only. —fetch ·comms 01:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An anon editor left the following comment, which seems to be relevant to this discussion, on the article's talk page: The company is very famous in the pharmaceutical industry. It holds more than 80% of the worlds market in the product named mebendazole. ChemNerd (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the statements in the article are accurate, I don't think there is an issue of this company meeting the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, there appears to be an issue of verifiability. I can't find significant coverage in independent sources (admittedly, from a brief Google search). ChemNerd (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: there is coverage on Google with "ltd." instead of "limited". Dewritech (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Dewritech (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's true that this company may be "notable" in the non-WP sense of the word; but unless someone can come up with examples of substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources, its notability for our purposes is not established. I'm certainly not seeing any such coverage online. Deor (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an API manufacturing plant and provides drug intermediates. It manufactures Mebendazole and holds 80% of the world market. If this company would be a extreem retail company like Cipla, Cadila, or any other company, than its name would have be in the new somewhere. But being a seller to retail companies its name is hidden in the market. But the company is very well known to the tablet manufacturers who manufacture final products of Mebendazole, Albendazole, and many more. This company is even well known to the people who study about products like mebendazole and albendazole. If buy-chance u know a person about who has medicinel knowledge about "Deworming", than he defiantly has to know about this company. As you know that no company provides its data but this is a link where you can buy the companies data and find it through it "http://panjiva.com/K-A-Malle-Pharmaceuticals-Ltd/3905237". If you think that this information is more than enough, than please keep this article and If you want any other information than just leave the message... Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhpodar (talk • contribs)
Comment an anon added a section to the help desk: Wikipedia:Help_desk#No_response_regarding_my_article. I don't understand it due to confusino with quote marks and such. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Ghits minor and do not amount to "significant coverage". ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Rishabhpodar claims here and on the article talk page that they have 80% market share in Mebendazole, but I find no evidence of that. This Google search gets quite a few hits, though I'm unsure how many are reliable or relevant - most of the links I clicked on were business listings pages with the address and a sometimes a brief profile. As for the link provided by Rishabhpodar, I'm certainly not prepared to pay $49 for some report of dubious value as a source for the article. On the article talk page, I have encouraged the author to look for references in reliable sources, per the guideline. Astronaut (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As you say that you are not prepared to pay $49 for the report is it fine if i provide you the report of the total sales of the product by sending you the copy on your email id that will be given by you as i have subscribed for the data and i receive it every alternate month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhpodar (talk • contribs) 07:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To judge from the same site's sample report, I really doubt a credit report and lists of customers, products and shipping stats will indicate notability. For example, how can readers verify that they have a 80% marketshare in Mebendazole, and that it is not just some figure made up by you. If they really are notable, surely they would be mentioned many times in The Times of India, Dainik Bhaskar or in business nwspapers such as Mint, or The Economic Times, etc.. Astronaut (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment K. A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Limited is an Reliable & Renowned company in Pharmaceutical Field in India, May be the companies face value is less when compared to other Pharmaceutical filed players like Cipla & Ranbaxy. We should not delete article by just searching on google & concluding ourself that this company dont deserve to be in wikipedia. I have added Reliable Reference from Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council pharmexcil.com,Set-up by Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt of India. May be we can put article as Stub Class & ask the user to add & more reference to improce the article.It's easy to put Deletion Tag on Article's Page, but before that we should try to help & encourage people's effort to write article by adding references ourself. Raj6644 (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the only details the Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council has is the address and phone numbers. Astronaut (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed under Government of India's Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council itself is more than enough to tell about the credential of the Company. Yes, pharmexcil has only contact details. When the company is listed Government of India's website it's more than enough to tell about the company to outside world. AS i have already told that we should not delete article by just searching on google & concluding ourself that this company dont deserve to be in wikipedia. There are so many companies like RKM Powergen Ltd, a Chennai based billion crores Who even dont have a website but still they are major players in Power Generation in India. Raj6644 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more about the verifiability of what is written in the article. While it is true not every company has an internet presence, it seems this "major player" has escaped any attention from Indian newspapers, business journals, TV and radio stations (most of whom do have an internet presence and more importantly employ journalists with a track record in checking the facts). Surely there must be something that shows more than the company's address, something that backs up the article's claim of notability. Astronaut (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a decent amount of references to prove my point. You can see the article. Rishabhpodar (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work Rishabhpodar. Keep working to improve it. Astronaut, I guess even Quality Certification details for the Company like

