< 22 June	24 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 redirect to pogo cello. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pogocello[edit]

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

No significant coverage found. —fetch ·comms 23:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to pogo cello. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to pogo cello, which is a much better article about the same instrument. LK (talk) 23:51, 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) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamali Fine Art[edit]

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

Does not appear notable, and does not really even claim to be notable. This is the third creation, the others being viewable at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamali Fine Art and a deleted version of this page (which looks essentially identical to the one that's live now). Earlier, I pasted a bit of explanation here but he didn't seem to be convinced, and seeing his page deleted didn't convince him either. There is also another article at Mystical Expressionism, which is a re-creation of Mystical expressionism but not really that similar to the deleted version. I believe that these articles should both be deleted, but am open to changing my opinion, art not being one of my strong areas, and so I am bringing it here for a wider view. Note: I am intending this AfD to be for both articles, but I wasn't able to find an example of how to make an AfD for two articles, so I just did the best I could. If I did something wrong please let me know. —Soap— 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Mystical expressionism was deleted after this AfD discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Little better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 23

For the two Wikipedia pages that I am entering, the author Donald Kuspit is a notable art critic, writer, and contemporary art historian who has written two published texts on the artist, Jamali. Kuspit's major essays, on Jamali's contribution to contemporary art history, mystical expressionism, have been published in several editions by Rizzoli international publications inc. For your information Rizzoli is the most significant publisher having on his list major museums all over the world and also being known to publish only the most important artists of all time. Mark Strand, who is a contributer to Jamali's art history is also is on Wikipedia along with Rizzoli international publications. Philip Bishop is a contributer to Jamali's Art History is published by Prentice Hall has published "Adventures In The Human Spirit" prescribed in schools all over America.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTHISTORIAN2010 (talk • contribs) — ARTHISTORIAN2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 23 For the two Wikipedia pages that I am entering, the author Donald Kuspit is a notable art critic, writer, and contemporary art historian who has written two published texts on the artist, Jamali. Kuspit's major essays, on Jamali's contribution to contemporary art history, mystical expressionism, have been published in several editions by Rizzoli international publications inc. For your information Rizzoli is the most significant publisher having on his list major museums all over the world and also being known to publish only the most important artists of all time. Mark Strand, who is a contributer to Jamali's art history is also is on Wikipedia along with Rizzoli international publications. Philip Bishop is a contributer to Jamali's Art History is published by Prentice Hall has published "Adventures In The Human Spirit" prescribed in schools all over America. Also, the artist has been creating art professionally for the past 40 years. Also, can I share with you in the last 100 years some of the most note worthy art movements in western art history have been French impressionism, abstractionism, German expressionism, american abstract expressionism. Mystical Expressionism which is Jammli's contribution to art history, is the latest in this history. As such, I hope you can appreciate the note-worthiness it its lineage; again for your information please know that is is indeed the writers and important publishers who make the final decision of what is art history. Please share your thoughts on my comments and please let me know if there is anything else I can help you understand Jamali's historical relevancy..—Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTHISTORIAN2010 (talk • contribs) — ARTHISTORIAN2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have rewritten the artists article ([1]) and think that should be kept now. The Mystical Expressionism article should be deleted though, relevant material can be covered in the artists article. extransit (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really not enough to show notability over thousands of other artists. No awards won for example, no major exhibitions, and lots of artists have sold far more than he has. This is simply a puff-piece designed to promote the artist, with the only refs the artist's own website and a puff-piece interview given to a local newspaper. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mystical Expressionism since there appear to be no third party sources that use it in any context other than about Jamali. As to the artist, I say keep, as there is extensive Orlando Sentinel coverage, and at least passing mentions [2] outside of the local area (not to mention the books written by Donald Kuspit). The article should be renamed to Jamali (artist) or similar though, since Jamali Fine Arts appears to be his company and non-notable. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:18, 29 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 redirected---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Host (2011 film)[edit]

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

Article based on the book version The Host (novel) so anything here would be speculation. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice since principal photography hasn't begun. There's already a section about this film project at the article about its source material and that's where information about it belongs until production actually starts. Cliff smith ^talk 03:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per User:Cliff smith. There is aboslutely no film content in the article. I am quite confused that the article appears to be about a book, with the only mention of it being about a film is in the title and implied by inclusion of a "rumored" cast member. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the stub without prejudice for recreation to The Host (novel)#Film adaptation where this is already mentioned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt above. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 17:59, 30 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 delete. No mention on team's own website. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Hamm[edit]

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

I tried a "no context" speedy but infoboxes are apparently considered sufficient. I googled "Lisa Ham "Burton Albion LFC"" but got zero results besides this page so it appears to be a hoax. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what was wrong with the WP:BLPPROD that I added and you removed in order to nominate it for AFD. Technically nobody is supposed to remove a BLP PROD without providing sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. I'm pretty sure the U.S. national team hasn't played 16 games already this year (this says they've played seven), and I'm more sure that a player who scored over a goal a game in those contests would have coverage all over the place. I can't find any sources either, and the key facts in the infobox smell. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -apparent hoax -Drdisque (talk) 16:55, 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) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Stroupe[edit]

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

Notability is questionable, no sources Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if sources for the information given were found, the subject still would not meet notability standards. If there's more information and more notability, it needs to be edited into the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no news sources found ([3]), non-notable career. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Who? --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:44, 28 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. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CW-W[edit]

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

All it is is a satellite feed on one satellite provider for a very small percentage of Americans...the information could basically become a one-sentence liner for the main article (XETV) and as historical info for KSWB. Do we really need this? (notability comes to mind) Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 22:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Someone might search for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect indeed. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 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 delete. Blatant Spam. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metus Technology[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, but given the ripeness of the text this should be speedy deleted as blatant spam: ...a leading developer of Media Asset Management and Video Capture/Ingest solutions.... dedicated to offer the latest management tools.... latest technology products.... a team of talented and broadcast background engineers, the needs are addressed with a high quality perspective, offering simple and powerful workflows. Broad range of customers from different markets and countries proves the success of the products. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 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) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hamburger[edit]

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

Article is an autobiography that lacks independent sourcing and does not indicate notability sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia QueenofBattle (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hamburger fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Claritas § 20:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is lacking any notable accomplishments as an attorney, and none of the references are reliable. Was he a leading editor on a law review or journal? Has he served an a major bar association committee? Has he taught at an accredited college or law school? Did he clerk for a notable judge? Bearian (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC) See also User:Bearian/Standards#Notable_attorney. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ref 3 is OK, but all the rest are primary sources. He's been quoted around the financial and trade press, [4][5][6] but I don't think the coverage is independent enough or substantial enough for us to put together a neutral and well sourced biography. Someone might be able to dig up better coverage, so I'm open to persuasion. I don't like editors using private notability standards - looking for independent, reliable, secondary sources is the right approach. Fences&Windows 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. He meets one of Bearian's standards as he was editor-in-chief of the law journal of the University of Miami School of Law.[7] Fences&Windows 22:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:25, 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) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Shannon Masters[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. There's already (way more than) enough coverage of her on the comic's article. Claritas § 19:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to WP:verify notability. Not notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:10, 29 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 merge to Northern Michigan Wildcats men's ice hockey . Recent AFDs of similar groups have tended to merge and this is the consensus here Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puckheads[edit]

