< 18 June	20 June >

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clonoe O'Rahilly's[edit]

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

Non-notable sports team; no sources or meaningful argument for notability Orange Mike | Talk 23:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 21 June 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) 02:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Lens[edit]

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

A non-notable individual writing an article to promote himself. It seems as if this plastic surgeon uses Wikipedia as a free advertising site. There's nothing about him, and he hasn't edited anything else than this article to brag about himself. Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator overstates his case, using rather aggressive language which is really not necessary here. Remember that WP:BLP applies across namespaces, including the AfD pages; there is no need for disparaging comments about the subject and it is also not clear if this is indeed a WP:AUTO case. The nominator neglected to notify the article's creator about this AfD, which I have now done. Although the article does not mention it, the subject holds a PhD, in addition to his medical professional degrees, and appears to be a bona fide researcher. GoogleScholar[1] does show one well-cited paper (with 147 citations), but the citations fairly quickly taper of after that, for an H-index of about 10. That's respectable but not enough to demonstrate academic notability, especially in medicine. There is nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:ACADEMIC (no significant academic awards, journal editorships, etc). Similarly, nothing to indicate passing WP:BIO. Overall, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, "truly non-notable" is a bit redundant and I removed it. I thought to notify the creator, but saw that his last edit was two years ago so I doubt he'll return, but thank you for notifying him. As for holding a PhD and having published cited papers, I don't think that's enough for notability. If it were, I'd have my own article here as would many many more - and I'm just as "truly non-notable" myself. :-) Jeppiz (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He doesn't seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC but there's an outside chance of passing WP:GNG instead — I found several hits for his name in Google news archive [2]. The reason I'm going for a weak delete rather than a weak keep, given this evidence, is that the hits I found did not seem to be very high quality or anything we could use as a source about him: they consisted of articles in tabloids such as the Daily Mail and breathless publicity pieces in cosmetics magazines. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 23 June 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 technically, speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1 (not even the nominator thinks the material should be deleted; the nominator's argument is for a redirect). This is grounds for a non-admin closure. I have also boldly redirected this title to Objectivity (journalism) in accordance with the consensus here.—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media balance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Media balance

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

The article appears to be a hoax, as I detailed anonymously on the talk page: "The article itself is a complete mess. None of the sources whatsoever deal with the main point of the article, that the concept of balance was created by the BBC as a way to promote the Conservative party. None. The citation that was used to cite about the BBC's formation of balance did not appear to refer to the BBC's formation of balance at all, instead talking about the 2003 Iraq War and rallying against it. The article also have an out-of-place quote about American journalism, which is a cool quote, but one that already exist on a separate page, one dedicated to objectivity."

It is possible that indeed Balance was a term created by the BBC to promote the views of the Conservative Party, but as none of the sources actually address this point, I highly doubt it. I apologize for blanking the page before, I didn't know it was vandalism. My hope is that, by going through the process, we can figure out if this article is a hoax or not, and how best to proceed. I recommend deleting it and doing a redirect to Objectivity, a somewhat better article. ServantScope (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC) EDIT: Another thing to clarify, as to why I want a deletion rather than just deleting the BBC mention. If we delete the mention of BBC creating balance, all we have left is a quote that is already on the Objectivity page. Thus, the page would not really have much content, and thus it would be better to just redirect it to a page with content.--ServantScope (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call to close this AfD It's gone - changed to a redirect to Objectivity (journalism). (Not by me...) Peridon (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not gone yet. I saw that I typed the title of the page wrongly. It's not "Balance", it's "Media balance". So I attempted to corrected it in the AFD template. I'm a new editor, so I apologize for this minor mistake.--ServantScope (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I see that Media Balance is a redirect over to Objectivity, but Media balance leads straight to the page that I want to delete. So, what do I do? I did another editing of the AFD.--ServantScope (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected that one. On second thoughts (looking into the history), perhaps I shouldn't have. I thought an admin had done it, but the first redirect seems to have been done by two bots. I can understand bots redirecting 'b' to 'B', but not to a different title altogether. Ah well, if it's not right someone will sort it out. Peridon (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the redirection as articles should not be blanked (which I interpret to include replacing with a redirect) while the discussion is in progress. That said, I support the article being redirected to Objectivity (journalism) by the closing administrator or editor, after gauging consensus. Intelligentsium 23:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Objectivity (journalism). Maybe if information can be verified, it can be included in history section. snigbrook (talk) 23:38, 19 June 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. Shimeru 07:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xerafy[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, per nomination. This business is a vendor of passive UHF EPC Radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags for mounting on metal assets... used to help locate and identify items for inventory management, scheduled maintenance, and quality control. Their chief claim to fame would be the claim that their RFID tags work on metals, because ordinarily radio waves and metals do not mix. This would be interesting, if it worked. But I find nothing that looks like an independent reliable source for this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Google news turns up this article but it's in Chinese so it's very difficult for me to determine if the article is a press release, and if the site itself might be considered a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article looks like simple coverage of an appearance at a trade exhibition; but the Babelfish machine translation is enough to move me to interpretive dance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete -I've added additional references to support the article and valid sources verifying the claims. There are more press releases coming with customer applications. Kellystark (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)KellyStark[reply]

Delete This will need coverage in third-party reliable sources to show notability. It doesn't have that yet. First Light (talk) 02:43, 26 June 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) 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Embed-in-metal[edit]

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

Expression does not seem to exist. Consider moving content to RFID Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The embed-in-metal phrase is used in the RFID industry and the wiki entry is to help define the term and have it become the standard. The alternate phrase, RFID-in-metal, is sometimes used but can be confusing so we in the industry are trying to build a consensus around one definition. The term is growing and so wikipedia can help provide the education on the term like it was built for.

I am uploading more references:

http://www.morerfid.com/details.php?subdetail=Report&action=details&report_id=6859&display=RFID

Metal presents interference issues and requires special considerations for mounting.^[1]

The US Government has a ambitious plan to embed RFID chips in the new one dollar presidential coin in a test to see if the technology can be adopted for larger denomination coins. ^[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellystark (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. If a phrase is not used yet (and none of the references you provided actually use the term "embed-in-metal"), there is no point in having an article for it. Furthermore, Wikipedia's job is not to help any term "become the standard". --Schuhpuppe (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NEO and WP:CRYSTAL; also suggest, Kelly, that you read WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wikipedia is not the place to push a standard phrase usage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 22 June 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. SPAs and poor arguments aside, there does seem to be a genuine case for keeping, if a somewhat weak one. Shimeru 07:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spellfury[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. The listing at IMDB is probably self-created. This article has already been deleted once under A7. Eeekster (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete , Show is Notable

Showzampa (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC) IMDB pages are implemented by people working at IMDB, the public can submit things at which IMDB will look it over and make sure it is legitimate before putting it up.Showzampa (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

This show is notable, Eekster mentions IMDB, but fails to mention the Wired.com article "7 webotainers worth watching"^[2], an "Ain't it cool news" review^[3] , that Spellfury is the HIGHEST RATED show on Visioweb.tv, that it's the second most watched webseries on the Koldcast.tv network^[4]. It has been featured on tubefilter.tv (A notable webseries reviewer ^[5]). The show has 6,304 subscribers on it's Youtube PARTNER account and was given a special showpage along side television shows. It seems Eekster hasn't read the whole wiki or hasn't heard of a site like wired.com or ain't it cool news. Please look at the references, please do more research on what a webseries is, check the wiki.Showzampa (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showzampa (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it on wikipedia the webseries is underrepresented. I don't believe Eeekster has the knowledge base to determine the difference between a notable webseries and an unnotable one.Showzampa (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In doing research about other notable webseries' an article in Tubefilter (one of 2 notable websites that focus on webseries topics and shows to watch) combined with other legitimate sources proves notability of a webseries (Spellfury was featured on Tubefilter.tv) ^[6]

From the "Legend of Neil" wiki history in regards to it's early "Articles for deletion":

The article has come a long way since earlier today, and the sources assert notability pretty clearly at this point. WP:WEB requires that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"; that is the case now. I agree that Tubefilter isn't the best source, but it seems to deal with such media, and the other refs look fine. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Showzampa (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also look at probably THE most notable webseries on the internet "The Guild", if we look at the evolution of the wiki page: 18:14, 4 December 2007 "Created page with 'The Guild is an online sitcome about a group of six gamers, with webisodes 3-6 minutes long. It is broadcast on The Guild's personal website and [[Youtube]...')"

Spellfury is on Youtube ( On a partner account, shares ad revenue with Youtube, under the name: tbonepearson) and has been given it's own special showpage by Youtube so it's side by side with the traditional television shows^[7], Spellfury has it's own personal site.

07:23, 7 December 2007 For the Guild: Article is expanded and references have been added (including IMDB link) to confirm notability.

Spellfury has an IMDB link.^[8]

There was NO "article for deletion" on the guild's early wiki pages, and all they had was an IMDB link, a youtube page and a website. So why is Spellfury being targeted for deletion by Eekster who hasn't explained himself or seem to be knowledgeable on this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showzampa (talk • contribs) 14:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Showzampa (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added more links to the show on itunes, blip.tv and scififinal: Spellfury can also be watched on itunes ^[9] on Blip.tv ^[10] and the webseries directory Scifinal ^[11] Showzampa (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Added "The Spellfury series has been watched 471,927 times on Youtube.[4]" to Spellfury page to show notability Showzampa (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spellfury is Notable Please look at the webseries list of notable webseries' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Web_television_series ^[12] and look at the definition of a webseries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_series ^[13] and then look at the references and mentions in the Spellfury wiki and you will see the webseries is notable. Showzampa (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Fails WP:WEB. IMDB does not make it notable. Most references are links to IMDB or other sites that the series can be downloaded from. No 3rd party review or critique of the series. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Don't Delete , Show is Notable~~ Fine Gtstricky, forget IMDB, are you saying wired.com, Ain't It Cool News and tubefilter aren't reliable sources? They're 3rd party reviews, have you not read the whole spellfury wiki? Important Youtube has given Spellfury it's own special showpage at[[3]], these can't be created by the public, "the guild" has also been given this honor, but notable webseries like "legend of neil" and "riese the series" don't have them. It allows The guild and Spellfury to come up in the listings of traditional television shows, Youtube has deemed Spellfury notable because of the strong viewership of the series and fanbase. Remember we're discussing whether or not Spellfury is a notable "webseries", not a tv show. Showzampa (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please only !vote once per AFD. The wired.com article works. tubefilter and ain't it cool news will review anything if you email them and ask them. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank You Gstricky, Thank Goodness someone around here has heard of Wired.com, they're an extremely reputable site. My only trouble is with your statement "tubefilter and Ain't It Cool News will review anything if you email them and ask them" you don't back that up with any facts or even an explanation.

I don't see that information on the wiki pages for those sites, I dare you to try and put that fact on their pages :) From my experience I would TOTALLY disagree with you, I've been reading those 2 "notable" and reputable websites for years. the only way anyone will get published on those sites is if the editor deems you "notable". Many a webseries or individual would give they're eyeteeth for a review on either of those sites. The web traffic from being mentioned on one of those sites is HIGHLY sought after and valuable. Showzampa (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wired article and Ain't It Cool News article mention it sufficiently. Dream Focus 18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could use work but the core article is useful and relevant.--Modelmotion (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLooks to be notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.117.172 (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC) — 65.94.117.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There are all valid and convincing arguments in this discussion page allowing to re-confirm Spellfury is notable.Jorgepetru (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)— Jorgepetru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To further prove notability I added better link to today's Newspaper article: Perth-based online show casts spell on viewers.^[14]

^ http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?titleeligibility
^ Previous post Next post. "7 Webotainers Worth Watching | Underwire". Wired.com. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
^ "AICN COMICS REVIEWS: AVENGERS! JLA! VENOM! SAMURAI 7! dot.comics! & MUCH MORE!!! - Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news". Aintitcool.com. 2009-04-01. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
^ http://www.koldcast.tv
^ http://news.tubefilter.tv/2009/07/08/spellfury-is-low-budget-high-fantasy/
^ http://news.tubefilter.tv/2009/07/08/spellfury-is-low-budget-high-fantasy/
^ http://www.youtube.com/show/spellfury
^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1557701/
^ http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/spellfury/id295198707?ign-mpt=uo%3D4
^ http://spellfury.blip.tv/
^ http://www.scifinal.com/spellfury/
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Web_television_series
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_series
^ http://www.emcperth.ca/20100624/Entertainment/Perth-based+online+show+casts+spell+on+viewers

Weak keep - 225k hits make it notable. Unless I'm wrong... 23:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted, hoax, see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mathieu_Ógan and Special:DeletedContributions/Alexantonios. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar West[edit]

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

Unverifiable; possible hoax snigbrook (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a medium for defining new concepts. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "sources" are not. For an AfD of more of the same, see this stuff. The creator of this whimsy has been trying and failing to convince since 2006. -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT, WP:N, to name a few, not to mention the above and nomination.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:02, 25 June 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) 00:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supermegalith[edit]

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

No indication that this is a real term except maybe in the sources which are in Spanish. Contested PROD. Also, "possible hoax. The external link is dead and Google has never heard of the Asociación Latinoamericana de Paleoarqueología". — Jeff G. ツ 21:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am autor of Supermegalith, The website of our "Asociacion Latinoamericana de Paleoarqueología" is being created, we believe it is worth using the medium of wikipedia to define these new concepts.

Spanish-language references are valid: 1. "Inventario y Descripción de los Supermegalitos Hallados en el Perú" is a work protected by copyright. 2. While "Estudio de Cuencas Modificadas Culturalmente, Reconocimiento e Inventario de Obras Supermegalíticas halladas en el Perú" was presented at the last congress: "congreso Peruano del Hombre y la Cultura Andina y Amazónica" evaluated and approved by a technical committee scholar, in San Marcos University is the oldest university in all America and possibly the most prestigious of my country.

Therefore the references are valid and erudites. The "XVI Congreso Peruano del Hombre y la Cultura Andina y Amazónica" has an official website and you can corroborate the veracity of my information. Jun 19, 22:17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan L. Bacigalupo (talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this time. This article is being edited. we have a problem on the copyright of the images, in the coming days we will solve this problem, thanks. Jun 21, 22:20

Delete. Could even use ((db-context)) - insufficient information to identify subject - southern Peru is far too vague. An object "ten times longer than Mount Rushmore's" should show up on Google's satellite view. So where are the co-ords? The only refs. are papers by the author of the article. So we could say original research. Quite simply, no reliable evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:GNG (no sources), WP:NOR and WP:MADEUP. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for the above reasons, as well as the obvious WP:SPAM and COI problems. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Gazette is a solid source. Shimeru 07:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Haze[edit]

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

I cannot seem to find any sources about him but I don't know if being number one on the BDS charts qualifies under WP:MUSIC. Oddly enough, there's no listing at Billboard are at Allmusic. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunatly I think this does indeed meet WP:BAND unser: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." other than that it should go realy, so I don't mind if a lose this one. And yes there seemingly aren't any sources arround --Wintonian (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone comes up with a source that says he actually did have that hit, I can't find any evidence of it. He's mentioned practically nowhere on the entire internet apart from youtube and a couple of forum posts, so deleting as unnotable seems perfectly reasonable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added all the reasonably reliable sources that I could find. I'm not sure of what consitutes a "hit" or sufficient rotation. (I normally edit opera articles.) But here are the results from the compilation of Canadian record charts archived at the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (see the article for the link):
"My world is you" (2000) reached #15, 11 weeks in the charts
"Holy water" (2001) reached #2, 15 weeks in the charts
"Save a prayer" (2001) reached #14, 12 weeks in the charts
There's also a link to the rotation on MuchMusic for the week ending 30 June 2001. Voceditenore (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources added by voceditenore seem to adequately establish the notability requirements at WP:BAND.4meter4 (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added more sources just now. His single "Holy Water" hit number one in Quebec. He had a feature article about him in the Montreal Gazette. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:57, 23 June 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) 02:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ennstone Johnston[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Single ref is a brief mention in by a newpaper columnist. Content is advertisement-like content from company website. Notable customers do not make a company notable. — ERcheck (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... ... because Ennstone is a significant company in its business area but only keep if the article can be very substantially improved Andy F (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 20:51, 20 June 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) 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short Dawg[edit]