Certificate No: QMS/C1144/0995

Issue Date: 3-Jun-2008

Expiry Date: 22-May-2011

Scope: Manufacture & Exports of Bulk Drugs & Pharma Intermediates

are provided for the article. i hope it is better for the survival of the article.
From this point i feel like some moderators are discouraging people creating article & suppressing new comers by showing dominance. Newcomers are like our brothers, we should help them instead of punishing them. Raj6644 (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Astronaut don't you think that these many reliable sources are more than enough to keep this article in Wikipedia?. As you know that there are many articles like this , this , this and many more.... which dosent have enough references, yet they are there on wikipedia. Yet you think that K A Malle should be considered for deletion? If you think so than i feel that this is wrong what you are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhpodar (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, no, I don't think these sources "...are more than enough to keep this article in Wikipedia". Looking at each of them: Ref 1 simply gives the address and phone numbers, Ref 2 confirms they manufacture mebendazole and suggests they made 3 shipments to North America (and if I follow the link I am invited to pay $49 for a report about the company's shipments), Ref 3 is genuinely useful in verifying their ISO 9001:2000 accreditation, Ref 4 just gives their address unless I pay $514.99 for more info about the comapny's creditworthiness, and finally Ref 5 is useful in listing the company's products. But... where are the news articles or corporate announcements saying an R&D facility has opened, where are the business journal articles that say the company has 80% marketshare, where is the evidence for the ISO 14001:2004 certification, other certificates like WHO GMP, DMF, REACH? Just because there are other articles with few references is not a reason to keep this article. Lastly, there is nothing wrong in agreeing with the proposed deletion of an article about a company that does not meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia's guideline on the notability of companies. Astronaut (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Astronaut Ref 1 is the export promotion council of India and it lists only those companies on their website who are the members of the Pharmexcil. Ref 2 is the website from where you can buy the shipment details of a company. this link shows the list of mebendazole manufacturers in a sequence and the website as you can see is featured in the New York times and Wallstreet journel. The data given by it is defiantly true. If you want i can upload the shippment details for the month of Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr in excel format and i have removed the 80% tag as coudent give you more references regarding this.Through this link one can easily come to know that K. A. Malle is the largest manufacturer in the world. Ref 4 gives the information that the company is a member of Dun & Bradstreet as you know that this website only keeps the name of companies who are the registered members of D&B. As far as ISO 14001:2004 is concerned, i can attach the certificate if you say so. As you know that if a company is not listed on the BSE_Sensex due to which all the corporate announcements are not seen. As far as R&D facility is considered i have given the reference of the companies official website where the company has specified about its R&D facility. DMF as you know is a file (Thick book containing 500 or 600 pages) this is never published on the web. I can give you the code number of the DMF if you want. Please feel free to contact it you feel that there are some clarifications are require regarding this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhpodar (talk • contribs) 07:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have pdf files of ISO 9000, 14000, D&B and Gujarat chemical association. Can i upload these files on wikimapia and link to this article for referances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhpodar (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You used "as you know..." a couple of times in the above post. In fact I don't know any of these facts. As a reader, I have to rely on the sources provided in the article.

In my opinion, the problem with the data provided by Panjiva.com is not whether it is true or reliable or used by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, but is it significant to the article? What does it actually say: That K A Malle has made three shipments of mebendazole to the USA since July 2007 and that is the same number of shipments as Autiyuq and Ida Foundation. From what I can see, it doesn't say they are the world's largest supplier of this product or what their marketshare is. I really don't see what paying $49 for details of shipments (or using your own spreadsheet of data presumably dervied from that data) would add here.