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

Formerly a contested PROD, this page cites no reliable secondary sources. It looks like a non-notable fan group. Surprised that it's survived this long. — KV5 • Talk • 00:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student group. -Drdisque (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I lean to keep, although a merger to Northern Michigan Wildcats men's ice hockey might be discussed. A quick Google search reveals that, in addition to the coverage you would expect from NMU-affiliated sources, this fan group has also received coverage in reliable secondary sources not affiliated with NMU. Here is a feature article about them in The Michigan Daily: "'Puckheads' add to Icers' challenge", Michigan Daily, November 14, 2005. I also found discussions of the Puckheads in articles in the Omaha World-Herald[8] and The Mining Journal (Marquette, Michigan)[9], each discussing the traditional rivalry between the Puckheads and a corresponding fan group at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I cleaned up all of the cruft, POV and other junk from the article. If there is even an iota of a chance that the article is kept, we can't have it in the state it was in. --Smashville^talk 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this has been reduced to a stub with a few sentences and a few references, which is all the coverage those sources truly warrant, a merge seems a better option at this point. — KV5 • Talk • 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as Arxiloxos discussed. Because of the recent cleanup, it seems like an easy merge (especially since NMU hockey page doesn't contain a whole lot). I say merge the whole thing to a new section. Tavix | Talk 18:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, whatever the deciding admin prefers. I mean, they are certainly very loud during games (especially when you sit near them; hence the press coverage), but they aren't too loud notability-wise. However, with three sources, I think it meets WP:GNG. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep appears sourced. However if concesnsus leads towards merging i do not oppose that either. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As a fan group, lacks the notability (and tertiary sources) of something like Deadhead. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as there are many other uses of the term puckhead which have to do with the NHL), or Merge to the NHL article. Do not merge to anything to do with Northern Michigan University or Northern Michigan Wildcats men's ice hockey. Utterly non-notable student group. Abductive (reasoning) 06:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Delete this article and merge anything relevent to the school article. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable fan club of a sports team. Don't merge anything. SnottyWong ^communicate 18:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the school article and delete this article. Not notable as a stand alone article -Pparazorback (talk) 22:42, 30 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) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Magical Blue Orchestra[edit]

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

I do not think this band meets the criteria set by WP:BAND for notability of bands.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage, nothing here says notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:04, 29 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 - the nominator withdrew the nomination with no arguments for deletion (non-admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA Camp Orkila[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill YMCA camp. The sole claim of notability of this camp is its age, and age is not a notability criterion listed in WP:CORP. People who are ignorant of the history of the summer camp movement in the United States are unaware of the fact that it blossomed around the turn of the last century, and that there are dozens of summer camps founded around that time still in existence. Searching by "summer camp" "founded 1906", "founded 1905" etc., finds Camp O-AT-KA, Camp Susquehannock, Camp Mowglis (founded 1903) YMCA Camp St. Croix, Lake Delaware Boys' Camp, YMCA Camp Eberhart, Camp Lincoln - Camp Lake Hubert, and Camp Wachusett. This search is by no means exhaustive. Finally, this camp is local subsidiary of the YMCA, and WP:ORG takes a dim view of local chapters. Abductive (reasoning) 18:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic has received very in-depth coverage from reliable sources like The Seattle Times [10][11][12]. Even the Christian Science Monitor apparently wrote a piece about this camp in 1953, but right now I can only see a preview.[13] As far as I can tell, the only argument the nom is throwing up to delete this article is because many camps are as old as this one. So what? If all of those camps pass WP:GNG as this one easily does, then they can all have articles. But even if they didn't pass WP:GNG, that's got nothing to do with this article meeting our standards.--Oakshade (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My bad, I meant to nominate a different camp. I withdraw this nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 06:13, 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. extransit (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thesy Surface[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Most notable role is in a brief non-speaking role on two episodes of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Otherwise has not had a major supporting role in any film or appeared in more than one episode of any television series. Drdisque (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Etrigan (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation. While her career[14] hints at meeting WP:ENT, decent sources are unavailable at this time. The article is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 19:11, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty & Solidarity[edit]

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

Delete. I'm the original nominator. This is a small organization of no real note or notability. I belive the original article was founded as a form of self-promotion for the organization. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium, and there is a conflict of interest in User:keirlawson as a member of the organization founding this article. 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.254.219 (talk) [reply]