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

This page was thrice turned into a redirect but was restored each time by thagenius Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short Dawg is NOT Too Short, I'm confused as to why this page keeps being redirected to a man who's alias is spelled differently as Short Dog and are two totally different people. Please help me understand as to why this keeps occuring. ThaGenius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, nn per nom and WP:MUSIC. — Jeff G. ツ 21:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The hereto referenced "Short Dawg" fails WP:MUSIC. It is conceivable that someone might mistakenly type this name hoping to find Too Short so create a protected redirect to that page. Or just leave it plain deleted, whatever. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on its right path. There is no need to delete the article as there are no misleading statements on here. People need to learn how to spell who they are looking for. This is Shorty's (Short Dawg's) page and deserves every right to be up here like any other rapper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.236.134.66 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Apparently, the proposed redirect is too problematic, so I would prefer simple deletion. Favonian (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This artist does meet one of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.236.134.66 (talk) 20:55, 25 June 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. However, should discussion on whether the sources are reliable decide in the negative, no prejudice against a rapid renomination. Shimeru 07:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Jordan[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO (single year nom only); no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline, one passing mention in GNews PR hit. Prod removed on pony theory Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pony theory sees extensive coverage from the references in both industry trade journals, XBIZ and AVN, that are considered reliable sources for pornography. Therefore, the article passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. The pony theory, made popular by Ronald Reagan, refers to someone so determined to see the result they want that they fail to see basic facts. His paradigm was the child who, presented with a giant pile of horse manure, dived into it excitedly, proclaiming that with that much horse manure around, there had to be a pony in it somewhere.[4] Neither Xbiz nor AVN pages typically meet WP:RS requirements; the great majority of them are press releases (not always acknowledged as such) or promotional pieces assembled from PR presskits. Most of the remaining coverage that you cite simply includes the performer's name in passing in a castlist or laundry list. The GNG isn't satisfied by trivial coverage, nor nonindependent promo pieces. It requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which does not include "works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." You say there's a pony in there? Identify and cite the sources you say support notability. Otherwise you're just pointing to a pile of manure. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  While having the industry sources as User:Morbidthoughts mentioned would be nice for editors to review, is there now an expectation that porn stars can only be notable if covered in Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, or New York Times? If no to my rhetorical question, then just which industry sources can be considered reliable for sourcing this industry... if any? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "No" is, of course, the answer to the straw-man rhetorical question. An essential point, often made on the reliable sources noticeboard, is that both the identity of the publishing source and the character of the published piece need to be taken into account. When my local newspaper publishes a piece on a local government meeting, based on its reporter's attending the meeting, it's much more likely to satisfy RS than when it publishes a report on the upcoming speaker at the Garden Club, based on the Garden Club's press release and the speaker's promotional biography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My question to you was made in a good faith inquiry for elucidation. I'll restate it in simple terms and without the rhetorical so that we do not go off on a non-porn tangent: As porn stars are rarely covered in any detail outside their industry, just which industry sources would you then be satisfied with as suitable for sourcing this industry? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the extent to which the standard adult industry trade publication sites repubublish/recycle/rewrite press releases and other promo material, there's no cut-and-dried answer to this question. As is so often pointed out on the reliable sources noticeboard, for most if not all publishers, their contents don't have a uniform reliability level. Even the New York Times once ran a gossip(ish) column called "Boldface Names," which was generally less likely to meet WP:RS than the paper's national news reporting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would then bring this discussion back to consideration of the industry-specific the sources as offered in the article and as proffered by User:Morbidthoughts. I think then, that rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, each need be examined individually, with an understanding that the nature of the magazines and the industry seems to mandate a style of article different from what one might find in more mainstreanm sources. To paraphrase the adage about bees and insects, while press releases in Xbiz or AVN are not articles, and similarity is tone and style aside, not all articles in Xbiz or AVN are press releases. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - XBIZ consistently denotes when it publishes a press release. Compare [5] to [6]. AVN is less obvious about separating their news stories from their press release but they do. Compare press releases to [7]. References 4-8 are all independent enough for me. It's also clear that XBIZ and AVN actually interviewed Jordan for their news stories. Compare these two intellectually different articles about the same topic. [8][9]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That very first link you provide, [10], is a perfect example of XBIZ dressing up promo material and presenting it as a faux "news story." Compare it to the parallel AVN piece, which was easy enough to find [11], where AVN does the same thing. These are presskit articles, with all content drawn from PR/promotional material. The main quotes are identical, the content is virtually identical, with XBIZ paraphrasing a quote that AVN recites in longer form; they even use the same publicity photo!. This is why the great majority of AVN/XBIZ content fails WP:RS; it's not genuinely independent of the subject, but is based on PR/publicity/promotional material prepared by subject's employer and reused uncritically. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per MichaelQSchmidt's observation. Article is reliably sourced. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above and Morbid. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, no reliable sources to establish notability. Fails GNG. DiiCinta (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question While there's only one year of award noms in the article text, 2009, she's pictured holding an X-Rated Critics Organization trophy from 2007. Is that an award, or something less than that? It seems to be a trophy for trophy presenters? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was the "Trophy Girl" for the ceremony, not an award winner or even a presenter. It seems to be a very low rent parallel to "Miss Golden Globes," (and we'll skip the obvious jokes) which itself isn't treated as an award or conferring notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absent someone finding evidence for notability of the Heart-on Girl trophy, or of her having "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" it doesn't appear Jana Jordan meets the guidelines at this time. If she gets another nomination or something else notable develops, the article could be recreated. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus has always been that AVN and XBiz are reliable sources. Due the massive effect it will have porn star articles, a wider discussion would be needed before it can be determined that the consensus has changed. Epbr123 (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be reliable sources, though I think reproduction of press releases would be generally excluded as not being independent of the subject and not having editorial oversight. For some facts, reproduced press releases might be uncontroversial. But I think the issue is not so much about that as whether or not she can meet any of the WP:PORNBIO criteria or WP:GNG? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's no conclusive evidence that the sources found are indeed mere reproductions of press releases with no editorial oversight. Epbr123 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Riesco[edit]

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

Non-notable working actor. Has had small roles in a number of major motion pictures, but notability is not inherited. No real sources to establish notability. I am skipping PROD as the article has been around for four years. Cerejota (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Actor has appeared in many films during the last 5 years, including Che Parts 1 & 2, the series 3lbs, and Garden State. Has received publicity for work in local New York press.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- My tendencies are that the article should be kept as a stub with the possibility of expansion. Yet, I realize that the article has been around for some time and that the actor has participated in lesser roles. It should be expanded to included the actors current status as to notability. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pushing nicely at WP:ENT. The Find sources above shows numerous more-than-trivial coverage and review of this actor's work from 1999 through 2010,[12] so WP:GNG is met as well. In agreement with Tony the Marine, I believe that it serves the project to have this remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Actor has numerous roles and a long career. Keep. Scanlan (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roles are notable enough. First Light (talk) 02:45, 26 June 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) 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Zizzi[edit]

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

A seemingly non-notable physicist, whose article is filled with unsubstantiated peacock language and contains no actual sources about her. Although some of her works have attracted double-digit citations (enough to qualify her as a serious academic rather than a purely fringe scientist) this is still far below the standard of WP:PROF #1, nor does she seem to pass any of the other WP:PROF criteria. Google news archive finds nothing about her. Our article was recently prodded and unprodded, both by anonymous editors. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wow theory. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citability in GScholar and WebOfScience is fairly small, nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h index of 6. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. And WoS h-index of 5. Agree. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 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 as follows. Whenever we have an article where the subject has requested deletion, especally when the individual is genuinely low-profile, we need to have a serious look at the article, its suitability, and whether that request should be granted. As should be obvious to all, an article on a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom isn't going to go anywhere, but McCoy is nowhere near the same notoriety as a head of government.

I see no credible evidence, that the requested deletion isn't a genuine request from the subject (or his duly appointed representative), so this closure will proceed under the assumption that the request is valid. How much weight to give that request, however, remains under my discretion according to deletion policy. However, there are a few things that most explicitly don't matter, that are worth mentioning here. First is Jimbo's !vote; while he has a delete button, and there is an entire CSD criterion specifically for WMF office actions, they were not used in this case, hence, his arguments must, and are being, considered just as those by any other user. Second, the stuff that has happened on AN/I regarding this AFD, and even the one !vote to delete this article based on those events. Both must be thrown out of my considerations, as truly tangential to this debate and the article at hand.

What we're left with here, is a debate around BLP1E, and this article's standing towards it. In this case, we have a broad, both in numbers and strength or argument, consensus that this is a BLP1E, sufficently so that the subject's deletion request becomes almost immaterial- there is consensus here to delete without using that as any form of "trump card". The result is, therefore, delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Houston McCoy[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK problems. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Other problems with this article, of which you definitely are aware, attest to the notability of the case. I suspect that silencing this beehive will merely shift the war elsewhere. East of Borschov (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You really shouldn't assume. I'm not suggesting deletion because of the editing, I'm suggesting it because an article on an living individual who's only claim to notability is the fact that he shot a mass murderer and that he suffered problems from that. Unless you think the details about his personal life are notable, the "Houston McCoy was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 1998 by a doctor from the Department of Veterans Affairs in Waco, Texas, who attributed the condition to the tower shooting three decades earlier" here pretty much summarizes the entirety of this article. I feel the same way about Ramiro Martinez but I'll see how this discussion goes before that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Searching all of the links above yield results except in Google scholar. He is high-profile in articles about the Texas Tower shooting. Blocking a user doesn't cast this article into the dump pile. It has a large number of other editors and it is fairly well sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced, and more than one event is attached to the person. I don't think deleting this or merging it into some other article really solves anything, especially behvaiorial problems of an editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really disputing this, but what is the second event you are identifying? In reading the article there seems to be a lot about the shooting, and a couple of related issues (such as the worker's comp claim in regard to the shooting), but nothing that's clearly a second event. Am I missing something, or do you see this differently? - Bilby (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a second event, precisely, but is linked to the original event: I'm referring to the dispute with the city over the Workman's Comp case. Yes, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a "second event" per se, but I think it's significant in terms of PTSD and how it's dealt with. In any case, in my mind it extends his notability past the actual Whitman incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's fair enough. :) I'll need to think about my own take on it, but it gives me something to think about. - Bilby (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is merging it into Charles Whitman a good idea?--Pink Bull 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so, there's too much information which is pertinent to an article on McCoy, but irrelevant to an article of Whitman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would make sense if the Charles Whitman article would be renamed and reformatted to an article about the incident, as is the norm for these types of WP:ONEEVENT type of situations. --Pink Bull 06:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something like how we separate Seung-Hui Cho from Virginia Tech massacre? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article on the incident and the killer (as the Virgina Tech massacre) makes more sense then having an article on the killer and the person who killed the killer (as in this situation), in my opinion.

But regardless, I did not read the other comments here and did not realize the background leading up to the Afd nomination. If the article is being used to bother a person in real life it should be deleted. This is a close call to begin with because McCoy's notability does appear to originate from one event. In circumstances like these, it would probably be most appropriate to lean towards deletion. I think its due to situations like these that we have in place the WP:BLP1E policy. We don't want to be in a situation where we "have" to have an article on a quasi-notable person because at one point in the person's life (s)he received significant coverage in reliable sources.

Note, that even if deleted, the battle regarding this person will most likely shift to Charles_Whitman#Houston_McCoy_and_Ramiro_Martinez. But the total removal of any mention of McCoy is not a good idea and is not supported by any Wikipedia policy.--Pink Bull 14:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, speaking in general, the idea that objections from the subject of an article should be consider in an AfD dsicussion is a dangerous one, since it sets up a circumstance whereby the encyclopedia might be manipulated to its detriment by artifically created controversies. The way to deal with objections is to insure that articles are accurate, fair, sourced, and strictly NPOV, not by considering deletion. That said, I will agree that in this particular case, notability is on the cusp, and editors can easily disagree whether it should be kept or deleted on that basis. I do not, however, agree that outside considerations should play any significant part in these discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably agree with that. This does not present a case where personal objections are being used to trump Wikipedia policy. The circumstances here establish a case of WP:BLP1E. If not for the real-life issues, I would have ignored the Afd or perhaps even voted to keep, only because the article as it currently stands is well written and well-sourced. However, now that the subject requests deletion because the article causes him distress, I would fall in line with WP:BLP1E and vote to delete.--Pink Bull 02:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the other events? Here is one -- he sued MGM over how he was portrayed in a movie based on the shooting. Maybe you would argue that this is not a separate event? Several years ago, when blp1e was new, a wiseguy suggested we should merge the article on UK PM Tony Blair into the article on George W. Bush -- because no one would have ever heard of him if it weren't his support of Bush's war policy. McCoy sued the studio. If we were going to try to shoehorn that into another article why shouldn't it be shoehorned into the article on the movie? When there are multiple targets one could argue an article should be merged into I think that is a strong argument that the article should not be merged. Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall R. Phillips (2004). Framing public memory. University of Alabama Press. p. 81. ISBN 9780817313890. Retrieved 2010-06-21. Both policemen who shot Whitman sued MGM after the made-for-TV movie was released. Martinez received a settlement; the other policeman, Houston McCoy, whose name was not used in the film, received nothing, even though the film portrays him standing by passively as the actor playing Martinez fires the fatal shot. Whitman's autopsy showed that it was McCoy's bullet that killed the sniper.