I also very much doubt it is automatically true that if Dun & Bradstreet think a company is creditworthy then they are notable eoungh to meet WP:CORP. The lack of a listing on the Bombay Stock Exchange could be seen as a problem for this article, especially for a company that is supposed to be a major player in Indian pharmaceuticals manufacturing. As for DMF, I've never heard of it before now. Astronaut (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep One of the factors that makes companies notable is their importance within a particular industry, also known as market share. To consider this as significant for a single product out of a whole product line is a bit of a stretch. and I am not sure I would do it here except for the consideration of cultural bias: Indian sources in general are very poorly indexed and are not consistently found on the web.

But with respect to bias against new articles, there are probably tens or even hundreds of thousands of articles about topics in India that we need--a sensible way to go about it would be to go with what sources are available--for example, those companies that are subjects of articles in findable sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you It would be great if you would keep this article on the cultural basis. Thank you so much!!!!!!! for not deleting my article from wikipedia. Please can you remove the deletion tag from the article....Thank you..Rishabhpodar (talk • contribs) 09:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the problem I have with the sources provided so far is not really their reliability, but what they actually say about this company. Listing their address, simply says they exist. Listing shipping details, simply says they ship a product to international customers like their competitors do. And a D&B listing, appears to suggest they are creditworthy. None of the references actually verifies much what is in the article - the company's history, the company's marketshare, etc. Astronaut (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just give me some more time and ill give you more information. Is it ok if i upload companies pdf files in wikimedia and link those pdf's for references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhpodar (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find no significant coverage in reliable sources. Nuujinn (talk) 19:00, 17 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) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustus Bozarth[edit]

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

Man picks up flag after storm. The USA is probably the only country where such a thing would receive media attention. But is it notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I am not article's creator but have contributed significantly to it. RHaworth brings up an interesting point; something can be newsworthy and not necessarily be notable. The article lists, I believe, 5 sources, which i believe would satisfy notability guidelines. Whether or not it is notable to a particular individual is a matter of preference. Tennis is very notable overall, while of little note to me. I believe the story made news because the man in question is homeless and he put himself out in order to go get the flag, fold it, and get it out of the rain. Anyway, the story was notable enough to be covered nationally. Whether or not it is notable enough for a encyclopedia will be, I suppose, settled here. Just thought I'd respectfully add my .02 :) Thanks. Whatever the administrators decide to do will be done, I'm sure, in good faith and with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. All the best, Pianotech (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is only known for a single event and the event itself doesn't warrant an article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply Notwithstanding this article, I respectfully submit that the "only known for a single event" philosophy is flawed. What do Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Lindbergh, The Wright Brothers, Neil Armstrong, Charles Manson, John Wilkes Booth, Amelia Aerhart, and Alexander Graham Bell all have in common? They are notable for one event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianotech (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and you're either misunderstanding or misstating the philosophy. But this isn't the place for this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not a significant event. Plenty of things get covered nationally yet are not encyclopedic subjects. "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information." WP:BLP1E WP:NOTNEWS. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, this is actually funny now, because in reading your responses, you guys have convinced me to change my mind. RHaworth's opening statement made me think about notability vs. newsworthiness. Until that point I hadn't really considered the difference, but in reading the replies it's now clear that something can be newsworthy and not be notable (and vice-versa). Something can receive widespread media attention and not be encyclopedic. A definite learning experience thanks to this discussion. Thanks for the consideration. :) Pianotech (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable at all. Dewritech (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from above "Not notable, not a significant event. Plenty of things get covered nationally yet are not encyclopedic subjects. 'Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information.'" Then how can there be an article about someone like Sara Carbonero? Notable? I don't think so! She's a spanish news person. A very beautiful one granted but definetly not encyclepedic. I make this comparison because Gustus Bozarth has touched millions of people in a way that very very few have or ever will. This is NOTABLE and encyclopedic unlike countless other artcles on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markm913 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF and you might avoid the hyperbole as well. Carbonero's article probably should be prodded or sent to AfD. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:58, 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 no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture (US band)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical ensembles. Neelix (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical ensembles. Point 6 – "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.". John Wylie and Damien Moyal are notable in their own right, although some of the other band members are certainly future AfD cases. Lugnuts (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The band members in the last incarnation largely became this band. Some sources on the Wylie and Moyal articles might make the criterion 6 argument more convincing. It looks like there might be some GNews hits for Moyal: [20]--Michig (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - The claim to notability based on the independent notability of Wylie and Moyal is a cyclic one; Moyal's claim to notability is that he has been in notable bands like Culture while Culture's claim to notability is that it has had notable members like Moyal. The band itself does not pass the the general notability guideline as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Neelix (talk) 14:55, 19 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) 00:09, 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, NW (Talk) 11:08, 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, NW (Talk) 01:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. -Reconsider ! 11:58, 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) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim R. McGovern[edit]