Procedural nomination - this was a redlinked heading in todays AfD list. Original nominator is being asked to provide rationale for deletion - I remain neutral Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't speak for the original nominator, but this would appear to be a small, recently founded, fringe organization referenced internally or to manifestos posted on websites. "Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg? .... He's over there". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This group has never even been mentioned by a reliable source. Fences&Windows 20:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of adequate sources. Redirect to Anarkismo.net, while already mentions the organization. TFD (talk) 00:42, 28 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 Binangonan, Rizal#Educational institutions. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabang Parang Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable school, no claims of notability, written by an account whose name could be considered to have a COI, reads like a copyvio. Doesn't even explain where this school is. If there were another page to redirect to I would do that, but who knows? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not a high school per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), and does not meet my standards. Most primary schools' articles have been deleted in the past. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, most elementary school articles have been merged, to the school district in the US and the locality, elsewhere. TerriersFan (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Binangonan, Rizal#Educational institutions where I have added the school. TerriersFan (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would work. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Binangonan, Rizal#Educational institutions per TerriersFan. This particular school is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:00, 27 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic prostatectomy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article serve little purpose other than as an advertisement for the da Vinci Surgical System, and does little to expand on the factual information contained at that page. It has become a magnet for spam links. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is highly notable, being covered in numerous respectable sources such as this. As this procedure is a common one, the article obviously serves a purpose besides mention of the equipment which is approved for this purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dr Patel, the author of the cited reference, and his associates at the Global Robotics Institute would like the topic to be notable (as indicated by several attempts by PRPLwiki (talk · contribs), whose earlier usernames indicated a clear association with GRI, to create an article about Dr. Patel based on his work in the field), but it does not appear that robotic prostatectomy is any different than other forms of robotic surgery. The da Vinci Surgical System article already mentions that the device is used largely in prostatectomy surgeries, and already contains a list of benefits that can accrue from robotic surgery over standard laparoscopic techniques. This article does not provide any expanded information over the prior articles, but it does serve as a magnet for doctors and hospitals wishing to advertise their services in the field. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are hundreds of scholarly papers about the topic written by numerous authors. Any excessive promotion found in these articles should be addressed by ordinary editing. Per our deletion and editing policies, deletion is clearly inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but requires a lot of cleanup. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or consider merging to prostatectomy. Along with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, there is enough to clean up. Whether they should be one or three articles is not clear to me. There is probably enough material to merit three articles, but at the moment the volume is mostly chaff. My initial thought is that the two techniques will merit disproportionate space which is why I put keep ahead of merge. The advantages of merging are, as I see it, concentrating the work needed into one place and less articles to patrol for spam. I concur that deletion is not indicated.Novangelis (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The extra "volume" at robotic prostatectomy that extends beyond the content of prostatectomy or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is either material already available at da Vinci Surgical System or is purely promotional. There doesn't seem to be any substance worth keeping or merging. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Your point was valid. I thought there was a little more substance among the puffery than there was. I wound up saving only the lede upon editing. My recommendation stands and I hope you will reevaluate based on the new version.Novangelis (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Novangelis (talk · contribs) for separating the wheat from the chaff!!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn based on Novangelis' remarkable cleanup efforts -- finding enough unique (and verifiable) substance to differentiate this particular procedure from other similar procedures. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man (film series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD resulted in delete. It was recreated but is now worse. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep without prejudice - I declined the G4 speedy request because this article was substantially different from the one that was deleted and did not contain a copy/paste of the text without proper attribution. (GFDL attribution history was the reason the previous one was deleted, not the content.) Though the current article is rather useless, it was only just started yesterday. We don't normally delete articles just because they aren't finished yet. --B (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know what could be added to this article, that would be beyond the scope of the 2 individual movie articles we have now. The creator apparently doesn't know either, because all he's done is add links to the movies' articles and create a pointless character table which would certainly be the first thing to go if this article is kept. I suggest waiting for the eventual Iron Man 3.--Atlan (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Film series is blank (it would help to develop one). However, with only two films in the series, there doesn't seem to be anything that merits an article that isn't already handled in the articles on the two films and in the parent article Iron Man. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it might be more helpful to rename it to Iron Man in film, and develop it that way, since I think it has a few animated titles. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete, again. Two films does not a series make, and article has little to no possibility for additional expansion outside of the two existing film articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why the Iron Man film series should haven't its own page when the Fantastic Four series (two films) already does. And there is probably a greater chance that a third Iron Man movie will be created than another F4. In the Marvel Films template, nearly every other Marvel film franchise with two or more films has its own series page. The page as it currently exists is certainly terrible, but it could be improved if people put in the work. This article just needs some focused attention from people who typically edit Marvel film pages. This page would also be the optimal place for describing planned future films or spin-offs, which are currently mentioned on the Iron Man 2 page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It's not an excuse to keep this article, especially in the state that it's in. The creator hasn't bothered to flesh out the article and probably can't. It's no great loss to delete it and recreate it when there's something to write about. The rest of your argument is basically crystal balling about future releases and centering the article on that. We're not in the habit of keeping articles, just because a sequel movie is likely, as opposed to confirmed.--Atlan (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good points, but you suggest that the article could be recreated "when there's something to write about." The original editor must have thought that there was something to write about or it wouldn't have been created. This will always be subjective. How will we know when the time is right going forward? Would one more film in the series make a difference? My thought is that if the page has been deleted twice already, it is much less likely to be created again in the future, even if it would make sense to do so (surely, no one wants to invest time in a page only to see it deleted). There was also a bit of nuance to my other argument that you might have missed. I wasn't saying that this page should exist because a page for a Pokemon character (or other crap) exists. I was arguing for consistency across similar pages that appear in a specific template. If you think the page for the Fantastic Four series should be deleted because it only discusses two films as well, then that is a debatable point. But, it makes sense to me that pages organized within the same template should be added or deleted based on a consistent criteria, rather than on a piecemeal basis. If you think the future film content I referred to in my other point is crystal balling, that's fine. I didn't write the paragraph. If you have problems with it, I suggest you take up the issue on the Iron Man 2 (talk) page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever reluctance any future editor might have in creating Iron Man (film series) can never be a reason to keep it now. Whatever potential you believe the article creator thought the article has is entirely moot, as he has done nothing to improve it. This page discusses deleting the article on the basis of it's content, not hypothetical situations and conjecture. Fantastic Four (film series) is obviously fleshed out pretty well. Getting Iron Man (film series) up to that level would require taking a lot of information from the Iron Man film articles, which is indeed what was done with the 2 previous iterations of this article. I would only support this if the 2 film articles are so large that they would require splitting.--Atlan (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It seems like you are saying the page shouldn't exist because of the lack of original content, not so much that the topic of the page isn't worthy. However, I personally like the character table (it appears in most other Marvel film series pages as well) and think it is well suited to this specific page. The other Marvel film series pages seem like they would be good examples of the type of content that could be unique to this page as well. I guess I'm not sure why this has been marked as an AFD rather than a stub. If all it would take is some work to get it fleshed out, as you say, then it seems like this would qualify as a stub. Marking it as such might just invite the work that you feel the page still needs. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The topic is worthy of an article, but as it is, there's no content to justify the article. Stubbing an article that is basically 2 links to real articles and a character table is pointless. If you think the article has potential to expand, go ahead and do it. As long as no one does, I'll stick to my vote.--Atlan (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in this article that doesn't already appear at the articles for the two individual films in the "series". The redundancy is unnecessary. SnottyWong ^chat 19:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Series already covered with Marvel Cinematic Universe article.-5- (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solent Redhawks[edit]

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

Non notable. British University sports teams are rarely notable even on their own campus. This team does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions. A quick google returns only results in some way related to the team or its rivals. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's rare for British university sports teams to meet WP:GNG, and this does not appear to be one of those few exceptions. Pfainuk talk 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I've said before, sports teams are rarely known within their university (I've got a friend that's part of her uni's hockey team, and they're not widly known there), and this is not an exception. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I normally don't like bulk deletions and prefer a non-rapid approach to allow discussion at AfDs, these articles seem to be deleted with little to no opposition and I think we can pick up the pace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a few obvious exceptions, British university sports teams are rarely notable and this one makes no specific notability claims. TerriersFan (talk) 20:32, 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 Speedy redirect to Political status of Puerto Rico. I won't delete it in case there is useful material in the article. Hut 8.5 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Statehood for Puerto Rico[edit]

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

Essay, redundent, unreferenced. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated under ((db-a10)), duplicate of puerto rico statehood. — Timneu22 · talk 17:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to Puerto rico statehood - it is a valid ((db-a10)) but as a useful search term a redirect is in order. Codf1977 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect per Codf1977. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:05, 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 speedy delete. deleted as A7 by another admin HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TWh Energy[edit]

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

"TWh Energy is an international Renewable Energy development and consultancy company, providing outsourced Research and Development to clients in the renewable energy sector. The company also provides business consulting services in the areas of market strategy and technical due diligence" Ookaayy. That doesn't tell me much. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 - no claim of notability. The CSD template was removed by the author. Claritas § 16:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article, non-notable company. Their website shows they're very small fry with nothing much to boast about. andy (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Andyjsmith. Codf1977 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator & Claritas. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:56, 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. There's a consensus that the subject meets WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoko Nozaki[edit]

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

The article does not shows why the person is notable under Wikipedia:policy. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am just about to go to bed, but my preliminary impression is that the subject likely meets WP:PROF. The citability data in GoogleScholar is fairly impressive, and the article lists a bunch of academic awards. One would have to look deeper into what those awards are, but at least some of them appear to be fairly prestigious. There is the 2009 OMCOS Prize[15] and the 2009 Nagoya Medal[16] that do check out by independent sources. The OMCOS Prize appears to be an international award and the link above contains a detailed bioggraphical sketch of Nozaki. I have not looked at the other awards yet, but it does look to me that the subject is academically notable. Nsk92 (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a full professorship at Todai is nothing to sneeze at, especially for a woman, and immediately suggests that a second look should be taken. And poking about the 'nets, it looks like at least the Mukaiyama Award is a pretty big deal, of the sort that WP:PROF C2 asks for. (The Saruhashi Award also looks potentially of that class, but others will have to evaluate that.) On the basis of that, which is pretty easy to verify from award lists, I'd say this is a keeper. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this search is accurate she has half a dozen papers with 100 citations each and an h-index of 32, enough for WP:PROF #1. The prizes settle the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above, by myself, Quasirandom and David Eppstein. I have added refs for several of the prizes/awards to the article. Fairly clearly passes WP:PROF C1 and possibly C2. Nsk92 (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:PROF. Joe Chill (talk) 19:03, 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. Tone 20:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pub Politics[edit]