Strong delete (indeed, there is a case for speedy here). The claim of notability for this individual is a weak one, and the article has persistently been misused as a forum for harassment and/or the perpetuation of external disputes. As a result, deletion has been requested by the article subject and members of his family over a period of years, and while that is obviously not controlling in our deletion and content discussions, it bears significant weight when the claim of article-worthiness is as thin as it is here. This is a situation, of a type that is more and more common, whether the role of the Internet in perpetuating privacy-invading, negative, and disputed information about an individual has the effect of damaging, in actuality or perception, that individual's life. Wikipedia is not the chief offender in this instance, because the underlying contents of the article will remain readily available whether or not this article or some of its content is deleted, but we ought not to gratuitously magnify the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However the article has been used is something that should, and has been, dealt with outside of deleting the article. And my response to the subject and his family requesting deletion can best be answer with Don Murphy. Now, his article results in the opposite, that editors on Wikipedia are the targets of harassment, as well as damaging, in actuality or perception, the editors here, but if Murphy's article still exists, then I believe this one should also. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles and the underlying situations should be addressed on their own merits; the analogy between the two articles is a weak one, and injecting Don Murphy into this discussion strikes me as totally unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on the OTRS team? If so is your assertion that the family requested deletion based on your review of an OTRS ticket? In general I am inclined to ignore assertions that the subject requested deletion, when there is no OTRS ticket to verify that a request actually came from the subject of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large deleted history on the talk page. Also, a particular (now blocked) editor with a personal COI with the situation has recently been posting complaints he made years ago. Nevertheless, I think this article can be deleted on its own merits, regardless of the prior history. In my mind, Newyorkbrad, if the history has been deleted, it is best not to discuss it at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I would like to be crystal clear on this -- has anyone who has access to the OTRS logs confirmed that McCoy, or a family member of his, has requested this article be removed. I suggest that if there is no OTRS confirmation we discount all claims that he requested removal. Unfortunately there are partisan POV-pushers on the wikipedia, and claiming the subject requested removal, or even impersonating the subject of an articles is a trick some vandals use. Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's nothing notable here at all. The one event for which his name is brought forward is the Whitman shooting, and it is appropriately covered in that article. The entire PTSD/worker's compensation issue is irrelevant, and is a fairly normal act of due diligence on the part of an employer faced with a compensation board finding that they believe will be onerous; it would never have made the newspapers if not for McCoy's name being attached to it, because it's such a common event. The article doesn't even say what the outcome of the worker compensation matter is. There is no relevant material in this article that is not covered elsewhere. Add on the requests for deletion from the subject and his family over the course of years, and really, deletion is the only logical conclusion. Articles like this are backwater BLP problems that won't be resolved by any fancy technology. Risker (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've never commented on this type of stuff before. As a "user", I found the page useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedzsan (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the pertinent information can be included in "Charles Whitman" or an article about the incident. fwiw, I think Ramiro Martinez is also not-notable, however deletion is less important there as Ramiro Martinez has not receded from the spotlight like Houston McCoy has. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The blp1e assertions are, IMO, inappropriate, if Houston himself is covered in WP:RS which don't focus on the shooting incident. I believe the references supplied so far make clear this is the case. WRT the WP:COATRACK essay -- this essay is routinely mis-cited in ((afd)), (1) as if it were a policy; and (2) ignoring its actual advice. The Coatrack essay is clear in its advice that deletion should be a last resort when attempting to deal with a coatrack concern. There is no record on Talk:Houston McCoy that the nominator, or anyone else, ever tried to raise this coatrack concern. The coatrack essay makes some interesting points. I like the names the author of the coatrack essay gave to different kinds of coatracks. I like the "wongo-juice" name best. What I generally find, when people claim authority under the coatrack policy, is that when they are asked to be specific about which of the different types of coatrack described in the essay they think an article contains an instance of, they are unwilling or unable to do so. For me this very seriously erodes how much confidence I have in their arguments. So, I ask our nominator to be specific -- which kind of coatrack do you see here? And why didn't you voice your concern on the talk page, instead of nominating the article for deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll explain. The problem is that this page claims to be on the person who shot Whitman but in reality is simply on the Whitman shooting itself. The vast majority of the text (the "Confrontation with Charles Whitman" section) is focused on the events of one day. The BLP issues comes from that section describing what the following (I'm guessing) living individuals did: McCoy, Jerry Ray, Ramiro Martinez and Allen Crum. The problem is that's poorly sourced (a single link at the end isn't sufficient) and instead of having a single place to discuss the details of the event (and yes, whether or not they charged up or they ran up or if Martinez shot him afterwards or didn't has been disputed), there are multiple articles containing the same information all with slight differences. As to the talk page, if I think an article should be deleted, what am I supposed to say on the talk page? "Hey, I think this article should be deleted but instead of actually listing it and having the discussion, let's talk about it here and decide whether to list it and have a second discussion"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, in your reply, were you trying to explain why you called on the authority of WP:COATRACK? Suppose you succeed, please explain how you would answer challenges that your shoehorning of all the coverage of McCoy's PTSD, McCoy's awards, McCoy's lawsuit against MGM, and journalist's attempts to get McCoy's comments on the Virginia Tech shootings, into the Charles Whitman article lapsed from COATRACK? That material has nothing to do with Whitman, and doesn't belong in an article about him.
Multiple articles offering conflicting accounts of a single event, without reference to one another, is a problem. You suggested that the solution to this is to confine all coverage of the incident to Charles Whitman#Confrontation with Charles Whitman. However, if Martinez and/or McCoy are independently notable, then an equally valid approach would be fork that section into a separate article, and having each article have an introductory paragraph, followed by ((main)) or ((seealso)) template directing readers to the new Confrontation with Charles Whitman article.
Blp1e is inapplicable, because there are multiple events -- including Martinez and McCoy suing MGM in 2004. Was there some other BLP issue that concerned you? If so could you please spell it out?
Why should you have raised your concerns on the talk page? Because you asserted deletion was authorized on the basis of WP:COATRACK. I am going to mention, again, that COATRACK is an essay, not a policy. And its advice is that deletion should be a last resort, when one has a COATRACK concern. You are not using deletion as a last resort, as the essay you cited recommends. Instead it was your first reaction. Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic 8-Ball sayz: Delete per all the del-!votes above from the folks with seriouz-clue. I did look this over myself, too ;) [repetition of arguments omitted]. Jack Merridew 18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Sole Soul (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- various readers have hinted at a mysterious past history of problems with this article. Unfortunately, the efforts to excise all history of these problems have robbed the rest of us of the context we need to reach our conclusions as to the future of this article. The article's talk page has been courtesy blanked, multiple times. But those performing those courtesy blankings made no effort to inform the rest of us that there had been courtesy blanking. They didn't say why they performed the courtesy blnaking. They didn't offer a brief summary of the material on the talk page, when they performed the courtesy blanking.
This is important because some contibutors here, citing those past problems, have said that the article should be deleted, with no attempt made to merge material into other articles. Others, with knowledge of these mysterious past problems have asserted that deletion, with no merge, will just force the problems previously confined to this article into other articles.
I suggest someone with access to the deleted material read it, and offer a brief and non-inflammatory description of these mysterious past problems. I suggest this ((afd)) should be relisted once the description of the mysterious past problems has been provided, and we can all reach an informed conclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My gut feeling on this is that since Jimbo Wales wants it deleted, then anyone with a modicum of power, or a desire to have a modicum of power, appear to jump on the bandwagon. Not to mention that there have been some rather bad faith comments about those who posted to support retention vs. those in power (or those characterized as having a "seriouz-clue", while those who have posted to support retention have been summarily dismissed with those words, apparently we don't have a "seriouz-clue". There have several reasons given for why WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, including a highly publicized suit for Workman's Comp as a result of the whole incident as well as the lawsuit against the film company. WP:COATRACK hasn't been given a rationale for why this is coatrack. I'm aware of the meat and potatoes of the mysterious past history, and although my comparison to another article subject wanting his article deleted was also summarily dismissed, I'd venture to say that anyone related to McCoy has not engaged in wholesale harassment of editors on Wikipedia while touting an agenda to get it deleted. This person is notable and there is an agenda at work here to get this article deleted. That content is not suitable for merging with the Whitman article as it goes well beyond the scope of that article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to argue that the only reason I listed it is because Jimbo wanted it, feel free to ignore the other articles I've listed. In fact, instead of waiting, I've listed Ramiro Martinez as well. As to the merger question, what part of the article isn't already at Charles_Whitman#Houston_McCoy_and_Ramiro_Martinez? Both McCoy's confrontation with Whitman (the largest part) and details regarding the PTSD diagnosis are there (or at least summarized). Is it your feeling that the information about McCoy's high school, his marriage, or the awards he has received because of the shooting either cannot be incorporated into the Whitman section or are so notable they deserve to be kept in a separate article? Last, I really question whether the suit was so highly publicized. The only source about it describes it as "Cop who killed UT sniper", indicating that it's only notable because of who filed the suit, not about the case itself. It doesn't like a published opinion, some crucial legal issue (like the length of time for a PTSD diagnosis) or would even have been reported short of the individual filing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT merging: (1) the material on McCoy's lawsuit against MGM, his awards, his PTSD -- they don't really have anything to do with Charles Whitman. You cited the WP:COATRACK essay, as if it were an official policy, and you may have been trying to defend that as a justification for deletion, asserting that the material on the texas tower incident was really about Whitman, not McCoy, and didn't belong in an article on McCoy. Please don't both call on the authority of wiki-essays -- and ignore their advice. Shoehorning that information into the Whitman article lapses from the advice of the essay even more than the examples you cited earlier.
You write "I really question whether the suit was so highly publicized..." Are you questioning whether the reference you assert was the only reference was an WP:RS? You seem to have overlooked the reference I added about the lawsuit. Are you questioning whether that reference was an WP:RS? I think if you review WP:NOTNEWS, you will see that tabloid style "publicity" is supposed to play a limited role in our decisions over notability.
Some participants here have argued that any kind of merging is a bad idea -- due to unspecified vandalism, or slander, or something. You seem to know something of this past history. But you haven't addressed the view they seem to be putting forward, that merging any other article with material from this article would irredeemably make that article a magnet for the same vaguely hinted at vandalism or slander campaign. As the nominator I request you address their concerns.
When someone suggests an article should be merged, but there are multiple articles for which there are reasonable arguments it should be merged, I think this is a strong argument that the article should remain a separate article. I suggest that is the case here.
- The book on suicide by cop -- a phenomenon that was unrecognized in 1966, stated that McCoy said Whitman could have shot him and Martinez, and didn't, because he was waiting for the police to shoot him. As a cop who described the suicide by cop phenomenon decades before it was identified as a pattern, as possibly the first cop to describe this phenomenon, an argument could be made that suicide by cop was an appropriate place to merge this article.
- We don't have an article on the movie The deadly tower. The topic of the movie merits its own article, because only part of it relates to Whitman.
- Various of the references I read as I looked into this ((afd)) stated that the shootings drove home the need for police forces to train and equip SWAT teams. So SWAT team would be an additional possible target for a merge.
- Merging with any of these articles undermines the value of the wikipedia's coverage of McCoy for readers interested in the role McCoy played in the other topics. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete not really enough to survive WP:ONEEVENT. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This individual is not notable for anything other than this one event, and regarding other aspects of the subject's life, there seems to be nothing more than trivial information. In cases of borderline notability, the wishes of the article subject should be respected. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As that wise-guy, who suggested the Tony Blair article be merged with the George W. Bush article, on blp1e grounds pointed out, the judgement as to what is "trivial" is highly subjective. The wise-guy claimed everything in the Tony Blair article was "trivial", except that he supported the Bush war policy.
- You assert McCoy's wishes should be respected. As I have asked other people who have made this assertion, did you review an OTRS ticket that showed that a request for deletion was received, and verified to have come from McCoy? No one else has been able to document that McCoy did, in fact, request the article be deleted. So I suggest we ignore the suggestion he requested deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is not about anything encyclopaedic. The gentleman's personal life is only of prurient interest even where citations exist. He is not notable except for one single event. And one tends not to be notable for simply doing one's job. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen this "Simply doing his/her job" argument before. I would like to see it added to the "arguments to avoid" essay. One could make this argument about almost all of the clearly notable individuals who have individual articles. One could make this argument about all the US astronauts, for instance.
- This article could do with significant improvement. Frankly, so could the article on Charles Whitman. As I looked into all this, in the last few days, I came across WP:RS that covered elements that aren't properly covered in any of the related articles -- included the one on Charles Whitman.
- Some WP:RS described the incident as triggering the recognition of the need for Police departments to train, equip and field SWAT teams. I believe, with more research, WP:RS that specifically said the personal troubles McCoy faced would have been lessened or would not have existed, if he had been prepared for this kind of assault through modern SWAT team training, and if he had the after-incident psychological counselling SWAT team members are supposed to get. Some of the WP:RS I came across certainly implied this.
- I added a reference that addressed the "suicide by cop" angle of the incident. The Charles Whitman article did not address this angle. The book I recently cited specifically stated McCoy thought that Whitman could have shot him and Martinez, and chose not to, because he was waiting for cops to come shoot him.
- So, no, I do not agree that McCoy's life is of "only prurient interest". Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do say a little in a lot of words, don't you? In this case you might make a better point by saying less. I notice a lot of rhetoric, but got bored at about word ten. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For no other reason than the antics of certain 'random IPs' *cough* on AN/I. HalfShadow 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just want to clearly note that although a registered editor was blocked based on the assumption that certain 'random IPs' *cough* on AN/I, they did not run a checkuser on those IPs, all of which tracerouted and geolocated far, far away from where the registered editor is located. So I don't accept that as a valid rationale. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I found the article interesting, "15 minutes of fame" doesn't seem like a valid notability criterion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He was notable enough that he was sought out by interviewers following the Virginia Tech shootings 41 years later. So please consider this "41 years of fame" -- not "15 minutes of fame". Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks to me more like 15 minutes, with another 15 minutes 41 years later. Interviewers do dig up old stories now and then. There are a bunch of "Where are they now?" stories I would write if I had the time and was getting paid for it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't feel this subject is notable enough to merit his own article. Perhaps it could be merged into a broader article documenting the entire incident? Chickenmonkey 00:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with qualification: I am persuaded by the argument that this article falls under the prohibitions of WP:BLP1E, and thus should be deleted. However, I wish that when the determination is made, we could have final decisions include clear "arguments" like a court decision would from a judge. My concern is that it be absolutely clear that we are deleting this issue only because of WP:BLP1E, and that the personal appeals of the subject and/or any high ranking members of the WP team have no persuasive power. I would like it clear that we are not setting a precedent that personal appeals from BLP subjects have any bearing on our decisions. That is, if a person meets our guidelines, and our information is properly sourced, that person does not have recourse to have the info removed for any reason. I know that this is current policy, but I wouldn't want this AfD to make others believe that our policy is shifting. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The suicide by cop quote really must be kept. Also, if this is a BLP1E issue, the proper course is to create and article about the event, or redirect to the one that exists. In this case, the article is the shooter's article. I don't think that's logical, exactly. Houston McCoy is not an element in the life of Charles Whitman, he's an element in the U of Texas shootings. - BalthCat (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record -- although several people have claimed McCoy, or his family, requested the article be deleted, no one has cited an OTRS ticket number, showing that this request was received and verified to be from McCoy or his family. Maybe there was a (unverified) request, left by an IP on the now deleted talk page. That would be far from sufficient for me to trust it really came from McCoy or his family, as some pov-pushers have been known to spoof that kind of request. Geo Swan (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have recently begun to think about BLP1E in a fresh light, and think that the way we currently frame it may be missing a core point and therefore leading to some problems. BLP1E is one aspect of a wider problem. The real question is not "Is this person known for only one event" - although that's almost always a valid indicator pointing to the real question "Do we have enough information about this person to write a legitimate biography?" In this case, we know almost nothing from reliable sources, outside of what he did on the day of the shooting. We know he filed a workman's comp case years later. We know he didn't get a penny from suing MGM about the movie. But we don't know a million and one other things, some subset of which would make him independently interesting and allow us to write a quality biography. I should like to add that just as "Jimbo wants it deleted" is no argument for having it deleted (and is not an argument that anyone actually made), "Jimbo wants it deleted" is no argument for keeping it, and a bit insulting to those who happen to agree with me, most of whom I haven't spoken to about this entry at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard biographical information, d.o.b., marital status, academic career, career prior to, and after, whatever made an individual noteworthy is desirable. I suggest however, it should all be considered incidental. I have suggested however that there are individuals who merit an article in the wikipedia, even though we know absolutely nothing about them. False Geber was my poster-boy. In the middle ages, when books were written long-hand, some educated men, who wanted to have their ideas widely distributed, even if they didn't get credit, attributed their new original work, to a famous scholar from the past. "False Geber" attributed his work to Jābir ibn Hayyān, an Arabic polymath who had lived several hundred years earlier. Unlike most of the other guys who attributed their new original work to other people "false Geber" published something truly important, the process for purifying and using Sulfuric acid. So Issac Asimov included him in his excellent Biographical Encyclopedia of Science, which covered the 1000 most important scientists in history, in Asimov's position. I wrote more about the lessons Asimov's biography of "false geber" hold for us here, and here.
- The Comment above states "But we don't know a million and one other things, some subset of which would make him independently interesting and allow us to write a quality biography." I'd like to know whether you are suggesting we delete all biographies that are not "quality biographies"? If so could you please explain whether a "quality biography" differs from the biographies that comply with our existing wikipolicies on biographies? It seems to me that this biography does comply with our policies on biographies.
- Two years or so ago one of the volunteers who focussed on organizing our biographical articles told me the wikipedia then had over 800,000 biographical articles. How many of those articles have gone through the vetting process to be considered "good quality" articles? Isn't it a very small fraction? Articles that are read frequently by intelligent readers, who are also contributors are the ones most likely to officially listed as "good quality" articles. But other articles, that cite good WP:RS, and are written from a neutral point of view, remain useful, even if they lack polish. Depending on the topics that interest them, I bet there are regular readers, who find the wikipedia an excellent resources, who have never read one of our "good quality" articles or featured articles. Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking over Jimbo's commentary, I don't believe he used the term "quality biography" in the same sense as "good article" or "featured article" as you are interpreting the phrase. Rather, it seems to me he meant "quality" in the sense of containing sufficient biographical information about a person's life that the article merits being called a "biography". This article fails being a biography in that sense. And to your last point, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article does, roughly, comply with our policies on biographies (in terms of how it is written and sourced), but it does not comply with our policies on notability. Wikipedia is a work in progress and, as such, it currently includes loads of articles that, while being of good quality, are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. A quality biography could be written on any of us. The benchmark for inclusion is, I would think, notability. Houston McCoy does not meet that benchmark. The fact that we do not have an adequate amount of reliable sources to improve the quality of our coverage on him is merely a supplementary detail. Chickenmonkey 21:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google book search for his name and the word "shooting" and you see many books about such things do mention him, this a notable case. [13] He also, decades after the shooting event, was interviewed by national news media, asked to give expert commentary on the Virgina Tech shooting. People still consider him notable enough to write about and talk to. Dream Focus 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an easy one, the article has been on my watch list for about a year now, and i looked at it a few times in this period always wondering and trying to figure out why it was there. in our encyclopedia. With no satisfying answer. I agree with Jimbo and some of the other editors that there is not enough substance to write a valuable notable biography. IQinn (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one event was clearly notable enough for an article, but not for a standalone biography due solely to his involvement in that one event. First Light (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't know enough to write a proper bio; the information in this article is covered elsewhere; and the subject has requested that it be deleted, which means there's a strong presumption in favour of deletion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Much as I hate to hop on the bandwagon, I really did try to think of a response to Jimbo's point that articles on people should be quality biographies. The only thing I could think of was the issue of not much being known of someone save for one event, and I think that information would be better dealt with in the article on the event itself. If someone else can think of an objection, I would happily change my #vote (not that it would matter), but I honestly can't think of one. My thoughts ran to Anaxamander, a greek philosopher of whom we know next to nothing, but that article is far, far more informative than this. I'm torn here. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:15, 26 June 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) 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deck Cheese[edit]