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

Not sure that this person has done anything significant. LAA Fan 00:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources are reliable, and an Internet search found only five sources with nothing to add. That this person really even exists can not be verified. Thus it violates WP:BLP and possibly WP:HOAX. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 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 by User:RHaworth Lenticel ^(talk) 07:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robokill[edit]

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

Unsourced, nonsense Battleaxe9872 00:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A1, I don't see the need for AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 00:38, 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 userfy to User:Azikate/Joseph DiNucci. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DiNucci[edit]

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

Subject is not notable and article is clearly promotional in nature ElKevbo (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: of doubtful notability, looks distinctly WP:SOAPBOXy. Letdorf (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete per Letdorf. Several of the links do pass muster, but even with that, I can't see what he's done that is notable. I removed a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer If this article is deleted, please make a copy and place it in the author's userspace. He or she is new and may need time to get the article up to snuff. The claims he or she is making make me lean towards keeping the article if he or she can provide sources and I'd hate to see the article completely disappear just because a new editor is encountering our steep learning curve. I think there's an even chance this could turn out to be an acceptable article with enough time and patience (but it's not ready yet, IMHO). ElKevbo (talk) 03:38, 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) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Tannenbaum[edit]

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

She is not notable for anything except having a peripheral connection to a notable death. A classic case of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTINHERITED. MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, fails WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tangentially connected to notable death; no later career events that would confer notability in any way. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:51, 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 keep. Per WP:ATA, the mere existence of reliable sources in support of notability is enough; being in a poor condition is not a reason for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chalmers[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE, sponsorships do not equal notability Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but Chalmers is a professional sportsman who has competed at the highest level. He's a big enough name in skateboarding to have featured as a playable character in an Electronic Arts video game - Skate.[21] Also featured in Tony Hawk in Boom Boom Sabotage.[22] Plenty of coverage in skate magazines/sites: Thrasher, Skateboarder magazine, Transworld Skateboarding, ESPN (calling him an ambassador for Canadian skateboarding]), Transworld Skateboarding. There's plenty more around confirming his participation in major skateboarding competitions. I see no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 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, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. He clearly passes the relevant notability guideline, having competed professionally, getting reviews and interviews, and having an impact on popular culture, as may be seen from the video game characters noted above. Athletes do not become less notable just because they sing north of the 49th parallel. The external links and sources noted by Michig can be used as good references. Again, the topic comes up, "Is an interview sufficient for a reliable source?" The growing consensus here has been to answer in the affirmative, at least for celebrities such as professional athletes, actors, artists, and musicians. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's references. Nom's claim of WP:ATHLETE is shown to be false. Vodello (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse you!?! The article has not been improved with any of Michig's wonderful references, it's still in the same crap shape it was when I found it. From reading the article, there is no way to tell that the subject is notable as it now stands. Bad faith wording on your part, based on the continuing poor shape of the article.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The available sources show that the subject is notable and the article can be improved. How is pointing out that the subject passes WP:ATHLETE bad faith on Vodello's part?--Michig (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are included, but none of the source material is. The text should reflect the actual notability, and it still reads as it did the day I nom'd it. The text should include the notability, and then link to the relevant websites, not make the reader go hunting first. That's our calling. As per Vodello's bad faith, my nom may (I still think notability is a tenuous stretch, but...) be "outdated" in light of proper source material, but the article itself still does not reflect that my nom was "false". "False" is a loaded word and casts aspersions on the nom, me.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reading something into the comments that isn't there. Given that you see the sources I found as "wonderful references", do you agree that the subject is sufficiently notable?--Michig (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced, no, elsewise I would withdraw the nom and call it a night. "Wonderful" is what those in the industry call "sarcasm".--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added the sources you found here, but you haven't added them to the article. Now, take the reliable, independent, third-party published source and actually cite' it in the article. This forum, where articles are sought to be deleted, is not the right place to make the article better.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't order other editors around, particularly if you're not prepared to do this work yourself. The issue being discussed here is the suitability of the subject for inclusion, not the quality of the article.--Michig (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up. Vodello (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unwikified and unfootnoted BLP. Fix it or kill it. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/speedy keep. A waste of everyone's time. Will someone pls put this AfD out of its misery by closing it? Advise nom to follow wp:before in the future, prior to making any additional AfD nominations. Also, nom seems to lack an understanding of the purpose of AfD. If the relevant sources exist (which nom is required to check), then nom should never AfD the article in the first place. This is not a vehicle to article improvement. And no editor has to add the RS refs -- all that is required to Keep the article is that the refs exist (added to the article, or not).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KH-13[edit]