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

A claim of notability made on the article's talk page was sufficient for me to remove a speedy tag and bring the article here for a more thorough discussion. To me the racist incident in question contributes only (if at all, given WP:BLP1E etc.) to the notability of the individual who made the statement and I cannot think that any of this furore contributes to the notability of an Internet-based chat programme, but we'll see how this shakes out. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried the CSD, and stand by this AFD. Not convinced about the WP:N here. — Timneu22 · talk 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. andy (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save/Do not delete The show is not very notable, however the incident was covered by many news outlets, including stations like MSNBC on Olberman's show. It may not be very notable, but it definitely fits under WP:N, especially, but not only "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. " Lets also remember whatWP:N is all about, "to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." This is clearly not an indiscriminate inclusion. edit to add:

Also, since this is a web-based show, it also falls under WP:WEB, and should further be saved/not deleted because it is not advertising, which is one of the things that the procedure looks to exclude, it is notable (as above, which is also a prerequisite for WP:WEB) and it is certainly of historical significance, since it is related to the election of the one of the very few indian americans to political office in the US, and the first female indian american to high political office, and the first indian american (and I beleive first female) to the (possible) governorship of South Carolina, and even if halley doesn't win, it would still be related to the fact that she lost and possibly a contributing factor. Further, the article cites secondary sources that are reliable. So, to reiterate, the article is appropriate under all the provisions of both WP:N & WP:WEB, and also, importantly I think, does not violate the purpose of those procedures (ie, to prevent advertising and indescriminate inclusion of articles). And I apologize if these statements should not be here and ask someone to direct me if they should be elsewhere. - nygdan

Delete - fails WP:N and WP:GNG. No independent sources with significant coverage. In the future, the two nominators (speedy and AfD) might want to consider waiting longer than four minutes after an article is created before nominating it for deletion. The article had not even existed for an hour and it had already been nominated for speedy deletion, it was contested, and an AfD was started. While it's pretty clear that this subject is not notable, you do need to give the author a chance to add some sources. There is a notice at the top of Special:Newpages (where you presumably found this article) which specifically encourages editors to not attack articles within minutes of creation. SnottyWong ^express 20:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but... in many cases (such as this one) you simply know it's going nowhere. Why wait? andy (talk) 20:30, 30 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. JForget 12:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto (book)[edit]

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

It is a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am hoping more people will add more on the article, I myself don't know much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1214 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if above issues are not addressed. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:NBOOK. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BK; "...failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion."
- This isn't speedy deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i think the book is this one, and it has no isbn, nonnotable publisher. unless someone can find coverage, it should go. or maybe its this or maybe they are the same. i give up.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence. The book listed at Amazon and the book for sale at Microcosm Publishing do seem to be one and the same book, per this page[17] at the apparent publisher's apparent website www.dedrabbit.com. This one was almost as perplexing to research as the recently AfD'd A (2002 film). I did turn up multiple examples of coverage in alternative news publications:

this review in a November 2006 OC Weekly[18];
this one from the Sacramento News & Review[19];
a brief write-up in the Montreal Mirror[20];
a review in a 2007 ReGen Magazine[21] (this magazine doesn't have a Wikipedia page but does appear to be cited in quite a few existing WP articles[22], so maybe it's RS);
a write-up in Salient, a student magazine from Victoria University of Wellington (N.Z.)[23].

Enough for WP:GNG? Maybe, maybe not. But there is enough here to put a little bit of substance into an article, and I think my opinion would be swayed to keep by just one more solid source. Maybe someone will turn it up before the AfD closes.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:53, 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 deleted. Article has been speedy deleted per CSD G12. (Non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Lively[edit]

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

It does not show why the person is notable. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Speedy per copyvio [24] and per WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:12, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Merry Christmas Vol. VII[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. There are hundreds of compilation albums consisting of reprinted tracks of classic recordings. Even if the tracks themselves are notable songs, that does not mean that the albums are notable. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed with nom and ScottyBerg. No apparent notability, no encyclopedic content. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:44, 29 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) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goth Electro Tribute to Depeche Mode[edit]

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

Non-notable tribute album that has not received any third-party coverage or reviews. The article has not had any substantive changes since the day it was created in January 2009 (everything since then is admin-related updates). The tribute album is not mentioned at the official Depeche Mode website, and I spot-checked three of the bands included on the disc and they do not mention it at their official websites. This is a quickie album that gained no notice upon release and was quickly forgotten, so therefore it's unworthy of a WP article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC) DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems possible that some music magazines may have covered it, but unless someone can produce those references and expand the article with some information from them, I agree it appears to be NN. Could possibly be reorganized and added into List of cover versions of Depeche Mode songs, but that list has its own issues already. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Album fails WP:NALBUMS. There are no reliable sources showing how this tribute album is notable. Aspects (talk) 17:21, 27 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) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Faith Is Lost[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from your assumption, not only the album hasn't made any charts, but the singles themselves aren't notable either. Minima c (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:53, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RElements[edit]

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

In good faith - possible advertising or non notability? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: both advertising and non-notable. This is obvious soliciting of funds --- rElements have experienced an very high growth rate since its foundation. Google News Archive finds only one Experian report and a bunch of typos. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From the article "Rafael Gracioso Martins, a young entrepreneur who worked and developed Chemical Vapor Deposition chambers for producing advanced composites...", and the only contributing author is rgmcorp. Coincidence? I think not. Blatant self-promotion, in direct contravention of policy.

-- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 13:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of independent sources is a strong indication of lack of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 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 speedy delete at author's request. — Timneu22 · talk 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GardeningtipsVedgetables[edit]

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

WP:ESSAY, WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:OR. For all that is sacred in the world, can't we get a CSD here?!?!?!?! — Timneu22 · talk 13:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whats a CSD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardeningtips (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Criteria for speedy deletion" - see WP:CSD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:NOT#HOWTO. (Not sure it would be possible to have a sufficiently objective and rigorous CSD category though). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Just been introduced to wikihow - well kept secret. Very rarely turns up in google searches for, say 'gardening ideas'. yeh - get rid of my tips page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardeningtips (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. — Timneu22 · talk 13:49, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quickcart[edit]

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

Software for creating on-line shops. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unreferenced. Sub-minimal claim to historic, technical, or cultural significance: the very first Shopping Cart code ever written using the Cold Fusion development language on the Internet. Obvious advertising: the code was completely overhauled to take advantage of new technologies.... . It has taken over 3 years and untold man hours to design and build.... . It has taken over 3 years and untold man hours to design and build.... contains a step-by-step walk-through of how to setup your store. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN software. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:20, 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) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repmobile[edit]

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

No sources at all, orphan article, dubious encyclopedic value. Letdorf (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, and without any sources looks like OR. Codf1977 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any reliable sources to establish the term, although I have a feeling it is a real term. As the article stands now, it has a lot of WP:OR (a vague definition but is very detailed about what cars actually classify). Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:05, 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) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Wilken[edit]