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

Non-Notable company, Fails WP:CORP, only claim to any form of notability is that of association. Codf1977 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable lable and promotional. --Wintonian (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 June 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 Mario role-playing games#Paper Mario 3DS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario DS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has wrong title, no references, and not enough information known to have its own article. It should remain as a section for now in the Mario role-playing games article as all the information over there for Paper Mario 3DS was pasted here. It should be deleted to prevent restoration of the game under the wrong title. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Notable, yet to be released game, would seem to fit nicely into the other Mario article, so merge and redirect as per 1st AfD. --Wintonian (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mario role-playing games#Paper Mario 3DS. SNS (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect do not delete. Looks like WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply as there is actual coverage. But that coverage is weak. For now let's keep it as a redirect, but we'll be restoring this once more information comes out. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is under the wrong name though. There is no such game for the Nintendo DS but for the upcoming system Nintendo 3DS. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article can be moved to something else like Paper Mario (3DS game). SNS (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this game WILL be. Screenshots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWFlash (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For right now, redirect to Mario role-playing games#Paper Mario 3DS until there is sufficient reliable information out there (aside from Nintendo's own website) to spin back out. –MuZemike 01:56, 24 June 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. –MuZemike 01:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penal code of Korea[edit]

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

Unreferenced article created by editor who was previously banned for disruptive editing and has created other CSD or AFD nominated articles. Editor has made no attempt to provide references, instead just plays about with odd wiki and html formatting Biker Biker (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears as though with a little work it could be a legitimate article, but I'm not sure I could do it. I posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea in attempt to find some people who might know more. Location (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp defiantly a valid notable article, just needs cleaning up, expanding and sourcing - much like most articles by new users really. I have cleaned up the Wiki formatting of the list, but before we start sourcing or anything we need to know whether we are talking about North or South Korea, I assume South but to be on the safe side. --Wintonian (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Law of South Korea or Law of North Korea (to whichever the article's content refers), leaving a disambiguation directing to both. The very term "Korea" is too ambiguous, and can refer to the ROK or DPRK, which have very different legal and penal codes. Intelligentsium 23:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Korea had a penal code before its division. Material such as this indicate that there are plenty of sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remark. Although the article lacks sources that I can trace, this is clearly about South Korea; see Law of South Korea#The Korean Penal Code. The 42 "chapters of specific provisions" mentioned there correspond neatly to the 42 crimes identified here. --Lambiam 20:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on specific legal codes, and that's a good thing. This is one more. TJRC (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A content fork to Law of South Korea if this is about South Korea.Biophys (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fork; a more detailed treatment of the subject than the more general article Law of South Korea. See WP:Content forking#Acceptable types of forking. TJRC (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid stub. It tells: "conspiracy of the foreign troubles". Where it came from [14]? Looks like OR trouble.Biophys (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be cleaned up (to put it mildly), agreed. Not a content fork, however. TJRC (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An acceptable content fork. The subject is notable, although the article is poorly written at best. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:10, 26 June 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) 00:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The auction case[edit]

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

Notability of this event is questionable. Schuhpuppe (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Just look at the author's history of disruptive editing, previous article deletion and editing ban. This is just like the editor's other soapboxing and has no place on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears as though with a little work it could be a legitimate article (i.e. "A Seoul court is expected to make a ruling Thursday on the largest private information leakage case involving the online open market site, Auction, owned by eBay. The system was hacked into in February 2008."[15]), but I'm not sure I could do it. I posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea in attempt to find some people who might know more. Location (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the link noted above, the article appears to be about Internet Auction Co.. Location (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no idea how significant and thus notable this, but if it could it be merged with the other mentioned article about the company which appears to be really only a single line that might work. Also I am sure I read somewhere that because a user is blocked and/ or has bad edits that is no reason to delete other edits or articles by the same user. --Wintonian (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I can not see how it is notable, but if someone can fix it and move it to a better title, with reliable sources, all the power to you. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The auction site referenced is not identified. As I read this, this case is at the lowest trial court level in South Korea, i.e., not at a court of appeals or supreme court, where it might be setting precedent. This looks to be just another lawsuit; nothing to indicate that it's notability. The poor quality of the article and the use only of references that cannot be readily confirmed aren't grounds for deletion, but they certainly don't help matters. TJRC (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - withdrawn by nominator, no arguments given in favour of deletion (non-admin close) Guest9999 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Institute student body[edit]

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

Article was PRODed, but I think it's too long-standing an article for that and needs some proper discussion. This is procedural, and I'm not recommending Delete - I'd probably come down on the side of keeping it and looking for 3rd-party references myself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Xavier Institute student and staff and strip of cruft. I didn't realise when PRODing, due to the category this was in, that it wasn't an article about a fictional educational institution. Claritas § 17:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup We all know there are plenty of RS for the X-Men, many of which will mention Xavier's school. As such, there is probably room for such a list of attendees like this, but it's not clear to me whether or not such a list belongs at this title, or in this form. Currently, it's cited to primary sources, which isn't particularly helpful. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If you want to discuss the article's development, please use its talk page. AFD is not provided for this purpose - please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boing! said Zebedee, that is not a valid reason to send something to an AFD. Please withdraw your nomination so we can close this thing quickly. Dream Focus 04:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I should have started a Talk page discussion rather than bring it here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Considering the clear consensus so far, and the requests above, I'm happy to withdraw Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would this AfD have been avoided if this was named "List of Xavier Institute students"? - BalthCat (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - I raised the AfD (in error, it seems) purely because it had been PRODed and I thought it needed further discussion (Whether the PROD would have been avoided is another question) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 22 June 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. –MuZemike 01:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thimio Gogozoto=[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural re-listing, per the outcome of this deletion review. The main justification for reconsideration was based on the argument that a reference purporting to verify a posthumous military award (which may have also provided more in-depth coverage as well) was not considered in the closing of the AfD (as well as other concerns regarding sock-puppetry and other misbehavior). There was considerable debate whether or not this award met the criteria for WP:MILPEOPLE (which it itself merely an essay), or if the cited coverage was substantial enough for WP:BIO and/or WP:N. This determination was complicated by the fact that the sources are both non-English and offline. As this is a procedural listing, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been decorated by the People's Republic of Albania on 1962 with the highest award for an Albanian who has given his life for a cause other than the Albanian cause; passes WP:MILPEOPLE. Cheers. kedadial 23:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in any sources, even non-English ones, his name is just listed along with many others. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:N. Regarding the award, all we have to go on is the word of several Albanian users. And even then he does not pass WP:MILPEOPLE. Athenean (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since there is not a SINGLE additional argument provided after the 1st nomination (Apart from User:Zjarri's attempt to misinform the community) I'm voting for deletion as per previous arguments. Also the supposed medal he got wasn't the country's highest award (doesn't meet wp:n for sure)Alexikoua (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which attempt to misinform the community? What is this accusation? Can you provide a diff about when he tried to misinform anybody? As far as I remember, the main problem for this relist was that user:CrazyMartini, a sock, but now readmitted had voted in the process. In addition two Greek users (Megistias and Michael X the White) resurrected from the dead just to vote for the deletion of this article. Indeed they had been idle for awhile. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 14:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignore wp:npas vios) The reason the we have a 2nd nomination is because [[16]] the lack of a reference was explicitly mentioned by the closing admin as the reason for deletion, a relist to evaluate the new (?) source provided by ZjarriRrethus will be helpful. I note also that a participant in the debate wrote "Keep if [the medal] can be verified". (19 June). Zjarris "new" source (doesn't meet wp:verify -its offline) [[17]]) about the medal was added on 6 June. The afd closed on 8 June [[18]] with the reason that "Lacking a citation for that medal, there's nothing here." The closing admin, was full aware of this 'source' and gave this answer [[19]]. Now we have a second nomination without additional sources and arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically if Zjarri will be online in the next 6 days he'll scan the book and we keep the article. Let's see if we'll be lucky. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to say that this medal isn't Albanian's highest honor, so even if he scans it, it will not pass wp:n. (You are informed about this in the relist discussion).Alexikoua (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : As in the first nomination, we have not One source to make him notable. A medal we can't verify, moreover, as stated,this medal was not the country's highest award.CrazyMartini (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes Wikipedia:BIO#Any_biography point 1. As I said in the relist procedure [20], Gogozoto cannot be held to pass notability through MILPEOPLE, because the Spanish War is a sui generis case. In case this AfD should decide for deletion, which I would find very odd, we'll create an article on the list of the fallen Albanians in the Spanish War and Thimio will redirect there. However, I think he deserves an article as the only hero in the Spanish War from Chameria. I'm sure other material will be added to the article in the future. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 09:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A redirection is appropriate, since wp:MILPEOPLE and BIO#Any_biography prohibits creation of such articles (wiki policy doesn't agree that if he is from Chameria he deserves his own article).Alexikoua (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said Keep, because Gogozoto meets BIO#Any_biography which says: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. He has received many post mortem awards, the highest of which is Per Merita Patriotike, the highest that could have been received for an Albanian for deeds unrelated to Albania. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 10:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well you misuse now wp:BIO#Any_biography in order to claim that wp:MILPEOPLE is nonsense.Alexikoua (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? I'm not misusing any wiki policies: I think Gogozoto clearly passes wp:BIO#Any_biography, and as I already explained my stand on WP:MILPEOPLE during the relisting process, MILPEOPLE IMO doesn't apply to Gogozoto. Hope this is more clear. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very weird argument, according to this logic every single soldier (also auxiliary personnel, nurses etc.) that fought at wwi should have an article here, since they got this medal (some 10million people).Alexikoua (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Athenean. A Macedonian (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Athenean. Fails on requisites, both of sources and being notable.Megistias (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Athenean good explanation. --Tadija^speaks 19:17, 25 June 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. Only because there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen University[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional educational establishment. No significant coverage in independent third-party sources, so fails WP:GNG. While the last AFD was closed as "keep", no significant coverage was demonstrated, and no references have since been added to the article. Notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) by consensus, so the fact that it is an element in a notable fiction should not be a justification for keeping. Claritas § 16:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see nothing that has changed for the worse since the last AfD, just 4 months ago. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still no significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 17:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am at a loss to understand why this article, out of all the Discworld articles, is being repeatedly targeted for deletion. This is a very notable fictional location in a very notable series of novels. It currently serves as the redirect for several notable fictional characters, such as Librarian (Discworld), Mustrum Ridcully and Ponder Stibbons. Were this article deleted, all those other articles would have to be recreated as well. It's not as if this is the only, or even the worst, example of its type on Wikipedea. I fail to see why it is being made a whipping boy. This article is much improved since its last AfD and will improve in future. Serendi ^pod ous 18:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you substantiate the claim that it is "very notable". There's currently no sources at all in the article, and I can't find any significant independent coverage on the net. Thanks. Claritas § 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is referenced in dozens of scholarly papers. That should show that it at least is notable. Serendi ^pod ous 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with the first two pages of these papers:

"UC can build on land-grant idea" isn't about the Discworld plot element. It just happens to use the phrase.
"AMERICA'S GREAT SUCCESS STORY--THE LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY" is the same paper under a different title.
"White Knowledge and the Cauldron of Story: The Use of Allusion..." isn't independent because it's written by Pratchett
"The Blame Culture: school effectiveness guarantees failures–Discuss" makes a reference to it, but doesn't exactly provide significant coverage.
"22.1 Coreset for Directional Width" isn't independent because it's written by Pratchett
"He Do the Time Police in Different Voices" - mentions in passing, not a reliable source.
"The space eater" - mentions a passing, again not a RS
"Islam and Democracy in Turkey: Toward a reconciliation?" - nothing to do with Pratchett
"Mathematics, the media, and the public" - some coverage.
"RANDOM JOTTINGS" - not RS
"Enhanced User Experiences through Relationship Management" - mentioned in passing, not significant coverage.
ALEXIAD - doesn't seem to be a RS
" Discussion Paper on Copyright and Intellectual Property Issues in the open and E-Learning Environment" - no significant coverage.
"A study of the translation of names and invented words in Terry Pratchett's Soul Music" - not significant coverage, translation study.
"Teach the Children: Education and Knowledge in Recent Children's Fantasy" - can't access to see whether there's significant coverage.

A lot of trivial mentions, and little substantial coverage. 21:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as last time. Nominator is encouraged to add sources for this notable fictional element. (Hint: the previous nomination has plenty) Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way this should be a redlink. It would be tenable to argue for a trim, merge and redirect to the amazingly notable Discworld, but it's simply untenable to argue for outright deletion because this is such a plausible search term. Speedy close and take the keep/redirect discussion to the talk page.—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep : Renominating after 4 months without any policy having changed is simply forum shopping. If the nom has problems with the previous closure, DRV is the correct venue. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Seems to be a frivolous nomination. A search of scholarly sources immediately reveals detailed coverage in sources such as "The character name translations in the Finnish translation of Terry Pratchet's Lords and Ladies". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not significant coverage of the university, that's just someone using the names of the fictional elements as part of an exercise in translation comparison......Claritas § 13:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it is!. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not a big fan of articles on fictional places and people, but if we are going to have them, we certainly should have one on this topic. I see no more reason to delete this article than to delete all the very many other articles on Pratchett places and people. Deleting this would also, as suggested above, mess up a lot of links. The Pratchett fans need to work on sources, but is anyone challenging any material here? It all looks correct. Readers will want to come to read it. We would be the worse without it. Deletion should not be considered. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If I remember the last AfD, the librarian was actually notable, while the university was not. Probably a few other characters in there with RS mentions. Best to keep in all in one place until someone wants to make a bunch of GAs out it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article should not be removed until there is something better to replace it with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.188.101.65 (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was nominated in November of 2009, then in February of 2010, and now again in June of 2010. We don't need to keep doing this every few months. Notability was established already. Those who actually have read the series say so. Dream Focus 21:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even on their own, multiple widespread passing references to the Unseen University would evidence its notability in contemporary popular culture and beyond. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 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) 00:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boner[edit]

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

A Google hits scan shows nothing but his MySpace page and only a few other non-notable and unimportant trivial sites. The creator (Dandog9209d) is, given his username, Daniel Boner himself and looking for self-promotion. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability shown. lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:13, 21 June 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. A reasonable case has been made that the sources are out there. No prejudice against renomination a few months down the line if they aren't found and added. Shimeru 17:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X-Mansion[edit]

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

Fictional institution which fails WP:GNG. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Claritas § 16:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Check out the Doris Kindersly books, you know the 'Ultimate Guide To Whatever'. Plus, the structure has been around since the 1960s. It has been featured in no less then three major motion pictures, multiple cartoon series, dozens of series, thousands of comic books, who knows how many video games and heck, it's been part of multiple action figure displays. Lots42 (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "Doris Kindersly" book certainly doesn't meet WP:RS, and can't be used to substantiate notability. Claritas § 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Doris books not reliable? Lots42 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of teh X-Men articles. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major fictional element of a franchise that's spanned 3 genres (comics, TV, film). There's plenty of discussion of the building: this and this for starters. Since integrating this into any other X-men article might well violate WP:LENGTH despite any efforts at cleanup, it's clear that the best thing to do is to keep such a notable fictional element in its own article. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not independent coverage - it's published by Marvel. There's no genuine notability or significant independent coverage, and per WP:PLOT, Wikipedia isn't for detailed coverage of the plots of works of fiction. We should have plot summaries, and if WP:LENGTH is becoming an issue, the content should go. Claritas § 07:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly notable aspect of the X-Men comic book franchise for over 40 years, appearing in all aspects of the media from comics, to television, to film. Same as Baxter Building. BOZ (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But no significant independent coverage in reliable sources.... Claritas § 12:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Artw found some independent sources, so that requirement should now be satisfied. BOZ (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would happier with a few more, TBH (and the second one I added may not qualify as independent). Still, they are certainly out there for the finding. Artw (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

......significant coverage in multiple independent sources is needed. Claritas § 17:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per lack of independent reliable sources. Reyk _YO! 13:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of independent reliable sources.[21][22] I didn't see any that are substantial, but I didn't look to hard. You have to sort look through the books to find ones that aren't by Marvel, but they exist.[23][24][25] We need someone with Lexis Nexis. There's bound to be articles on the special effects in the movies in offline magazines. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment If this is going to be deleted, I would take a look, for example, at Asteroid M, which is much worse off than this in terms of references, notability, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is a major comic book landmark. Even if there is not enough reliable third-party sources (though I disagree) I would say this is a case where a concensus can be reached to ignore all rules.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:43, 25 June 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. JForget 15:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Devon School[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional school. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:N. Claritas § 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is false as a search immediately reveals coverage in scholarly sources such as On the Playing Fields of Devon. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That paper contains significant coverage of A Separate Peace, but not the fictional school itself. Claritas § 13:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Likely subject of search, in major novel, discussed in scholarly works SouthernCritic111 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 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.