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

Article is entirely conjectural and consists of OR and irrelevant information. None of the references provided contain any mention of "KH-13". G W… 14:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. There doesn't appear to be anything salvageable from the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable, references are available; article should be salvageable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe it is either notable or salvageable. 8X or whatever they ended up calling it is notable and should have its own article, Misty is notable and has its own article. I fail to see how an article which only covers speculative identifications of unrelated reconnaissance satellites which may or may not be related to the KH series (which stopped at 11), can be considered notable. --G W… 00:39, 9 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, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the name being unofficial it is the one still being used in books. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the first ten results, seven are fictional works. This book has a brief paragraph of completely conjectural material; this one doesn't even have a complete sentence in reference to the satellite, and this one isn't viewable. The rest of the results don't improve on this pattern. The name might well be used in dozens of novels, but there isn't anything here to meet the requirements of WP:V. Parsecboy (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the source is fiction, or speculation in books on spy hardware. Even if the concept was entirely fiction, we have articles on characters from movies and books that never existed in real life. See, for example, Quidditch. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That totally misses the point. How exactly does a novel qualify as a WP:RS? Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We use books and movies as the source for every plot summary in Wikipedia, thats how fiction works. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are perfectly fine, because they are sourcing themselves. Fiction cannot be used to cite real things. Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None are used as a source in the article, and yes fiction belongs in the article too just as Quidditch or any other plot device in fiction is in articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a fictional plot device. It is an alleged satellite program. Fictional works cannot verify anything about this satellite program. They are therefore irrelevant to this discussion. You might as well start using Red Storm Rising to prove that the F-19 was a real super-sonic fighter and not just a cover for the F-117. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bring in others if you disagree ... its all moot and silly to argue over, since none are used as references for technical aspects as you are suggesting in your strawman fallacy argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they're being used as references in the article, I said you're attempting to use them to satisfy the article's verifiability requirement, something they simply cannot do. Speculative works are just as unusable. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fictional references never WP:V real-world claims. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, setting aside the real-world satellites, if you believe the article should cover "KH-13" satellites solely based on their portrayal in fiction, I would contend that in that context they are completely devoid of notability. Yes, we have an article on Quidditch, but because it has a major role in a series of very well known books, and has attracted real world attention. We do not have an article on every character from, to use an example picked randomly from the English novels category, The Coma by Alex Garland, since the book is obscure (I for one had never heard of it before I picked it from the category), and hence the fictional content within it is even less noteworthy. Neither of the books mentioned in the KH-13 article at the moment even seem to have articles of their own. --G W… 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are full of unreliable conjecture. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I grant there is reasonable contention about the appropriate name of this article, but the Winning the War: Advanced Weapons, Strategies, and Concepts for ... - Page 46, is non-fiction statement alleging to make a non-conjectural statement, just to pick a single exampe I have no reason to beieve it does not qualify as an RS. Now, should some of the conjectural material be cut out of the article? Of course. Should the article be renamed? Possibly. But delete? No. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you remove the conjectual and speculative information, you will be left with half a paragraph of text about the 8X programme. Nothing more. --G W… 20:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Wikipedia policy (WP:DEL#REASON) do you believe suggests that that is a criteria for deletion? I don't believe that it is, but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. Instead, the usual solution for small articles like that is to mark them as a WP:STUB or merge them with another article and redirect (see WP:SIZERULE.) That's one source, Darling and Darling [23] might contribute another sentence or two, and who knows what might come down the road in the future. Now, if you'd rather have this listed under 8X, I got absolutely no problem with that, although I think a redirect would be in order. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A stub is defined as being "not so short as to provide no useful information". I feel that cutting away non-conjectural information would leave this article in such a state. If you are confident that you can provide enough information to make it useful, then please edit the article and do so. The article should be moved to Enhanced Imaging System, which was the correct name for the programme which grew out of 8X. If these two concerns are met, I will happily withdraw the nomination. --G W… 20:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess we disagree about what's useful, then. Even the information that there are these names, that they refer to spy satellites, that they've successfully launched, and have highly elliptical orbits (I think, having come into this AfD blind, that I've seen RS for those statements without having looked hard) is enough to be a useful stub, you should see some of the sportspersons stubs I've sourced in the past month. ;) Where we do agree, I'll guess, is that material about facts can not be sourced based on fictional representations (save for statements like "such and such appears as a notable element of this fictional work"~~, but I don't think that's enormously relevant here.~~) Statements based only on those can be deleted from the article immediately, and probably should be. The reported sightings section sounds like (and I haven't looked) it might be a harder question, but I say that without having dug into it. Of course, if the result of this AfD is keep, I'll happily participate (save for August, where I'm pretty much off in Greenland all month) in the process of chucking the more contentious material from the article, but the fictionally-sourced stuff should (IMHO) be gone yesterday. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Correction: Looking at the article again, I don't see where fiction is used to source anything except "this is used as a plot device in fiction.", which is a perfectly valid sort of use. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no doubt that the designation KH-13, whether official or not, for a certain type of US spy satellite has been sufficiently covered by wp:reliable source to make it wikinotable. What those sources disagree about is the details of this program. Those divergences should be reflected in the wikipedia article. Compare with Aurora (aircraft), wether it has been buit or not, when, experimental or operational, if it is still active or abandonned, etc. ^walk victor falk^talk 10:02, 17 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 to delete. There is no consensus below that deletion is necessary or appropriate for the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dotum[edit]