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

Non notable - poss advertising ? Chaosdruid (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources provided. Even if they were it is questionable if being a successful real estate salesperson would qualify someone for an article. Borock (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd even say speedy as blatant advertising.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has received a handful of mentions in local press, e.g. [25][26], but not enough to write an article about her or consider her notable. Fences&Windows 20:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:55, 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 Delete under criteria G11 - Unambiguous promotion. The address and phone number were key indicators, there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada books[edit]

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

It's pure advertisement of the 'Kannada books' organization. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 11:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant WP:SPAM. Empty Buffer (talk) 11:07, 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 Speedily deleted as nonsense, and salted for good measure. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dickbutt[edit]

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

Take a look at the article.It's nonsense. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 08:51, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G10 attack page. JohnCD (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evie dennison[edit]

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

It's vandalism. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 08:41, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu Damodaran[edit]

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

Fails the notability requirements as there is no evidence of significant impact. Holding senior positions is not of itself notable unless the person has some impact on society. I find no matches in Google News and article has remained unsourced for two years. Fæ (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a lot hits in gnews but none of them are substantial. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:00, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Brooks[edit]

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

Lacks proper sources to determine notability serialrage 10:09, 23 June 2010

Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 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) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hawkins (coach)[edit]

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

Don't think Chris Hawkins (coach) meets notability guidelines. He's a high school coach and media coverage on him seems to be only local. Coaching one player who later made it to the NFL, Charlie Frye, isn't enough to establish notability alone. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete high school coaches are normally not considered notable. Espeically those who don't have any sources in their articles...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Movementarian (Talk) 08:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and ATHLETE -Drdisque (talk) 17:51, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Weinke[edit]

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

Questionable notability, article was created by User:Fjwinks, who is likely the subject of this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:ATH and more specifically WP:NSPORTS for American/Canadian football players, as he has never competed in a major professional league. I tried to find independent information to verify the claims in the article, but other than two af2 press releases[27][28], I was unsuccessful. Movementarian (Talk) 08:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable professional and college career. Being the cousin of Chris Weinke does not justify notability either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Echo the above two. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 14:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant coaches are normally not notable per WP:CFBCOACH (essay, not policy), and there does not appear to be any other assertion to notability outside of the non-notable lower-level professional football play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:17, 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. Tone 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Aviet (Squash Player)[edit]

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

I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate that this person meets the general notability guideline. Though there appears to be a junior squash player by this name, I'm finding no evidence to support the claims of competing at a national level that would satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can get proof of him playing at national level. I can get the draws of two Australian Opens, as well as the International Milo All Star tournament, clearly showing his name.Ilikesquash (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and ATHLETE -Drdisque (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:ATHLETE. (By the way there is another article with the same subject: Josh Aviet (squash player)) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, copied from this AfD's talk page:

I can send forms showing his participation in two Australian Junior Championships, as well as the international event the Milo All Star 2010, which comprised of 14 different countries.Ilikesquash (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, although this might be helpful in verifying some of the article's claims, unless this information has already been published in reliable sources it would not help to satisfy the notability grounds on which the article's deletion is proposed. I'll move your comment to the main deletion discussion page so that others can see it. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:32, 28 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 Userfy. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two Blue Lines[edit]

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

Non-notable 22 minute movie from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.C. Monaghan, which I just nominated for AfD, as well. No proof of notability. All references are to own website. Best of luck to Mr. Monaghan's future work but I'm afraid nothing justifies him being on Wikipedia at this point. mboverload @ 06:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I am the original author of the page. This film is an important and major educational resource package and is gaining attention in the education sector as a valuable resource. There is unfortunately not a lot of information available for educators about the project and I aimed to try to create a valuable point of reference. Due to the closed nature of the industry, attention is largely verbal, but the increasing nature of the attention means that nearer the time of publication (october) it is highly likely that there will be more notable references, and this resource will more fully meet the notability reqs. If necessary I will take the page back to my userspace and hold it and build it until such a time it completely meets the standards. I recommend keeping the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquila92 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Mboverload nothing at this time establishes notability. serialrage@ 07:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NF. I am not opposed to moving the article to Aquila92's user space to give him time to find references once the film is released. Movementarian (Talk) 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and Delete. Post-release, if reliable sources are forthcoming it can then be recreated as an article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy User:Boing! said Zebedee offers a solution that acknowledges the good faith efforts of the author and allows a return when notability is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnotable film that fails WP:NF and WP:N and seems unlikely to ever do so. User has already copied it back to their user space, so userification unnecessary. Would recommend Aquila92 review WP:COI though, due to his seeming inside knowledge of both the film and Monaghan. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:35, 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) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Monaghan[edit]

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

A biographical article about someone saying they are a film director, but I can't find any notability or released. All references are to his own website. He does not meet Wikipedia:BIO#Creative professionals requirements. Best of luck to Mr. Monaghan's future work but I'm afraid nothing justifies him being on Wikipedia at this point. mboverload @ 06:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original article author. Mr Monaghan and his company are about to release a major educational resource pack, for which there is considerable interest and desire for knowledge of, exists within the regional education sector. I believe it is valuable for those considering using the product in their institutions to have easy access to information regarding the character of the person releasing the material. However I accept the justification for deletion, I'll copy the page into my userspace and continue to update it until such a time it successfully meets the notability reqs. Aquila92 (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Movementarian (Talk) 08:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Article appears to be someone's personal biography and is written in a tone that indicates there may be some WP:COI issues as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:33, 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. Fails WP:FOOTYN NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Club Cultural Casma[edit]

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

This football club has never played in a national-level league or cup. It fails WP:FOOTYN. It is not a well-known club in Peru either. No sources on article page to support notability. In sum, it is an amateur-level team. MicroX (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because these Peruvian football clubs also fail WP:FOOTYN and have few to no sources supporting their notability including their amateur-level partcipation:[reply]

Keep all nominated pages. I disagree that they fail WP:FOOTYN as they all are eligleble to compete in the Peru Cup. Per FOOTYN, "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." Movementarian (Talk) 08:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further examination, it seems that the Peru Cup is an amateur tournament. I am going to have to learn more about Peruvian football before opining further. Movementarian (Talk) 06:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :Note that the Peru Cup is a tournament for non league teams which win: local district tournaments > provincial > regional. That means the teams are at one level below Swaffham Town F.C. playing in Norfolk > East anglia or Hyde F.C. playing in Gtr. Manchester > NW England and on that basis delete Chaosdruid (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:CLUB Codf1977 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as Chaosdruid stated, the Peru Cup is not a national cup. It is an amateur-level promotion-only event. Professional teams of the Peruvian league do not participate in it and it is not an equivalent of any sort of the FA Cup or Copa del Rey. --MicroX (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - being eligible to play in a competition and actually playing in one are very different when it comes notability. Giant Snowman 01:27, 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. Tone 20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric P. Early[edit]