Malory Towers[edit]

The result was Speedy Keep - nomination withdrawn due to edits to the article, no other delete !votes. Claritas § 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

The fictional school itself does not meet WP:N, as there is little coverage of the school in reliable independent sources. The series itself is undoubtedly notable, but should be covered in an independent article. I can find plenty of sources which substantiate the notability of the series of novels, but none which directly substantiate the notability of the setting. Claritas § 15:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the first sentence is about the fictional school, the article appears to be about the series; the lead section needs rewriting to clarify this. snigbrook (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in Category:Fictional Schools, which suggests that it is supposed to be about the school. I agree that most of the article is encyclopaedic material concerning the series, but I wasn't sure whether it was acceptable to actually change the subject of an article by rewriting the introduction. Claritas § 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's categorised as a school and a series; the article was originally about the series and most of the content still is. snigbrook (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate then to simply rewrite the introduction so that the article is about the series ? I've got no issues with having an article concerning the series of books. 07:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep The nomination asserts that "there is little coverage of the school in reliable independent sources". No evidence is provided for this claim which seems absurd as one can soon find sources such as The Encyclopaedia of Girls' School Stories, International companion encyclopedia of children's literature‎, The Oxford encyclopedia of children's literature‎, etc. just by looking. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The series of books is notable, and there's evidence of that, but there's no significant coverage of the fictional school. Claritas § 07:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malory Towers is the natural title for the article, just like Famous Five, Billy Bunter, Noddy and other series of children's books. The school is the eponymous feature in this case and its features are certainly covered by reliable independent sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. The only issue with this article is its first sentence in my opinion, which suggests that it is about the fictional school, not the series - "Malory Towers is a fictional Cornish seaside boarding school which features in a series of six novels by British children's author Enid Blyton". Claritas § 11:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BEFORE which explains that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The article now reflects a notable book series. Aiken ♫ 22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - per WP:BEFORE, I probably should have just been bold and changed the subject of the article. Claritas § 13:34, 21 June 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) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports day[edit]

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

The Article is totally unsalvageable and contains little encyclopaedic information. Sources have been searched for that are reliable since January 2008, but have not been found. This article therefor fails, WP:Notability, WP:Reliable, WP:Verifiable, WP:Not and WP:Cruft Lucy-marie (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Possibly better belongs in a dictionary. There is a tradition of a school sports day in at least the UK. Whilst no single sports day is notable, the concept itself probably is. Whilst a search of "sports day" returns little, "school sports day" returns much more - typically the type of story that appears in Criticsms of ... articles and sections. Whilst the dreaded criticisms section is currently unreferenced, the stories covered sound familiar and are attributed to the type of people (Melanie Phillips) I would expect to hear them from. Pit-yacker (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When we delete something, it should be because the articles content in utterly unworthy of being in an encyclopedia, not because something is too hard to reference. Looking over the "What links here" section part of the problem appears to be this page is only maintained by the Japanese Cultural Task Force (of which it's only mentioned as a possible overlap) I imagine if you got an enducation task force on the topic you'd find that it may not be so hard to cite. --Deathawk (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is our editing policy to keep articles such as this and improve them. The claims of the nomination are not supported by evidence and are easy to rebut. Finding sources is easy - just click on the search links provided above. One soon finds sources such as this which provide ample support for the content. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree it's unsalvagable, and there are plenty of sources, such as books. Aiken ♫ 22:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please work away on the page and prove its worth.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:00, 20 June 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) 00:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Boehler[edit]

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

Non notable candidate for state office, has held no previous elected office, no notable achievements. WuhWuzDat 14:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not too hot on policy for political bio pages, but I can't see how this article meets general notability criteria. Sources could be better, but at least it is sourced. Weak delete, if Wiki policy regarding political candidates allows this page then I would say keep DRosin (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for politician notability can be found here. WuhWuzDat 15:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria for being a "non notable candidate"? Unless there is an guideline that I have not seen outlining a definition for that phrase, I would argue that receiving top ballot placement in the primary election in what is considered one of 4 crucial seats for the Colorado State Senate would be considered a "notable candidacy." Would it help the article to mention (with citation of course) the importance of the race to both main political parties?Grassrootsgirl (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the criteria for politician notability here. WuhWuzDat 15:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Wuhwuzdat, I looked it up and in "politician notability" it says:

"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

I believe this article qualifies in content as Boehler has been given coverage in at least three local reliable sources: The Durango Herald, the Montrose Daily Press and The Watch. The coverage by these sources has not been mere "mentions" but full articles relating largely to Boehler. Grassrootsgirl (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 15:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local press coverage or not, he's still only a candidate and thus fails WP:POLITICIAN. 17:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.249.92 (talk)
Delete the coverage is only in local press and is the type of routine coverage that every candidate running for office everywhere receives. Thus he fails notability criteria in WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any notability shown prior to candidacy, and candidacy isn't of itself an indicator of notability. I don't know how much notability the Congressional thing confers, but the link doesn't seem to be going anywhere at present - for me at least. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon, Thanks for the info on the link. I fixed the link so it works properly now.Grassrootsgirl (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Boehler was mentioned along with 393 others, so far as I can see. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:POLITICIAN it states: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability..." However it does not state that being "only a candidate" as the unsigned user above says equates as a failure of criteria, simply not a guarantee. I will expand some other areas of notability. Thanks all for the input. Grassrootsgirl (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being in a primary election for state senate is very very far from notable; generally, even major-party candidates for US Senate only get their own pages if they receive significant media coverage. I don't see anything here passes the bar of notability. Receiving the same congressional citation as 400 other people does not confer notability either.Minnowtaur (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN as clearly outlined by others. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most significant press he got as a marshal was for the circumstances of losing his job in 2008:[26][27][28]. This and some passing coverage of a run for a state senate post doesn't add up to notability. Fences&Windows 23:42, 24 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Prantera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still little to no assertion of notability in this article after 3 years since the last AfD. Essentially no coverage of this author in reliable sources, so fails the WP:GNG.

Weak keep Article needs cleaning up but I think the author does just about meet notability criteria. I agree with outcome and comments on previous AfD. I think nom.'s statement that there is 'essentially no coverage of this author in reliable sources' is a bit harsh, but I can see that the article in its current state could benefit from an AfD discussion. DRosin (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—There's little available on her biography but her books are widely reviewed and she is listed in the International Who's Who of Authors and Writers 2004. Perhaps marginally notable.—RJH (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 17:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has has multiple books published by extremely notable publisher Bloomsbury [29][30][31][32] Her works have been reviewed by the Los Angeles Times [33], the New York Times [34] and The Herald [35] just to name a few.--Oakshade (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews, albeit brief, in major newspapers look good enough for me. If she were a musician this type of coverage would pass notability; it's harder to reach this level of coverage for books.Minnowtaur (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted above, Prantera's books, while largely out of print at present, have been published by major publishers and reviewed in respectable journals including the TLS. [36] She's in that difficult mid-list position where, because she hasn't published since 2003, most of her books are not much referred to online. John Self (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable...and she gleaned reviews in major papers when her books were in print....Vartanza (talk) 08:16, 22 June 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 Deleted per CSD. I suspect the editor doesn't understand notability as against advertising, but I will gladly userfy the article on request to enable independent notability to be established. Rodhull andemu 23:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Première Hotel[edit]

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

Second version of this page, but still spam. Speedy notice added and removed a few times now so let the community decide Nuttah (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails to say why the hotel is notable. I can't see anything to grant it notability either. It hasn't opened yet, so can hardly use its record as a hotel (e.g. guests, reputation). The building appears relatively new so the history of the building can't be used either. Equally the facilities are hardly anything of note. Being close to a branch of Tesco would qualify 90% of hotels in the UK for an article. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Spam DRosin (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete article has had the CSD template removed and has allready been deleted a few day ago via CSD. I am now of to read up on the WP:DUCK test again as it seems possible that The creator and tag remover might be the same, and I have replaced the CSD tag. --Wintonian (talk) 21:39, 19 June 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. Shimeru 07:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCH Sharks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable British University American Football team. British university sports teams are rarely of note within their own institution, never mind in the wider world. The handful of exceptions are confined to more popular sports such as rowing, soccer, cricket and rugby (American Football is of niche interest in the UK). A quick Google returns nothing beyond sites directly related to the team and its rivals. Article is unreferenced and given the lack of independent and reliable sources there is little prospect of being able to reference the material.

As this team draws its membership from a number of colleges I do not see any obvious article to merge its content to. This of course ignores the issue that a merge simply shifts the issue of verifiability to another article

The previous nomination almost two years ago appears to have failed largely as it was a batch nomination of all British University American Football teams. The whole batch was failed on points about individual teams (such as at the time two teams called Glasgow Tigers shared the same article). Since that nomination, little has changed at this article and around half (21) of the articles in the original (41) nomination have been deleted at individual Afds. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it stands, unreferenced and without indicating notability, seems like a delete to me. I can't find any reliable sources for it. As it stands, delete DRosin (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to grant this team notability, so it seems to be a non-notable team about a niche sport in Britain. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's very rare for a British university sports team to meet WP:GNG, and this team does not appear to be one of the few exceptions to that rule. Pfainuk talk 09:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly. Not notable for our standards here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep University American Football in the UK does not have the same coverage as University American Football in the US, but to say this team is non notable is false. The University of Hull Sharks invented the league in 1985, and the history of the league and the UCH Sharks can be found at www.buafl.net. The original history can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Collegiate_American_Football_League. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayJayBWFC (talk • contribs) 09:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC) — JayJayBWFC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: British Collegiate American Football League is itself an unreferenced article, covering a subject of dubious notability (little mention outside websites of teams that competed in the league). I could invent the North West England Quidditch League, that doesn't automatically make me or the league notable. What would make it notable is significant independent coverage from reliable sources (for example, but not limited to coverage in the press or media, books about the subject, published papers about the subject) - something which UCH Sharks and BCAFL lack. At the same time, buafl.net hardly constitutes an independent source. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:00, 23 June 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. –MuZemike 01:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporatocracy[edit]

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

This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but I would like more views as it has many contributors and a substantial history (dating from 2001, it must be one of our oldest articles), and there are versions in several other WPs. The PROD nomination, by R-41 (talk · contribs), read

"Article uses other articles from Wikipedia as sources which is against Wikipedia's guidelines of not using its own articles as sources. The article lacks references for important points and statements in the article and appears to be original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. The article uses highly dubious and unreliable sources that have been criticized by scholars, such as the film Zeitgeist."

This is a procedural nomination: I express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where does the article use the film Zeitgeist as a source? I see it only mentioned under the 'See also' section. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search yields results lending to proof that the term "corporatocracy" is used by a number of people. It's quite possible that this article is simply a victim of [largely] substandard contributions and is not a fictitious/irrelevant term. I suggest --rather than judging this article on a citation to Zeitgeist which may or may not be there-- people here quickly take a look at other sources on the topic. If suitable sources are readily available, we than ad a few of them where we can and delete any other outlandish parts. Due to the nature of this topic and the kind of crowd it can draw attention from, this article may need to be locked from unregistered users if the problem of improper citation continues. 66.65.94.53 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Perkins uses and defines the term "corporatocracy" in his 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Perkins is interviewed in Zeitgeist: Addendum about his book so the film helped popularize Perkins' definition of the term. --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a potential article here, but this is seriously personal essayish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allformweek (talk • contribs) 06:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR without a prejudice for the article to be recreated using WP:RS and not OR. As it stands, the article should be entirely scrapped. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove large parts of its content (maybe everything except for the lead sentence), so that the article can be expanded again based on information taken from reliable source. "Corporatocracy" is not a neologism; is a term that is being used in political science, although there are many scolars who do not use the term, of course. One possible definition of Corporatocracy is given in this book, but there may well be others. Cs32en Talk to me 14:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge with Crony capitalism. --Loremaster (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be merged with "crony capitalism" which is, "a pejorative term describing an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businesspeople and government officials" (WP entry) which is different from corporatocracy as described here, the latter applying in a situation where there is not a central role of 'success..depends on close relationship' See comment below.Harel (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporatocracy is not necessarily based on cronyism, so both the modus (objective vs. pejorative) and the meaning of both notions are different from each other. Cs32en Talk to me 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up, add sources The corporation, it has been argued, is the dominant social/economic institution of our times much as The Church, The Communist Party, the Monarchy in times/places past (e.g. argued in the movie The Corporation); certainly, whether "the" it is at least 'a' very dominant social/economic institution. The idea that societies are (while nominally under representative democracy or nominally 'free market') are in fact de facto, ruled or governed by national and transnational corporation. Prior to any normative judgments then, clearly it deserves an entry. Surprised there isn't another one, but as noted above crony capitalism is a different concept. I agree the present one should be cleaned up, better organized, and to cite more external sources. The movie The Corporation and the cources it cites, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader and others have done work on this and could and should be cited. The introduction should clarify that the concept applies to situation whose nominal political ("democracy", "representative democracy") or nominal economic ("free market", "regulated" market) name may be different, but the concept and reality of corporatocracy may still apply notwithstanding the nominal labels often/usually used. Harel (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corporatism as corporatocracy is a neologism. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first places I looked was that entry. However that is inappropriate for at least two reasons, first the concept deserves its own entry by virtue of the central influence if not domination by the modern corporation, and secondly, even the "Corporatism in politics and political economy" is not about today's modern national and transnational corporation and its power over the political and economic dimensions and indeed de facto 'management' role in these realms. A back link from a cleaned up version of an entry on Corporatocracy to some elements of the history in that section of "corporatism" might later be useful, however Harel (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't researched how common corporatocracy is. I know it's not very common, and yet I also know I've heard it before (not sure where), so not sure whether it's a "neologism" for WP purposes. If enough folks are for a rename, I think "Corporate Rule" or similar might be reasonable, keeping in mind again that we are referring to the modern corporation and its power over the political-economic regime within countries and over much of the world, not an entry about the history and other aspects in the article on 'corporatism'. So "Corporate Rule" might be as good as "Corporatocracy" (cracy from Krateo meaning 'rule' or government by) Harel (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I added 4 RS in external links in 1 minute. If there is any issue with the content, use RS to improve sections. There is such a term, instead tagging do not waste effort with unnecessary AFDs. Kasaalan (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.93.211.50 (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- 7 Links in External links is enough to build an article. Kasaalan (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 9 links. Kasaalan (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Harel. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three references, some quotes, and added a bit to include the economic (not just the political) dimensions of corporatocracy or a corporate-run country/society/world. Harel (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Chendy (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up. I looked to see if there's another article covering this topic into which this could be merged, and surprisingly, this is the only article and it's in bad shape. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps redirect to Military-Industrial Complex. It's a neologism, the article stitches together a few mentions of the phrase using bucketloads of original research and soapboxing. Fences&Windows 02:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A corporatocracy is, formally, a type of oligarchy. Just providing that bit of data for future reference, in case it's determined that corporatocracy is too much of a neologism, or if you're looking for a possible merge destination, or more neutral name. WCityMike 22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP defines oligarchy as "is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, military control, or religious hegemony." A few points come to mind. First, Monarchy has a separate entry despite being (by the above def.) a type of oligarchy. Second, corporatocracy is not about a segment of the human population dominating, but about corporations dominating the political and economic and legal decision-making of society (it's also certainly not the same as military-industrial complex, the latter being (in part) a result of corporate power) A last thought, google finds 60,000 hits for "corporatocracy" and Cs32en above cites a social studies textbook. I was (and still slightly am) leaning towards either 'corporate rule' or else, moving what's currently under the "Corporatism" to a better name and moving this entry to corporatism, but maybe corporatocracy (which unlike the 1500 hits for corporatarchy has 60,000 hits) might make sense.Harel (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to argue against my comment. I am not in favor of the article's deletion, nor am I in favor of it being kept, so whatever your position is, I'm not taking a position contrary to it. That is why I prefixed this as a comment, and not as a vote. I merely offered this information because, if this AfD ends in a way that would mean the corpatocracy article no longer exists separately, I am advising that the oligarchy article would, I think, be where people would then expect to find that information. WCityMike 02:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please keep in mind that "corporativism" is different from "corporatocracy", and "corporatism" may be confused with both terms. Cs32en Talk to me 03:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for clarifying WCityMike...I too was trying to clarify meanings. Cs32en, are you suggesting that the existing entry in WP for "corporatism" (not this one under AfD but the "corporatism" one) should be renamed "corporativism"? Feel free to reply on my talk page since this page is about Corporatocracy, not (directly) about corporatism) Harel (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a neologism, and the article combines several different sources in a manner that violates WP:SYNTH. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wiktionary has no definition of this word,[37] it'd be a good idea to create an entry based on how reliable sources define it. Fences&Windows 16:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cs32en above gave a useful link |book here but per above and other discussions the definition should more accurately and more broadly be not merely "system of government which.." but instead and more accurately be "an economic management and governance system which..." (see "Finally, the economic regime..." and following in current entry) Harel (talk) 05:44, 26 June 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. sufficient consensus - nearly unanimous - that it is well-referenced and not just a dicdef JForget 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Sanchez (sexual act)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sexual practice which in itself has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The word for it has, but per WP:NOTDIC articles on phrases/words are inappropriate here. Claritas § 10:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep per umpteen previous noms. Eliteimp (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really see what's changed since the last nomination. The article seems to be well enough referenced. And it's more than a dictionary definition, as it explains the idea in terms of popular culture. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DRosin (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After four failed attempts, I cannot see this AfD as anything but disruptive. I can't see how anyone, in good faith, could suggest a well-referenced, 400 word article is just a dictionary definition. Owen× ☎ 15:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a disruptive nomination. I personally had concerns with the article, and I wished to clarify the consensus of the previous discussion. I'd prefer some demonstration of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than a questioning of my motives. Assume good faith please. Claritas § 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure you would like to "clarify the consensus of the previous discussion", and want more "demonstration of significant coverage in reliable sources". Alas, I and the other three participants in this doomed AfD have already spent more time on it than it justifies. If you have a problem with the way the previous AfD was closed, you can take it to WP:DRV, and if you disagree with our standards for notability, you can discuss those on the relevant policy talk page. Nominations such as this serve no useful purpose, and waste people's time. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith please. If you're in favour of keeping, provide significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 16:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dan Savage, the FCC and South Park, among probably hundreds of others, are all appropriate, high profile sources for this article, and the article as stands goes well beyond a dictionary definition.Minnowtaur (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dan Savage, the FCC and South Park" hardly meet WP:RS. Claritas § 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per all of the above. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article as 13 sources, which clearly invalidates the nom rationale. To say that "the word for it has" but the practice has not appears nonsensical. And yes, renominating for the fifth time is disruptive, in my opinion, unless policies have changed significantly in the meantime, since it is akin to forum shopping. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition of a fictional sex act. Edison (talk) 18:38, 23 June 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 nominator's withdrawal. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Khan Mohmand[edit]