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

PROD contested by author. This is an unreferenced article about a specific Korean font. The article is not very informative or coherent and does not give any reason to think that the font is notable. A Google search does not suggest notability either. DanielRigal (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Our own page on East Asian sans-serif typefaces indicates "Dotum (돋움), DotumChe (돋움체), Gulim (굴림) – Korean version of the fonts found in Microsoft Windows, all regions of Windows XP or later." I fully realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but this at least explains why an article on this font is potentially notable. I suspect that somebody with Korean language skills could dig out some sourcing for this. Additionally, articles published such as [this article from the 8th International Symposium on Experimental and Efficient Algorithms], this article from the refereed proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, and this, and this Linux book, all indicate it is a standard / common font. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason none of those Google Books links will show me the book content, so I can't form an opinion on that, but maybe you are right. Being a Korean subject, my English language Google searching would have missed its notability if the best sources were in Korean and did not include the English name. Even so, I wonder whether there is much encyclopaedic we can say about it, apart from the above, that would provide enough content for its own article rather than a redirect to its coverage in East Asian sans-serif typeface? Does the Korean Wikipedia have an article on it that we can translate and use? I know that we do have articles on some very common/significant fonts but is this one significant enough? I am not saying it isn't. I am genuinely asking. This AfD on the list of Korea related deletions so I hope somebody with Korean language skills will look at it and can give us some advice. If you think it would help to tag the article for rescue or expert help then go ahead. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am basing my !vote to keep on the fact that the font is addressed in refereed journals covering typography. For google books, I think you may need to search on dotum+font directly yourself. I've had the same thing happen to me when clicking on a google book page; the content is freely viewable, but not if you go there directly! In any case, I think the best course of action is to rewrite this article as a stub that is more coherent than it is now, and tag it for referencing. It can always be merged to East Asian sans-serif typeface later if no Korean capable editors can expand and reference it further. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 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) 00:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dotum is for Korea what Tahoma (typeface) is for us Westerners, and the numerous Google Books hits for "Dotum font" seem to be evidence for that. The problem is, as the article stands currently, it does not even fulfill WP:STUB. Therefore, delete based on the low article quality. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It's not hard to rewrite to a better quality stub, so a better question to answer is "Does this font meet notablity?"; I've rewritten the stub. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Flagged for rescue. I don't think the fate of an article about something specific to the Korean language ought to be solely decided by people discussing the subject only in English. Just sayin'... Mtiffany71 (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll try and rescue it, even get it to DYK. There are a decent number of korean sites that (seem) notable, and I'll look into it. Might take a bit though, considering my poor understanding of the korean language :P NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:07, 17 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. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PBS idents[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This nomination seems to have been malformed but I will go ahead and say Keep for the reasons well articulated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (3rd nomination).--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Also, when this Afd closes, please protect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (5th nomination) from being created. Georgia guy (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Blocking the creation of the AfD nomination means that it'll have to WP:ANI in order to get deleted. If people want to put it up for nomination that's their choice. Our responsibility is to swat down the nomination with why not. Hasteur (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just feel that this article will just get more and more Afd's as months pass. Georgia guy (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article does communicate the different states of the logo, it is a little bit long for the purpose Hasteur (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CLG Wiki is a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.163.207 (talk) 02:21, 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.

Birmingham Lions[edit]

Taylor Ann Hasselhoff[edit]

Saad Adam[edit]

Slingshot paintball[edit]

Salman Aditya[edit]

City CarShare[edit]

Matrix of Complex Negotiation[edit]

Janata enterprises[edit]

Maiden Lane (Band)[edit]

"TNA Impact 2011"[edit]

List of sovereign states with affairs controled by others[edit]

Jimmy Kessler[edit]

Rab Corbett[edit]

Ali Salehi[edit]

University of Maryland Mock Trial Team[edit]

Kylie Minogue Rare and Unreleased[edit]

Viruses in the Resident Evil series[edit]

DASS-GUI[edit]

Rick Depofi[edit]

Project Mirror Magic[edit]

Refinery CMS[edit]

Blog Articles[edit]

CMS Articles[edit]

Independent Commercial Tutorial for Refinery CMS[edit]

Association with a well known Ruby on Rails hosting Company[edit]

Refinery CMS Featured on a popular Ruby Podcast: Ruby5[edit]

221 Google Group Members[edit]

574 GitHub followers[edit]

Victoria Taranova[edit]

Hear Kitty Studios[edit]

Tewwy[edit]

Librarianship in the 21st Century[edit]

Furst Media[edit]

Plot of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - The Movie[edit]

Blackmailer Paradox[edit]

Pennridge North Middle School[edit]

Laszlo Ritter[edit]

International Sustainable Energy Agency[edit]

List of space pirates[edit]

Shenley Training Centre[edit]

Six Families of Berlin[edit]

Benik Afobe[edit]

Page 80[edit]

David Filmore[edit]

Big Four Pageants + Miss TQI[edit]

Ramon Estevez[edit]

North Jersey Firm[edit]

Nitto Records[edit]

Andrés Ablan[edit]

Sam Arnold[edit]

K. A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Limited[edit]

Gustus Bozarth[edit]

Culture (US band)[edit]

Jim R. McGovern[edit]

Robokill[edit]

Joseph DiNucci[edit]

Susan Tannenbaum[edit]

Alex Chalmers[edit]

KH-13[edit]

Dotum[edit]

PBS idents[edit]