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

Promotional article about a laywer. Only claim to fame I see is being a Super Lawyer for 2005-2009. Looking for input. mboverload @ 04:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cv: WP is not a respository of curriculum vitae, nor is it a venue for promotion Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the above, Wikipedia is not a repository of curricula vitarum. JIP | Talk 06:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Mr. Early has been the face of headline events in recent time, and is a well-known figure in the legal field whose biography is of interest to many, many people. This page has been here for years and deserves to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colormagazine (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a gentleman who has helped to re-shape recent newsmaking transactions and has directly effected the lives of other extremely well known professions, also listed here in Wikipedia. There are only two references in this article, however there are FAR more references available on Eric P. Early through a simply google search. This is a leader in the legal community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.134.38 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The above is the user's only edit to Wikipedia ever. JIP | Talk 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually this user has now also contributed to an article about Alex M. Early - as has Colormagazine above. I smell COI and have nominated that article for deletion as well. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Not notable. Lustralaustral (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable lawyer. No significant references provided. He has represented a few celebrities, but notability is not inherited. "A simply Google search" as 76.175.134.38 recommended finds nothing of note. Google News finds nothing. Google Books finds nothing. The "super lawyer" designation is awarded by a commercial firm. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 30 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) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Blair[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. ~~potential hoax as IMDB lists nothing for her [29]. and~~ nothing in gnews for this individual. [30]. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not quite making it. It's not a hoax, as the imdb address was incorrect Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Ohconfucius. I don't think it's a hoax, but those appearances are not exactly notable. We've had actresses with much more high-profile appearances in more well-know tv-series being deleted.Jeppiz (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 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) 03:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yura Železnik[edit]

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

This article is about a violinist that does not meet notability. The article includes one profile from the Epoch Times Isreal which is in Hewbrew. Using Google translation on the page, it appears to be a nice write up for an artists who is still trying to make it although it's difficult to tell sometimes how well the machine translation worked.

However, I can find no other sources writing about this musician. Although not a reason for deletion, the article appears to be an autobiography and suffers from neutrality problems, including previous versions containing copied biographical from the artist's web site. Whpq (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the two major contributors to the article are Mrzeleznik (talk · contribs) and Yurazeleznik (talk · contribs) whose only contributions are to this subject[31][32]. It seems like two accounts for one user. Further, both have warning notices about their editing habits on both their talk pages. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Can't find any reliable secondary sources that attest to this person's notability - all I can find is his own site, and myspace-type sites. Also, can find no evidence of commercially-produced work - only an apparently self-published "album". (My recommendation is "weak" because there might be other language sources that are good enough, and I'm limited to English). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm also aware that there may be non-english sources. There is the Epoch Times article in Hebrew is dated from 2007. But that article says the artists was still looking to get his first album out. In the intervening years, it doesn't appear that he has been signed to a major label (or any label at all). The biography on his website does some name dropping, and there is a claim to touring and playing in England. If any of that were notable, I'd expect to see something in English sources, but there is nothing. The band he was with in England, "Eugine Sokolot" also turns up nothing in a Google search. There may very well be non-English sources, and I would happily review them if they were available (and get a decent translation), but I suspect that there isn't likely much out there. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence from WP:RS is provided in the article that he meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. Release of two or more albums on a major label would be evidence of notability, but I don't think he has anything on a major label. I tried to figure out if 'Tornado' was an actual album issued by some publisher, but there is nothing to that effect. Concert tours, if there were any, should normally produce press coverage. The 2007 article in the Hebrew version of Epoch Times seems to anticipate the appearance of an album some time in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 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) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Garrison[edit]

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

Basically a puff piece without references that establish the subject's notability. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has all the hallmarks of a conflict of interest – the creator and main contributors are a WP:SPA and IP account respectively. The article fails WP:RS, and the references are hobbyist sites, and are in any event for his trivial pursuits (ie not for his professional career or his life). There are only 141 unique Ghits for "Eddie Garrison" hockey, which is also a strong indicator of his general lack of notability Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His touring car racing was not "professional" as he claims. Other sports similarly fails WP:ATHLETE -Drdisque (talk) 16:58, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garma Festival of Traditional Cultures[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. a non notable festival. one hit in gnews [33] LibStar (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that it's a hopeless one-line stub doesn't negate the 3 reliable sources already cited on the page. Possibly move to Garma Festival. "...of Traditional Cultures" is just boilerplate PC pap, and more pertinently, all the refs call it simply "Garma Festival".--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ABC source already in the article goes a long way towards establishing notability, and searching for just "Garma Festival", as suggested by Yeti Hunter, finds plenty more such sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, independent coverage and awards push this over the notability line in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep clearly notable, although article needs work. Orderinchaos 10:10, 29 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) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deontez Lockett[edit]

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

This biography has the superficial appearance of notability but upon examination is about a recent high school graduate who has won local awards in student theatre and appeared as a supernumerary in opera productions. The only reference that has the potential to be a reliable source is behind a membership wall and may be only as reliable as IMDb. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Most of the biography relies on a personal website as primary source, and may be unverifiable. Scores 159 unique Ghits, the top one being MySpace - what more can one say? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Of there references provided only one reliable one mentions him, the rest are primary sources or dont even mention him. He's been in some notable productions and worked with some notable people but that doesn't make him notable. The awards section doesn't help as there is no indication that these are anything but high school and regional awards.--RadioFan (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Possibly salt as this will be the fourth deletion (3 A7's) Mauler90 _talk 16:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 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 keep. Jafeluv (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Queer Organization[edit]

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

Can not find sufficient proof of notability either in references given or search. James (T C) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, solely passing mentions in only three to four news sources at most. Nothing substantive available on the organization. Blurpeace 02:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google archive searches for Iranian Queer Organization and Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization bring up multiple articles with substantive content that establish the notability of the organization. I'll try to add more reliable sources to the article. Gobonobo ^T ^C 05:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great, Thank you Gobonobo. James (T C) 07:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Gobonobo.Jeppiz (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Movementarian (Talk) 11:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Misleading information. This organization founder is Arsham Parsi and there is lots of articles and videos on major international media about it and they will be found on the net. Goshtasbiran 08:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inaccurate information is never a reason for deleting an article. The issue here is whether the organization is notable or not. If it is, and if the information is inaccurate, the information could be changed. As you say that it has received extensive coverage in international media, your vote to delete it looks surprising.Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of newer users who have been reverting the article to a version that contains inaccuracies and text that appears to be copied directly from the IRQO website. Please check out the article again. I think you will find that it does not have misleading information. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly notable. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This organization exists. ILGA which is a [[34]] inst broadcast news from IRQO http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/mhWGbSg1Ng Raham20 (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colombian numerals[edit]

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

Declined CSD. User claimed hoax. Possible but are other sources. Moved to AfD to try and determine this. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources provided. No Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News hits. Most web hits appear to be to mirrors of Wikipedia. Unless some reliable independent sources are found, this article will have to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything that actually has any relevant content and isn't a Wikipedia mirror. Similarly for "Colombian numeration" and "Colombian sign language". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i couldnt find refs either. the french WP cant find refs, the spanish WP deleted it. nuff said.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Deleted twelve times at es: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeraci%C3%B3n_colombiana --Sanbec (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good one. not sure why i missed that. here comes a giant snowball, and no bruce willis to blow it up.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:48, 29 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. Thanks for the clean up LK ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suite101.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads like an ad... is this site notable? Vistro (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, it does indeed read like an advertisement. JIP | Talk 06:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been deleted twice at AFD, once in 2006 and again in 2009 (as a G4 recreation). This text, for good or ill, appears to be different enough from the deleted version to warrant a second look (as opposed to just speedying it again). That said, it feels awfully promotional. G11, maybe, but not G4. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To answer Vistro, the site has been around for 13 years, was started by writers, is Canada's largest content site, ahead of CBC.ca. As for the text being different, it is indeed, this time with references to recent media articles about the site. If seemingly promotional, this is unintentional, as it is following the tone and format of other Wikipedia articles for similar writing sites such as eHow.com and Helium.com. Hopefully this is helpful context from the contributor.--MJohn777 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage of this website in third-party reliable sources. There are a lot of hits on google from the website itself but nothing discussing it. There have also been a number of recent press releases put out by the website (an advertising campaign, perhaps?), but again there is little in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Salting may be an option if this is deleted once more. Them From Space 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article spam --Cybercobra (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep External sources show that the site is notable. See for example, these articles about the site. [35] [36] [37] These articles are from external reliable sources and extensively discuss the site. Also, this search on google news brings up multiple news articles about the site. If the current article is too promotional, it should be fixed, not deleted. --LK (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lawrencekhoo. Your work on the article has done a lot to clean up the "ad" feel of the article, IMO. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 22:12, 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) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contents restoration software[edit]