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

Writer of this article claims that the subject is a Pakistani politician, yet no evidence outside of Wikipedia can be found to assert this: 2 hits on google, both of which refer to Wikipedia, one to this article, the other to Shabqadar - information there was added by an IP address, and simply appears to have been copied or used as an internal source to the article I've nominated.

~~No external news coverage, in English or Urdu anywhere, and the link to Dr Tariq Khan appears to have been an attempt at a walled garden.~~

Nothing special about this guy makes me think he's suitable for inclusion - Speedy declined under A7 Bio, so bringing it to the floor for some opinions. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 10:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN - Article subject IS notable, error in the source searching was due to a misspelling of his name in the article title. I hold my hands up to this one, I made a balls of it :) Suggest to closing admin - move to correct title at Mohammad Ali Khan Mohmand upon closure. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 22:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable sources to show notability. - EdoDodo ^talk 10:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. On the subject of a walled garden, Tariq Kahn (doctor) is now also at AfD. andy (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm pretty sure this is the guy in which case he's notable. However the purpose of the article definitely seems to be to promote his non-notable relative Tariq Kahn (doctor) who is now also at AfD and is definitely not notable. andy (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a possibility that the lack of search hits reflects variant spellings of "Muhammad"? I am not saying this is the case, but variations should be checked, because even if this person is non-notable, I would think there should be some degree of online presence given his status. (Someone more knowledgeable than I about the subject-matter would be a better choice to do the checking.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above. andy (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a provincial legislature, confirmed by these sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 20 June 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. Article recreated as a redirect to Chester F.C. (2010), but I definitely won't stand in the way of anyone redirecting to a dab page or something. –MuZemike 01:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chester F.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Team has never appeared in the FA Cup, the normal threshold for notability for English football clubs. Most references are to non-independent sources or blog; BBC entry is focussed on stadium rather than team. Kevin McE (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but the first two principles of page naming are that it should be:

Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).

Under these circumstances, it would make more sense that it remains where it is. Furthermore, Chester City is in the past now, as is its former name. It should look more to the future, hence the new Chester and the very least that they should do is mention on the page that Chester F.C. was the predecessor's former name. Those who were fans of Chester City before its dissolution and probably now fans of Chester would probably agree with my sentiment. There are many more lower-ranked obscure teams with its own page and as they are an 8th tier team, they deserve more than a (2010) suffix at the end of their name. Finally, as I'm sure you know, the new Chester F.C. cannot compete in the F.A Cup in the season after their foundation, so what do you expect us to do, wait until next year then remove the suffix? Exodus94 (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one citation of a reliable independent source, so assertions of GNG are unsupported: we don't allow posting of players' articles on the assumption that they will play in the sort of match that triggers notability, so why would we for clubs? The now defunct Chester City was more commonly known, right up to its demise, as Chester, in the same way that Peterborough United or Macclesfield Town are normally discussed using simply the name of the town, without the qualifier. Kevin McE (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any help, Chester will imminently be receiving plenty of coverage on the League website, with club details, all results etc - just like all the other clubs in that league. It would be pretty silly to have 2010–11 Northern Premier League with one red link, and the Chester article would be endlessly recreated. I think the notability rule on the FA Cup was designed to weed out tiny clubs at Step 13 or whatever, not clubs with crowds in the hundreds or thousands who play at Step 8. But the article name should certainly have "2010" to differentiate between the original Chester and the new club. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, per previous discussion. Eliteimp (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eliteimp. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and keep Chester F.C. (2010) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are there two identical articles for this club? Chester F.C. and Chester F.C. (2010) - one needs to be a redirect to the other, depending on what the club is actually called. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article needs to be called Chester F.C. (2010) because there was a Chester F.C. prior to that club being renamed Chester City F.C. We can't have the article for the new club having the same name as the original club - not possible at all. There needs to be a dab suffix for the new club. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's been nominated 2010 times before... ;-)) Lugnuts (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per CSD:A10, as it is a duplicate of the longer-standing Chester F.C. (2010) (note also the hatnote about redirection is incorrect). Once the duplicate is removed, argument can then commence about the best name for the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I should also have said Keep Chester F.C. (2010), for the reasons already given. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and redirect it to Chester F.C. (2010) for reasons already stated. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The club is notable, and passes general notability guideline (article was kept at recent AFD). The duplicate should probably become a disambiguation page, as there is no consensus for either of the articles to be the primary topic. This AFD should probably be moved, but it's unclear whether this is the second for Chester F.C. (2010), or the first for Chester F.C. snigbrook (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Chester F.C. (2010) per above. Cavie78 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chester F.C. (2010), as that article is about the current club. --Jimbo^[online] 02:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice we already have a disambig page at Chester F.C. (disambiguation) - wouldn't it make more sense to use this page (Chester F.C.) for that purpose? Bettia (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, re-create as dab page per Bettia, redirect other dab page here......hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Livistona fulva[edit]

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

Article doesn't specify the subject. $Max Viwe$ (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Try Google Search, Max. It is a palm. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should satisfy minimum standards for a stub now. Hqb (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to close this AfD prematurely. The nomination is a mistake. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Current version of the article contains clear explanation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Plant and animal species are automatically notable. The subject is now properly identified and referenced. Nsk92 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, doesn't look like an advertisement anymore :) No delete votes standing. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neemrana Hotels[edit]

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

It looks like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themaxviwe (talk • contribs)

Keep, or rather Close AfD as improper nomination. The whole process that this article has undergone is absurd. This was an article created less than two hours ago by a new user and tagged for CSD within two minutes, which I just accidentally happened to notice when looking at Special:NewPages. I removed the db-spam tag believing it could be improved — which the tag explicitly allows — and the tag was re-added by User:Themaxviwe. I removed it again, and the tag got added twice more. After that, very soon, this AfD has been started. It does not appear the nominator has done any of the steps of WP:BEFORE, such as checking for notability, etc. (It does seem to be notable.) And "looks like an advertisement" is not grounds for deletion, since #10 of WP:BEFORE explicitly says "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." I'm extremely dismayed by the way speedy deletion seems to work here, with new users being scared away without being given time to fix their mistakes, and articles that quite probably can be fixed being relentlessly hounded by careless editors. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to add my main argument amidst my indignation. :-) A simple Google News Archive search reveals there are "aman+nath" several full-length articles in newspapers and the link (including leading publications like The Hindu and India Today). Shreevatsa (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The history of that article is a disgrace. The amount of newbie-biting that went on is excessive and there are clearly editors who need to receive warnings to be more patient with new users. ~~However, we can't leave this material in place regardless of the conduct issues. Closer should please consider who needs to be warned and then delete.~~Struck delete recommendation owing to substantial improvement.—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable and interesting organization, the article is referenced with multiple reliable third party sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to massive cleanup and sourcing by User:Shreevatsa. Hqb (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dito Hqb. Thanks User:Shreevatsa. --Triwbe (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced article; thanks to Shreevatsa's effort. Salih (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. piling on. good work shreevatsa--Sodabottle (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears very notable to me. Article is referenced and there appear to plenty more independent and reliable sources available. Although original article wasn't perfect (we can't expect newbies to get everything right first time), it appears to be shaping up well. The work the organisation has done also appears very interesting - and as an organisation specialising in bringing historic buildings back into use, possible somewhat unique. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 June 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) 00:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Schreck[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, notability questionable, article full of gossip. Yworo (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if someone wants to include in-line sources (with page numbers) to the books which allegedly support these allegations. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 19 June 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) 00:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Tether[edit]

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

PROD removed. notability? (google shows 14 hits, including blog + facebook-page) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources which can establish notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published writer, no mention in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that subject satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Hqb (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. Claritas § 17:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability Vartanza (talk) 08:15, 22 June 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. Shimeru 08:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Hamilton[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial site, but that's what this article feels like, even after continued cleanup. The subject's claim to fame is winning a "Mr. Universe" title in the over 60 category in 2004. However, it does not appear to be a notable competition, as neither WFF Universe nor GMV Bodybuilding has an article. The only source that corroborates the title is the sponsor's website. Not even the illustrations can be relied upon, as they're created by a member of the subject's family. Finally, speaking of member of the subject's family, Jizzom (talk · contribs) (note: user is requesting a username change to grumet_kaz (talk · contribs)) admitted to being the subject's son, so there is a severe conflict of interest on the part of the main contributor. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure If I'm allowed to write here? Im new to this, But I just trying to stop This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. I would just like to leave the artical as is, I know how you feel that its not a Memorial Page But I've tried to make it less, with just Infomation. And will leave as is(I have contacted NABBA/WFF) Friends of Manie and are wating on their site to update with list of all tittles untill then I would love to just leave as is. And keep Manfred Hamilton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizzom (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Claritas § 10:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this him (in the over 60s cat)? Keep if so. Albeit a major re-write needed. Eliteimp (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be, but do you notice that http://www.worldfitnessfederation.de is not actually a valid URL by itself? There is no year specified, no contact information, no validation - I can't begin to see it as a reliable source (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about that page makes you think he's a keep based on that result? What about that website (and the root page is http://www.worldfitnessfederation.de/nabba/frame1/navi_wff.html with nothing higher level) confers more notability on the competition than it had before you found it? —C.Fred (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear from that page and NABBA that the guy was competing at the top level of international amateur bodybuilding. I also think it ridiculous that the user has been blocked for supposedly having a "lewd synonym" for a user name. Eliteimp (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? You think "jism" (what the Oxford English Dictionary calls "vulgar, slang" for semen) is an ok username?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very few body builders meet WP:GNG (including this one), there is no WP:ATHLETE for Body Building, and he does not appear to have been a professional -Drdisque (talk) 17:47, 23 June 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 Dragon Ball. It can be un-redirected when and if reliable secondary sources to support it are found. Shimeru 08:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyan (Dragon Ball)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT as containing an extensive plot summary with not a single third-party source to provide real-world relevance, such as reception, development, and . Wikipedia is not a fansite. Article was previously redirected twice to the main article of the work, Dragon Ball, however, the redirects have been repeatedly reverted. —Farix (t | c) 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was redirected with no consensus, and as such it was reverted. A discussion had taken place about merging Super Saiyan into this article but an overzealous editor decided on their own to redirect both to the Dragon Ball article. The article needs work but that only means it should be improved, not deleted. Keep in mind we are talking about an article that exists in 12 languages and has hundreds of edits. PeRshGo (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of this excuses the fact that the article fundamentally fails WP:V along with two whole sections of WP:NOT and is completely non-notable because it has not been covered by a single reliable third-party source. As for there being no consenses for the original redirect, this discussion proves that to be completely false. There was a discussion and a consensus formed to redirect both articles to Dragon Ball. There was no discussion and consensus to restore either article. You did that entirely on your own. —Farix (t | c) 04:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the text. That was in reference to the Super Saiyan article not this one. One person saying they should do it and one agreeing with no further discussion is NOT consensus. Even the issue of merging the Super Saiyan article was still in debate. And keep in mind you're referencing a discussion that never took place on the Saiyan talk page. The merger was completely out of line with proper procedure. And no, I have not stated that this is a perfect article but it needs improvement, not deletion. PeRshGo (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was in reference to both articles. Just because the discussion occurred in one place doesn't mean that the consensus to redirect both articles to Dragon Ball invalid. —Farix (t | c) 02:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect restore redirect per the consensus at the merge discussion that occured quite awhile ago at Talk:Super_Saiyan#Merge_with_Saiyan_Article and with Super Saiyan's later merging to Dragon Ball (a redirect PeRshGo has wrongly undone as well); PeRshGo's inappropriate dismissal of the consensus there and the overall clean up of DB articles is deserving of a troutslap. Unnotable fictional concept with no actual significant coverage in any reliable source, and as nom notes, Wikipedia is not a fansite. There is an active Dragon Ball wikia for that sort of extensive, minute OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note once again that you are referencing the Super Saiyan page, not the Saiyan (Dragon Ball) page. If I went over to Klingon's talk page and argued that we merge Vulcan (Star Trek) with Star Trek you can be certain it would get reverted. Not even a merger tag was put up. It was just done. PeRshGo (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am referencing both. It was done in an appropriate fashion. Your disagreeing with them and randomly deciding to undo them ages later is your issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't at any point referencing both discussions. Here's the discussion on Saiyan (Dragon Ball)'s talk page, Talk:Saiyan_(Dragon_Ball)#Merge in Super Saiyan here. You'll notice that merging the page with Dragon Ball wasn't agreed to or even mentioned. You just did it, no tag, no anything. PeRshGo (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary notes it was done per consensus, so take your bad faith, thinly veiled negative claims elsewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't follow anything close appropriate procedure so I reverted it. If you can show me a merger tag, or even one comment on Talk: Saiyan (Dragon Ball) that would be something. But you can't show either because they never happened. PeRshGo (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles were properly tagged for merger as is clear in the edit histories[38][39] before being redirected. The discussion occurred properly at Super Saiyan re merging the two articles, and the consensus was to redirect BOTH to Dragon Ball. Discussions do not occur in both places, nor is it supposed to. FYI, one of the participants in that discussion was an admin, so I seriously doubt he wouldn't have said something if procedure had not been done properly, but of course it was. You simply disagreed with the result and came later and undid it all, twice, despite being told it was by consensus, which it was. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that was the tag for Super Sayian to be merged into Saiyan, not Saiyan to be merged into Dragon Ball. You can defend it all you want but the history doesn't lie. A discussion to redirect the whole page to Dragon Ball should have come with its own tag. And just because an admin was involved somehow doesn't mean they oversaw every step. It was a bad move, and given the article was written primarily by inexperienced editors it went unchallenged. I'm not here pushing some fanboy agenda. I can't even remember my last edit within the realm of anime. And given your constant accusations I can't help but think it's all motivated by WP:JDLI. I just saw a bad redirect while poking around and reverted it. The only plan I have for Saiyan is maybe to develop some of the Indian district articles. PeRshGo (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, once again it was a tag to merge them together. That the decision was to redirect them BOTH to Dragon Ball does not invalidate the consensus at all. It would have had the same participants either way. The move was valid, no matter how much you want to complain, and argue. And if you know nothing about the topic, and couldn't care less, then why would you even be looking at a redirect from last year and poking around in it. Sorry, but someone who isn't pushing a "fanboy" agenda and has no interest in the topic is certainly not going to be inclined to vilify and declare all of the active, experienced editors involved in the discussion, who are all members of the Anime and manga project and actually are well versed in the topic, to have acting wrongly. Unless of course you really have some other motive. Dragon Ball's Saiyan has nothing to do with India, so I don't see what you could possibly plan to "develop". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your own links. You posted a tag to merge Super Saiyan with Saiyan, not Saiyan with Dragon Ball. It's as simple as that. There is no debate. By any normal standard that's grounds for a revert. Maybe you guys play things fast and loose in your WP, I don't know. But to me it seemed pretty clear cut. As for the India articles, keep in mind that after the redirect was posted an editor overwrote it in good faith and began posting information about a village named Saiyan in India. The info was pretty bad, but that's what first grabbed my attention. I looked into the edit history, realized that a pretty shady redirect was done so I restored it as best I could, moved it to Saiyan (Dragon Ball) and made, Saiyan (disambiguation) which referenced the various Indian villages. I had hoped to do a bit more research about the villages, perhaps write an article, and see if maybe one of them may have been the reason for naming the Dragon Ball race Saiyan, but I just never got around to it. And I never said I know nothing about DBZ. I've watched a lot of the show, and own a few of the fighting titles, but I'm far from a fanboy. I don't spend a lot of time in the fiction realm in general on Wikipedia. But if I had to name a wiki pet peeve it would be overzealous and premature deletions. Articles as old as this one, and that exist on so many languages shouldn't just disappear without as much as a proper tag. PeRshGo (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you say, there was a very clear and explicit consensus to redirect both articles to to Dragon Ball. Your continued arguments that there was no consensus or that the consensus was invalid is nothing more than WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. You were very wrong to restore the redirect on both occasions. On the English Wikipedia, we try our best to avoid articles on fiction that are based entirely on primary sources and clearly have no coverage by reliable third-party sources. These type of articles that do exits are often created by fans who aren't aware or don't care about Wikipedia's policies on fiction and notability. It was clear in both of your restorations that you were not going to "get the point", which is why I decided to put the article up for deletion with the intentions of recreating a redirect later rather than edit waring over returning it to a redirect. —Farix (t | c) 02:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright I get it. I looked around and realized nearly all of the Dragon Ball related articles got steamrolled in one foul swoop. This just happened to be the one little article I noticed. The dozens of low quality Dragon Ball articles that had popped up over the years were decided to be collectively cleaned out. I understand that Wikiprojects often do this sort of thing. Sometimes you just gotta clean house. I don't necessarily believe in the practice, as it really can't be considered good faith, but I can live with it. Just be more honest about it next time. PeRshGo (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite honest and open and over a period of time. So your hints that the redirects, and the cleanup of the DB article series as a whole, was done in bad faith is evident of your own bad faith, as you comment below exemplifies. —Farix (t | c) 03:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may be some sources available. Looking through Google Scholar hits for Saiyan [40], most of them seem to be unrelated or trivial mentions, but I noticed what looked to be a review in The Lion and the Unicorn of this book, with Google's snippet of the review saying "For example, her adroit and thoughtful reading of the primary text of Dragon Ball Z exposes the testosterone-driven—and borderline white supremacist—behavior of the Saiyan warriors." I don't think the full text of either the review or the book is available from Google, but if the book actually discusses the Saiyans in detail then it could be a good source. Searching Google Scholar for the alternate spelling "saiyajin" turns up some hits as well [41], but they aren't in English so I can't tell if they are useful. Someone might want to look at those in case any of them are useful sources. Calathan (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. No evidence of meeting any relevant inclusion guideline. Would gladly change my position if enough evidences are found. --KrebMarkt 06:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add edit protection to my position. It may warrant an article in any future but certainly any editor recreating it with a biased fan minded mentality will result epic failure with Original Research, Point of View pushing & from fans for fans writing style & contents. --KrebMarkt 10:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now for me as well. Here's my thing, the article was a submarine resurrection. The project tag and a link in template are missing. Which gives me the impression that the editor brought this article back under the radar in hopes that the page might live. If it wasn't for Sesshomaru finding it and telling me about it and me then reporting it, it might still be up unchanged for untold months if not years. The real world content is there in term of the Toriyama's development of the race, thank to the source books like the Daizenshus and the more recently published books. However, the concept is not embedded into pop culture like Klingon, Vulcan, or Kryptonian due to it's early entry into our lexicon. Plus, we also have to contend with the sad fact that, and I mean no disrespect the editors here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, most editors working on Dragon Ball, if not all foreign pop culture articles, are produced and worked on by fanboys and fangirls who really have no access to the those aforementioned source materials or can even speak or read the language to help make a real dent on such an article as this. And any if all people with any real access and incite on the sources have moved on and are busy with real life. I'd be more incline to wait until more sources for the impact and more translations of the source books appear to attempt another by protocol resurrection. Sarujo (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In regards to not knowing the source language, there could be inter-wiki coordination with the Japanese Wikipedia to identify and transcribe Japanese-language sources so that they can be used to help develop articles. The ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo can be used to initiate such requests. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't restore the WP stuff because I didn't realize it was missing. This wasn't a labor of love for me. I just did it because by any normal standard it would be a bad move. Someone with little to no consensus and no tags that directly mentioned the redirect, redirected a page that exists in several other languages, has countless edits and from looking at the history has already had 2 pages merged into it. It seems Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga takes mergers and redirects as serious as they do Wikipedia:Assume good faith. PeRshGo (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: A lot of what we have is plot summary and in-universe information. Good encyclopedic articles are not made of that material. If secondary sources are found in regards to cultural impact or conception and development, then it could conceivably come back. PeRshGo: I would suggest looking through VIZ Dragon Ball books and guidebooks to see if Toriyama mentions any notes about how he designed Saiyans, what he decided to do, etc. Failing that, go on the ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo and ask Japanese editors if they know any works that talk about Toriyama's development and conception of the Saiyans. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Lots of) sources exist.[42] Just imagine all the Japanese language info out there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The listing I saw simply has reviews of video games with "Saiyan" in their name. Saiyan is a common term in the DBZ lingo. However this doesn't prove that an abundance of information about the creation and conception of the Saiyan race or the public reaction to the design and implementation of the Saiyan race exists. Either one or both of these elements are needed to write a standalone article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just noticed someone at Dragon Ball's talk mention that there isn't even a Dragon Ball Z article. I think I better understand the gravity of the situation now. PeRshGo (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go making any more messes, look at the talk archive. Dragon Ball Z was merged to Dragon Ball by overwhelming consensus and WP:MOSAM because they are *gasp* the same series! That they added an extra name on the anime release does not negate that. That consensus has been consistentlyexpand upheld in nearly annual revisiting of the discussion. Not that I bet you'll care, as you seem determine to just stir up hornet's nests and run around fancrufting the DB articles despite your continued claims that you aren't a "fan". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah It's cool. You actually bothered to mention it on the talk page this time. Good job. And anyways I'll be too busy trying to merge Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation by calling all who oppose the merger trekies and fanboys. PeRshGo (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it's perfectly valid to consider treating a manga series and an anime series as separate productions, because they are. In some cases it would be appropriate to include them in the same article, for example if both topics were simple, and there was little difference between them and their reception/ In this case, you have a manga series which has spawned multiple notable productions in various media, and varied reception internationally. It is not appropriate that all offshoots be in one article. While all the books in Rowling's series happen within the Harry Potter universe, each has its own article. While Rowling is arguably much more notable, the difference is not that Dragon Ball is not notable, it's merely a matter of scale. - BalthCat (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting note: Interesting point of reference. I guess wasn't completely off on my Wikipedia:I just don't like it accusation. But I'm just calling BS at this point. It really has no purpose. I'm not going to try and fight a whole WikiProject that has decided that the series isn't worth the article space. PeRshGo (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your bad faith and personal attacks somewhere else if you can not make any more productive contributes to this discussion. AnmaFinotera, I and the others have given policy base reasons why this article should not exists. You have presented nothing but allusions of bad faith. —Farix (t | c) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started with complete civility but given I was immediately attacked with accusations of bad faith and personal attacks when only trying to describe how this page was improperly redirected I could no longer ignore the blatant bad faith seen throughout the entire subject. A spin off with 9 seasons is considered non-notable. Seriously? Accuse me of whatever you like but when crap like that is being pulled at the same time it seems silly to ignore it. But as I said I'm not going to try and fight a whole WikiProject that has decided that the series isn't worth the article space. Rather than improve the articles you just delete them because you don't care to improve them yourself. Whatever. It's your WP, do whatever you want. But don't play make believe with me. PeRshGo (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is not reverting an editor's undoing of your bad actions and saying "Thanks for your opinion"[43]. You are the one who made it abundantly clear that you didn't care what the consensus was and are arguing just to argue. Dragon Ball Z is not a "spin off", it is simply the English name for the latter half of the manga and its anime adaptation, the former of which was released as just Dragon Ball in Japan. It is not significant different from the first half of the series, it is a continuation of the same story. Nor did anyone say it was "non-notable" rather than it is the same topic already covered in Dragon Ball that does not need a redundant second article. The WikiProject works hard to improve anime/manga articles, which doesn't mean catering to fans who are bound and determined to pretend they are not the same series and who want to have pages upon pages of WP:OR and plot summary. Whether you agree with the project member's consensus that the topic of DB is best served with one article about the series rather than two redundant articles is your own issue. Thanks, at least, for making it very clear that despite your protests above, you really are just another fan wanting to revert the articles back to a fansite-like state instead of an encyclopedic article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained that I feel your actions preceding the "merger" were inadequate on many levels. It seems that defending weak actions are appropriate, and defending a weak article is rampant fandom. PeRshGo (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, things are getting even shadier now with posts being deleted. Whatever, do what you want with it. I don't want any part of this mess. PeRshGo (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your post was a violation of policy, hence the inappropriate content being removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of valid information to fill the article, which wouldn't fit well anywhere else. Notable races in comic books, and other fictional series have their own races. It helps to understand the series better. It is the race that the main character is, as well as a fair number of other characters that appear throughout the series, and there even an entire movie about them(something, Father of Goku, it was called). Dream Focus 06:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between this and other races. Other fictional races have well-sourced information about creation and conception and reaction from critics. This one doesn't. We cannot have a separate page without what I mentioned. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and suggest indefinite full protection as this is an ongoing revert attempts and content dispute with multiple editors, including both IP and non-IP and will likely only continue if it is not protected from such reversions in the future. The attempts at reverting have never shown any attempt to follow policies or guidelines like WP:NOTPLOT, WP:GNG, WP:OR and others as far as I can tell.陣内 _Jinnai 06:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with that happening yet. Where in the history [44] do you see any problems with any edit warring? Hopefully all of those editing with IP addresses will take the time to comment here. The opinions of those editing the article, and who actually watch the series, I think should always be sought after. Dream Focus 11:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and Redirect to Dragonball Z - fails WP:PLOT - excessive coverage of fictional content is to be discouraged. There's no real-world notability of this, and no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas § 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean Dragon Ball?陣内_Jinnai 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They probably assumed like most people would that a Dragon Ball Z article exists. PeRshGo (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A DBZ article actually existed, but it was merged into the Dragon Ball article a few years ago and I helped organized the cleanup of these articles at that time, along with some help from other users. You can find the information about DBZ here now that it was merged to that article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to Dragon Ball - fails WP:NOT#PLOT and resembles a fansite without any reliable sources to cover this article. The Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT and Dragon Ball anime articles have all been redirected to the Dragon Ball article, as well as the Super Saiyan article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Create new Dragon Ball fork: I don't think it is appropriate to merge all Dragon Ball articles into one. While it is not sensible to say it compares to Star Trek, it is unquestionably a notable franchise. (I for one have never seen a full episode of Dragon Ball and I know the word Saiyan and Super Saiyan. I don't really know what they mean, but it's a part of my 'pop culture exposure') There are four animated series, multiple animated movies, at least one live action film, video games, as well as manga series' and other productions. If the notable details of all these works are included in one article, it would become large and unwieldy, there must be forks. For comparison, I looked into Mudblood and Zord. The former redirects to Harry Potter universe and the latter exists. I think the former is the sensible solution here. Create an article such as Dragon Ball setting or Dragon Ball universe and use this as the merge destination for setting topics. - BalthCat (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was arguing for this article primarly because I thought it was a shady redirect on an old and internationally recognized article, but when I realized that even Dragon Ball Z didn't have it's own article the problem seemed to be a bit larger. I think BalthCat brings up a good point. PeRshGo (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Which is Wikipedia refuses to give in to the fan minded editors. You want a separate article for a fictional element, universe, character, etc... Earn it. Prove that the spin-out is warranted with enough evidences of notability and not weak arguments like article size, i like it, its deserve it and the like. I am tired of false promises and short minded editors who think that their preferred fictional series is better covered by Wikipedia with more articles which would only result to ridicule and brand the set of article as Fandom Tantrum Premium Product --KrebMarkt 06:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. Earn it? Article size is specifically mentioned at the top of the edit box when you edit a large article. Is this not, and has this not always been, because beyond a certain size, forking is encouraged? Has something changed? Otherwise, what would be the point of creating forks at all? They contain a certain amount of redundant information, which requires redundant sourcing. While PeRshGo could possibly be fan-minded, I am not; I hated Dragon Ball Z, and I don't appreciate you attacking him in his response to me. - BalthCat (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LENGTH argument isn't applicable in the Dragon Ball case as it's just 28 KBs of readable proses. If you like some reading here the last DBZ split discussion. Dragon Ball is very symbolic on how much we can screw up with excessive spin-out with a fictional franchise. It went as far as creating one article per Dragon Ball related music singles and albums released (around 40 articles), an article for Dragon Ball video games music composer, an article for Dragon Ball Kai anime series opening theme performer. --KrebMarkt 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't "combining" everything to the Dragon Ball article overkill? And I would note that Dragon Ball is only so short because the mergers done were mergers in name only. Little to no information is ever copied into the article despite some of it being well sourced. PeRshGo (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All appropriate and reliably sourced content was merged. Please stop the incorrect accusations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once all of the repetitive information was removed, there wasn't much left other than critical reception and information about the series broadcast. It was because there was so much repetitive information and not enough unique information that the two articles were merged. In fact, that is why most manga articles with anime adaptations, or visa versa, are always combined. But this is entirely off-topic and has nothing to do with this article, Saiyan (Dragon Ball). So all of these accusations that something "nefarious" happened with the Dragon Ball articles in order to keep this article are just a red herring. —Farix (t | c) 16:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not significant coverage for an article... Arskwad (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect per nom, Sjones23, et al. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: The AfD has sparked a new discussion about splitting DBZ Talk:Dragon_Ball#Bring_Back_The_DBZ_Article. All interested editors are invited to join in (again). --KrebMarkt 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion" started by another User:PWeeHurman sock and should just be removed per usual procedures for dealing with banned people. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case is still ongoing and was started by YOU. I have to say WikiProject Anime and manga has to be the most shady WikiProject on this website. And this is from someone who does most his edits in the realm of secret societies. PeRshGo (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, look at his history and the 30 variants of that name he's used - nothing shady about it, pretty much a guarantee. Just doing CU to get any sleepers since he, like most sockers, like to make more than one at once. Have asked an admin to deal with blocking him. And my noting, and properly reporting, him as a known sockpuppetter has nothing to do with anything. Your continued attacks on the Anime and Manga project and claims of "shady" activity are grossly uncivil and beyond bad faith. You disparaging anyone who has pointed out repeatedly that you were wrong in your claims is also uncivil and disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it high time that an WP:ANI report be filed on PeRshGo as he or she is clearly doing nothing more than being disruptive this AfD by repeatedly attack other editors for unrelated issues instead of discussing the article up for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will post it up at WP:ANI as soon as possible. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be more convincing to bystanders if you all maintained the appearance of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Since you haven't, it really looks like you are on a crusade. - BalthCat (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the entire ANI for the issues, and the fact is that PeRshGo himself has stated he went to far in his accusations at this AfD and his continued personal attacks against specific editors and an entire WikiProject. He also was sternly warned in the AfD (and encouraged to come strike his comments - though he has declined to do so). So now that he has proclaimed that he is dropping it, are you picking up his banner to make the same inappropriate remarks? There is no "crusade" going on, just several editors validly annoyed as PeRshGo's actions and his having stirred up controversy and made bad-faith accusations without cause. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I observed immediate hostility towards him, and I am pointing out what that hostility seems to imply. I have no loyalties to him, or to Dragon Ball, I do however, have a peeve with people invoking CIVIL and AGF in the same breath as they break them. - BalthCat (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, No real world notability to be found here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now for lack of established notability and for being mostly unsourced plot. If parts can be merged elsewhere (i.e. by slightly restructuring the List of characters), go ahead. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have not read the entire logorrhea that comprises this AfD. Nor am I interested in what compromises or deals may've been worked out under duress by some editors - they have no authority to bind the rest of us. Nor, for that matter, am I interested in what issues some editors may have with the content, because this is a discussion of notability.