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

Appears to be an advertisement for the iCAT software program—there appear to be no Google hits for the others mentioned. PROD was contested by IP. PleaseStand ^(talk) 00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Pretty obscure term for software that from what I can gather tracks assets...having a hard time understanding their website. Couldn't find enough information on Google to justify a Wikipedia article. If someone can show some media coverage about this category of software let me know. mboverload @ 05:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contents Restoration Software is any software that help facilitates the process of contents restoration. Leaving aside the triviality of this account, I'm not sure but that this is redundant to backup software, about which we already have an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:56, 27 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) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gander Golf Club[edit]

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

Non-notable golf course, nothing important has taken place there. PK T(alk) 00:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 00:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 00:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that it has won any awards or held any tournaments/events that would warrant inclusion here. _wjemather ^bigissue 20:58, 29 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. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdallah Al Rowaished[edit]

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

Unable to locate any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or pass WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you search Google News under his name written in Arabic [38], you get quite a lot of hits, most of which are to this singer, and in reliable sources. Below are just 3 a few (with dreadful machine tanslations):

BBC (Arabic service) [39]
Asharq Al-Awsat [40]
Al Arabiya [41]
Panorama [42]
Al Rai [43]

Might be worth contacting a WikiProject that covers Arabic subjects. Voceditenore (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Arab world. – Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google News archive search for the spelling "Abdullah Al Ruwaished" finds a few sources in English.[44] I'm sure that there are many other possible spelling combinations, as there is no generally accepted standard for transcribing Arabic names into the Roman alphabet. Note that there is another article about the subject at Abdallah Abdalrahman Alruwaished, which is also being discussed for deletion. Is there any way we can combine these discussions? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 11 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, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Numerous mentions in the Arabic press, along with many in English in a variety of spellings. Subject is reasonably well known throughout the Arabic world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnowtaur (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient references exist to demonstrate notability. (References don't have to be in English.) I'm going to suggest a merge with the content of the other article, though. Robofish (talk) 15:42, 18 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) 00:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP and can use some more sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - users claim notability but the article has no independent citations and as it is needs deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it took me ten minutes to find two non-trivial sources even in English and add them to the article. More are clearly available in Arabic as mentioned above. Obvious evidence of meeting WP:BIO. cab (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage in the Arab-speaking press, as seen above. Two non-trivial sources have been added in English and I'm going to put some of the Arabic ones in the external links. The sources do not have to be in English. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 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 Sarah 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Charlton[edit]

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

clearly fails WP:ENT. no extensive career here or ongoing notable roles looking at IMDB [45]. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Has not had "significant roles" in multiple films, TV shows, etc.. Frickeg (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB does not give nor detract notability. With its instruction that include "other productions", WP:ENT is set in place to consider more things than just film... and even having a short "film" career is not ipso-facto non-notabiliy if it an be shown the subject meets ENT's consideration of "other productions" or meets WP:GNG. For example, a quick search finds Charlton receives positive critical response for her work in theater. In reviewing Raised in Captivity (2003), The Age writes "The character of Bernadette (Verity Charlton) for example, gives an almost text-book characterisation of bipolar disorder, swinging rapidly from anxiety-ravaged shouting to beatific calm".[46] In reviewing Loyal Women (2004), The Age writes "Verity Charlton is superb as Brenda, gradually developing the character's strength and natural leadership as she finds a way of surviving against crushing odds. The ensemble of seven women that includes the guest actors Carole Yelland and Christine Keogh, work strongly together under Denny Lawrence's direction. They create an impression of a group honed by harsh necessity into a vengeful squad capable of violence and cruelty as repugnant as that of the men".[47] In reviewing Vincent in Brixton (2005), The Age writes "Verity Charlton's gently unobtrusive presence as Eugenie... ...complete one of Red Stitch's most assured, polished productions.".[48]. So it is seen that her career consists of much more than a simple {and uncitable) IMDB listing. Positively writing of a stage actor in context to her performance and specifically praising her work within that review, does not fall under the cautions about "trivial" coverage of lists and databases, and with the GNG specifically assuring editors that the person "need not be the main topic of the source material", it must be considered that she may indeed merit inclusion with a bit of work. This is what I found in just a couple minutes. What else was missed? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:23, 17 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) 00:27, 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. I was ready to discount the number of keeps on this in light of fences nomination. But the revised version of the article and sources show that this is not a BLP1E event and WP:BLP does not prevent us from writing about people who have legitimately been accused of crimes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Francis Melchert-Dinkel[edit]

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

WP:PERP is the relevant notability guideline for this article, in particular the advice that "editors should remember that someone accused of a crime is not considered guilty of that crime until they have been found to be so under judicial process. If such adjudication has not occurred, editors must give serious consideration into not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured, since doing so not only risks violating WP:BLP, but also may not adequately satisfy notability guidelines."

This case was first covered in Feb 2009, and is still getting coverage,[49] but the case is ongoing and as the article is so dismal I think deletion is best for now. If and only if he is convicted, a new article can be created. Fences&Windows 00:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is in need of development but it's a very interesting case. I'm not aware of any sources casting doubt on the named person's involvement (as opposed to guilt) in what is a very interesting an unusual case.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Userfy for anyone that is prepared to develop it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Terrible article. Needs fixing.~~ [Was a terrible article that needed fixing, but I've fixed it.] But we don't AfD because an article is poorly written. There is sufficient RS coverage as here and here. While at fixing the article, the editor might also fix the above guideline, which is poorly written.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:HARM. The number of GNews hits are not impressive, and we need to tread carefully here per nom. I would consider recommending differently if there was enough to pass WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (I'm talking Natalee Holloway-type coverage), but there is not. Location (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. This BLP seems contentious as it is currently written. If sources exist to establish notability of this individual (which I have not been able to find), then perhaps it would be appropriate to userfy or incubate the article until it can be properly worded and sourced. SnottyWong ^yak 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E... not enough here for an article without original research... potential defamation issue... for biographies the default has to be to leave people alone... Arskwad (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Merge to Internet suicide unless somebody can show how the policy WP:BLP1E does not apply. Abductive (reasoning) 10:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. BLP1E does not apply, because what is at issue is clearly a number of events. [BLP1E, by its terms, applies only to those instances where "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.]. Furthermore, it has received widespread international coverage in countries such as the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India, Taiwan, Vietnam, Turkey, the Netherlands, and Slovakia (in a number of languages), and been covered over a year plus, including in top RSs such as the New York Times, The New York Daily News, The Sunday Times, BBC, ABC, Fox News, MSNBC, UPI, the Huffington Post, The Daily Mail, the Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spread of the coverage is irrelevant. What is still lacking is analysis. However, I have amended my notvote above. Abductive (reasoning) 21:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spread of coverage appeared to be relevant to me, given that a number of relevant notability standards -- including that relating to criminal acts -- focus on RS coverage being of "national or global scope" which "refers to how widespread the coverage of a topic is". Thus, the global scope of coverage here would seem to me to support its notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage likely to be significant and enduring. Same reasoning used in keeping John Patrick Bedell (even if under a different article name). Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (assuming the information meets WP:V), much as I would like to get rid of this artiel on a detestable individual. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is much better now,I agree wthat extensive coverage transcends BLP1E Vartanza (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International news for deaths he was charged with causing in different nations. The article went from a stub, to a full article thanks to Epeefleche. Totally different article now. Dream Focus 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still a bit queasy about having an article on someone accused of a crime like this, rather than having an article about the case, but kudos for turning this terrible one line stub into something Wikipedia shouldn't be embarrassed of. Fences&Windows 23:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - Article redirected, nomination withdrawn. SnottyWong ^chat 20:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Film Studio[edit]