What I do know is that the Dragon Ball franchise is one of the most popular ever (lamentably) in both Japan and America and that Saiyans are one of the most important & common plot elements, that hits in both [ http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=dragon+ball+saiyan Google Books] or my CSE are so absurdly numerous that it's hard to see hits like The supervillain book: the evil side of comics and Hollywood buried in all the official DB material and all the other stuff. I don't need to go through all the LexisNexis hits to know that this is an obvious keep. --Gwern (contribs) 19:53 22 June 2010 (GMT)

- Gwern, you do have to dig through LexisNexis. See, while a fictional universe is a notable topic, terms within the fictional universe do not get their own articles unless the terms themselves are discussed in detail in secondary sources. If you want this article saved, go through the books and add the secondary material. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which would be why I suggested Dragon Ball universe. - BalthCat (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Strong Delete Destroy this article. It violates the almighty WP:N, as well as numerous other policies and guidelines that've been widely accepted as consensus by roughly three dozen people. ALSO use this AfD as a precedent to delete every fiction-related article that isn't directly about the series itself or a character or episode list of accepted legitimacy. This includes all "_____ universe" articles that explain a setting and any topics regarding fictional terms, races, abilities and etc. Kill. It. All. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia for real world subjects and we, as Wikipedians, have a responsibility to purge this garbage from all publicly available online venues for the benefit of our readers. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

am I correct in assuming this opinion is meant as satire? If not, I'll try to explain why I thought it was. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per above. This article is a terrible in-universe fancruft extravaganza. SnottyWong ^gossip 04:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Per above and per lack of independent sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the editors who want this kept: Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cranbury School - Back when "Cranbury School" was on AFD, I didn't just argue on why to keep it. I went out and tried to build the article and source as much as I could. Alansohn and I not only built up the article - we found proof that it needed to be kept. Please learn from this example. If "Saiyan" is salvable, then go on LexisNexis, go on Questia, read the Dragon Ball guidebooks, build up the article, and prove it. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is though some editors are lazy and/or have limited time on wikipedia (Work, College, ect..) and cant be here to find the sources in depth. As for the guide books, most likely fans of the series would have them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fans of the series who want the article kept can consult their guidebooks. If someone doesn't have a book but knows a Wikipedian who has a book, they can ask the Wikipedian to look up the book to see if there is content about the development of Saiyans. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, though, that if the only coverage is in fanbooks, and there is no actual third-party coverage, it still is not notable. It must have third-party coverage as a subject, not just mentioning in the context of the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reception information or additional creation information in third party sources, things in LexisNexis, EBSCOHost, etc. would help with that. Also he could contact the Chatsubo and ask for the Japanese to look for reviews that discuss reactions to the way the Saiyan race was established in the Dragon Ball universe.

Even if he only finds primary source creation info from guidebooks, it means that the "Saiyan" section of a "Dragon Ball universe" would be of a decent size with lots of interesting information.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Dragon Ball universe article would also only be appropriate with third-party coverage. "interesting information" that is only from primary sources is not a basis for creating any article. If the only coverage of the race is in the guidebooks, those interested in learning such information should simply buy the guideline. Wikipedia does not exist purely to mirror a primary source, after all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person trying to create an article about the Dragon Ball universe as a whole will certainly find secondary sources that describe reception to the way the universe was constructed, securing the article's existence as a standalone article. However not every element individually documented in such an article will necessarily have secondary information. Some portions of the article may use entirely primary source information. In order for the "Saiyan" concept to get its own standalone article, there have to be secondary sources that discuss specifically the race as a concept. Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is not there to mirror a particular primary source 100%. However we can take what is deemed encyclopedic or worthy of including from that primary source, and combine it with the encyclopedic material from other primary sources to build significant sections of articles about fictional universes. For instance with the Death Note articles How to Read 13 (along with the Malaysian The Star newspaper articles and some other supplementary materials) was incredibly helpful in building up sections of Death Note articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:59, 26 June 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) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Kahn (doctor)[edit]

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

BLP, very thinly sourced, no wikilinks, signed by author. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. andy (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete per nom. I think there might be potential for an article, but as it stands the article is very poor. Proper sourcing could clean up the issue, but for now I think delete DRosin (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali Khan Mohmand. There's a suggestion that this is part of a walled garden. andy (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the admin who deleted a prior version at DR.TARIQ KHAN as an A7. Before deletion I did a quick gsearch to see if I could improve the article to avoid an A7, and couldn't find sources. Glad to reconsider if sources showing notability appear. (FWIW, "signed by author" isn't a deletion reason, it's an editing issue.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 19 June 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) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Packer (DJ)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements, lacks any verifiable reliable sources, and I am unable to find significant coverage Chzz ► 01:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's unfortunate the prod was removed, as it was clearly justified. Enigma^msg 14:30, 22 June 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) 00:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wearsie[edit]

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

Dicdef for neologism; contested PROD — Jeff G. ツ 01:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIC - just a neologism definition. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete no question. GregJackP Boomer!

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell High School (Michigan)[edit]

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

~~Not really notable, relies on external links too much, poorly written. cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:58, 19 June 2010 (UT~~C)

There's a longstanding consensus that high schools are notable. The rest of it can be fixed with regular editing.—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As S Marshall indicated, there is a clear longstanding consensus in Wikipedia that secondary educational institutions are notable. It serves no purpose to flesh out the inclusion standards of every one of the tens of thousands of such schools in the world except to use up editors' time and resources when they could be better served creating and improving articles. Poorly written articles are reasons to improve them through editing. --Oakshade (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and S Marshall. Secondary level schools are usually considered notable. With that in mind being badly written is a reason to improve. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per what's been stated above, high schools are considered notable; the reliance on external links and the poor writing are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are generally considered notable - the article does need significant revisions though. Hash789 (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple state championships underscore notability. Plenty of sources available to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it meets every single one of my standards for notability of high schools. I did a bit of cleanup. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to keep. I've seen what the above have written and am instead moving that someone do a cleanup of the article. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs stated above Schools have been held to be notable Jsgoodrich (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The consensus of the community has been established in countless AFDs that public high schools are notable. Elementary schools, tiny unnoted private high schools or someone's "Home High School" would not enjoy that presumption of notability. This should be included in WP:ORG to discourage pointless AFD nominations which all end in "Keep." Edison (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly disagree with the idea that all high schools are notable and I would very much wish for this faux-notability standard to change in the future. Being a high school is not a free pass to inclusion. If a high school isn't in its own way significant, (ie: if we can't report more than its mascot, student/teacher ratio, sports teams, or any other features that all high schools have) then we have no business including it. Them From Space 20:19, 25 June 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. Shimeru 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Canham[edit]

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

A Google search for Arthur Canham + Trade Commissioner (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Arthur+Canham%22+%22trade+commissioner%22) finds exactly two hits: this article and a page listing this as a new article. I am not sure this is a hoax but the notability of the subject appears to be asserted based solely on inclusion one source. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion G3 RussianReversal (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "A Canham" + "Trade Commissioner" brings up a three additional, independent references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durhamhe (talk • contribs) 00:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Please note the three additional references to Arthur Canham as South African's First Trade Commissioner that have been added. Durhamhe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durhamhe (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Furthermore, as well as the three additional references, the original first reference to the 'Southern African Dictionary of National Biography' is to a highly respected source. Durhamhe. Please note fifth independent reference - to the 'Journal of the Department of Agriculture', Union of South Africa - added. Durhamhe[reply]

Keep Sufficient references. [45] provides verification and the position is notable. I do not think the hoax assertions are correct. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, and as follows. Trade commissioenrs have, in the past been considered notable as sub-cabinet officials. Ghits are not helpful for a man who flourished 100 years ago. The references cited are reliable. This is not a BLP, nor a hoax. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, the link he provided doesn't contain "Arthur Canham" at any point. If that simple search is incorrect, please correct me. But all of the above searches seem to rely on DGG's assertion, of which I can't find support for. Shadowjams (talk) 08:24, 16 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) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The first 2 delete !votes were posted before it was established that this person indeed exists. Further discussion is needed on the issue of notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From DGG's source: "Mr. A. Canham, upon his appointment as Acting Trade Commissioner to the Union of South Africa in London, relinquished his duties as Secretary of the late Industries Advisory Board on the 6th August, 1918". I think he was sufficiently important to be considered notable.--Michig (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing some explanation of that source. I'd note a few things. Of all the sources, DGG's is incorporated into the article now, and of those 4 cites that are online (1's offline) 1 is a pay-wall citation, another one's DGG's cite, two discuss an "A. Canham" and the other has a single reference to "A. CANHAM, ESQ.". In none of these is Arthur Canham discussed. Perhaps that's normal for the time, but A. may also refer to Ambassador, as I believe esquire may too. I'm not saying it's a hoax, but I would like some more discussion about the actual evidence here. I worry about piling on when the evidence ultimately is unclear. I would ask the article creator how they knew about this topic. Shadowjams (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to "Mr. Canham, Trades Commissioner for the Union". This doesn't prove that his name was Arthur but is that really such an issue? I see no reason to assume that the book cited is not valid.--Michig (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most men present at the cited meeting of the Africa Society are referred to by initials with surname. In another archived piece about the Africa Society at http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XVIII/LXX/142.pdf, Arthur Canham's full name is recorded. The tendency to refer to men by initials and surname at the relevant time is also evident in the other Web citations. The hard copy 'Southern African Dictionary of National Biography' does make clear that South Africa's first trade commissioner was Arthur Canham. References to a South African trade commissioner called A. Canham during this period can only be to the same person. Durhamhe.

Keep The sources seem to legitimately be pointing to this person (i.e., "Arthur"). First Light (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The reasons for deletion were more policy-grounded and hence outweighed the reasons for retention here. –MuZemike 01:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antje Thiele[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. delete UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we need someone fluent in German, with knowledge of and assess to resources for German theater. Subject is an accomplished actress with serious and important credits. I suspect she passes notability, but would like some help in determining such. Evalpor (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No good. All productions listed are below-the-radar shows. No reviews in mainstream press. East of Borschov (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She plays the wife of the protagonist in a large, important, and much-publicized upcoming film, which stars Vanessa Redgrave. Softlavender (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does she pass WP:ENT in your opinion? - UtherSRG (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article substantiates significant (starring or among top three stars) roles in multiple notable productions. Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per softlavender's statement above.--BenJonson (talk) 16:15, 7 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) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Upcoming films" is WP:CRYSTAL. I'd suggest you try writing on de.wiki first... see what they say... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm probably the closest we'll get to someone meeting Evalpor's request, as a German-speaker with access to resources on German theatre, and I certainly wouldn't have tried to start an article on this lady.—S Marshall T/C

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 15:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hideshi Takatani[edit]

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

Being on interesting tours does not address the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. There are no significant results in Google News that would address notability. As the website linked is non-English I am raising for further discussion as notability may be demonstrable in non-English sources not indexed by Google by the English version of "Hideshi Takatani" as per WP:BIAS. Fæ (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject appears to be notable in many ways, not the least of which has been to have played alongside musicians such as Larry Carlton, a jazz legend that any musician would be undertandably proud to have worked with, for or against in any way. Quite a feather in anyone's cap by my estimation. I've done a bit of cleanup, added a reference and there appears to be more references available. I'd suggest a little time for cleanup and we can improve this one to the degree it requires for retention. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Comment I noted many, many online articles about the subject on Japanese sites. The English equivalents were fewer, but still I found half a dozen with my first Google search. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Comment Am unable to independently verify "G2" claims. Cannot find much online to support contention. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability to pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. The references provided are brief mentions, nothing in terms of specific and detailed coverage. As the nom correctly notes, having performed on some interesting tours or even alongside some famous artists is not, by itself, sufficient to establish notability, in the absence of specific coverage of this musician himself. Nsk92 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 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) 00:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Abu Masood camp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N. A single internal document states this camp exists - that isn't enough to justify an articleExpand - military facilities are not an automatic pass. They must pass WP:N, which requires reliable, third-party sources giving significant coverage. The only sources provided are mentioning it in relation to something else, NOT covering it in any proper detail. Oo7565 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 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) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Jin Yong's novels[edit]

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

Purely WP:OR. No references cited. Has been an WP:ORPHAN for three months. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 04:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite redundant. Some of the information can be relocated to the respective individual character articles, such as Dugu Qiubai, Zhang Wuji, List of Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils characters etc. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 04:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the previous editors attempted to create an OVERVIEW of the characters in Jin Yong's works, be it major or minor, male or female. However, it is seriously disorganised, with a clutter of things here and there and there's nothing that really catches one's attention - some important events are mentioned, but they aren't really described (for example, the involvement of historical figures). By the looks of the article, it may need a complete revamp to be a good one again, so there shouldn't be any problems with deletion. No News ! 00:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be possible that the information came from this book? I think I saw a copy of the book in our high school library before, but I cannot remember the exact title. Maybe it's another book. It can serve as a reference for articles on Jin Yong characters. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 13:15, 14 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) 00:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost In Shadows Grey[edit]

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

NN album, No G News and only trivial G CTJF83 pride 18:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 12 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) 00:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a review at Chronicles of Chaos, but I'm not finding anything else in the way of significant coverage. Gongshow ^Talk 04:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parody Of The Mass[edit]

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

NN album, no G News coverage, and only trivial coverage on G CTJF83 pride 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 12 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) 00:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this release; appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:30, 19 June 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) 23:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samworth Enterprise Academy[edit]

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

Nomination on behalf of User:Prsaucer1958, deletion rationale is:Notability not established. Pgallert (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Pgallert (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 12 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) 00:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage clearly exists, and as the school caters for children up to age 16 it passes Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) as a high school, which we generally keep.--Michig (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has enough coverage to support a keep, but the notion that any school that has students above 14 (high school / primary school age) is not a reason to keep. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is - we always keep high schools, this is a high school, therefore we keep this.Minnowtaur (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going for a weak keep - it meets many but not all of my standards for high school notability. High schools are presumed notable, but some smaller, newer charter schools and the like might be deleted sometimes. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Zahid Siraj[edit]

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

Biography fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. No English language sources can be found to indicate any notability for this person. The only references given is to a company for which this person acts as an advisor. The only independent source that could be found indicate that he may have run for local political office 8 years ago, but do not indicate that he won that election. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 12 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) 00:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom. Insufficient evidence of notability, for satisfying either of WP:BIO or WP:PROF. I don't have a problem with the absence of English language sources, but some independent sources passing WP:V and demonstrating notability are needed. Nsk92 (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His religious title does not seem high enough to be automatically notable (as would I think be true for a grand mufti) and the article presents no evidence that he passes WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 20 June 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.