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

Delete or (preferably) merge to Jean-François Leduc. Deprodded by article creator, this company that does not (as yet) have any WP:RS to indicate that it meets WP:COMPANY. I have tried without success to find such reliable sources via Google. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN I've changed to a redirect Jean-François Leduc, per below. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:RS. Simple. Jusdafax 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1- Amazon.com link to all Montreal Film Studio DVD releases (which confirms all MFS website entries) :

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=Montreal+Film+Studio

2- Corporation Canada registry entry: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/cs04110.html (please search the page with "MFS", it's near the end of the page). (Sadcity (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 2. You have proof of ALL titles as sold on Amazon.com. You have COPORATION CANADA's entry proving it is incorporated in Canada. (Sadcity (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That's not enough. Simply existing is not enough. Do read WP:COMPANY. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I understand. Then I will delete the page because I now agree with you! Thanks (Sadcity (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've taken the liberty of creating this as a redirect to Jean-François Leduc, who does have WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 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) 00:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to relist this: I've withdrawn the nom and changed the article to a redirect, with the article creator's consent, above. Could someone please close this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 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 Merge to author. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout Girl: Growing Up and Drying Out in America[edit]

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

This book has no third party reliable sources that I can find, and therefore fails WP:NB. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(posted on talk page of article by article author)Hi, I'm trying to create a page for a book that I love. Sorry if it's taking me a while to get everything in order. I do not believe this page should be deleted-- it's a valid book with great reviews. I was kind of surprised that the book was not on here already and decided to add it.

We have notability standards; not everything that exists deserves an article on Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is WP:NB, which requires multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, which I do not see here. If you are Jennifer Storm, or are working for her, you should realize Wikipedia's strong policy against advertising, and the WP:COI policy. She has priorly attempted to write about herself and her books. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no, I am not her nor do I work for her. The book was nominated for one of the 40 best adult non-fiction books in 2008 by the PSLA. That's how I found it and why I added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrown224 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. i think the authors website shows some evidence of notability, although it would have to be verified. mention in the Advocate, and an interview by dr drew, i think helps. see [50]. we cant use her site as a reference, but each individual source can be cited if found online or in print. her position as executive director of stated org, and profiles of her in major outlets, mean that her books (her second one out just now) probably should get automatic notability, as long as they are not trivial themselves (cookbooks, gift books, ephemera, etc). I am probably not ready to do the work to actually improve the article, but thats not necessary here, we just have to decide if there is a possibility the article can show notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the article on the author. Whe has more than one book, on the same general topic, and he information will be best combined. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 17 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) 00:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with author's article - I can't see any indication that the book meets WP:NB or WP:GNG. Claritas § 16:43, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Tinska[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, no indication of notability per WP:BIO according to the article and an (English) Google search. Some appearances in TV shows and elsewhere, but no apparent media coverage, zero hits in Google News, which is unusual for notable contemporary Western pop culture people. Sandstein 20:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:58, 29 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 18th Street Singers[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Frimpong[edit]

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

Only played in amateur football, was drafted without ever playing. As for the criminal case, it is rather an argument against having the article (per WP:BLP) than for having it. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd keep it. There has been a LOT of non-trivial press coverage of this case in the soccer media, as well as in the Southern California local press because of the apparent mishandling of the case from the Santa Barbara cops, lawyers, judge and jury. He most definitely passes WP:GNG from that standpoint alone - the fact that he is also a soccer player is secondary to the issues surrounding his trial and subsequent unsafe conviction. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he may fail WP:ATHLETE, but the significant coverage surrounding his trial means he passes WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 21 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) 00:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as for his football/soccer career, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N; as for the rape conviction, he seems to fail WP:NTEMP as well. — Luxic (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable from a sports perspective, failing WP:ATHLETE having not played at a notable level, and no in-depth independent coverage. Rape conviction is not notable, NTEMP, and nothing particularly significant. I don't see anything encyclopedia worthy about an average rape case.--ClubOranje^T 07:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a classic WP:BLP1E. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sports-wise, he hasn't achieved anything of note or played at a professional level, so he fails WP:ATHLETE. The only news coverage he has received is for the rape case, which means the subject also fails WP:ONEVENT. Bettia (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep Person has received international headlines because of his high profile court case and the lack of evidence before his conviction, I don't follow US football and know who he is. He meets the WP:Notable criteria in my opinion. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:33, 29 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. Personally not convinced, but not enough to delete. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Tieleman[edit]

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

Bio of political columnist/strategist. Gnews returned results either by the subject of the article, or briefly mentioning him; not about him. Links in the article consist of (a) coverage of a break-in; (b) a brief quote by him in a blog; (c) his own blog; (d) a story on his Facebook page; (e) a bio of someone else entirely where Tieleman is mentioned a few times; and lastly (f) a paragraph bio on a political site. I don't see any of this meeting the standards for WP:BIO, and a Gsearch doesn't return anything that would make him notable. Speedy declined. Propose delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be vanital in nature. -Drdisque (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the creator of the bio, I have no relation to the subject and in fact disagree with some of his positions. "Vanital in nature" would appear to be insufficient grounds for deletion argument. Canuckle (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Canuckle (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article, I am biased. However, the nominator I feel is also biased due to their initial impression because I made the mistake of saving the unreferenced first draft live to mainspace rather than to myspace and the nominator tagged it for speedy delete within 1 minute of posting. After some clean-up, I put a comment supporting notability on the Talk page, but the nominator never engaged in any collaborative dialogue using the Talk page. Since the nom, additional sources have been added attesting to the notability of this prolific writer, commentator and self-promoter. The nom's points are also misleading due to lack of context: Gnews returns results by or mentioning the subject: Well if the 43,000 Ghits for 'Bill Tieleman' are his writings, that should be taken as a demonstration, not a detriment, of his claim to be a prolific political columnist and commentator. Nom mentions Gnews hits which actually demonstrate subject's claim in reliable sources to be a media spokesman for Oxfam and left-wing pro-Solidarity university group as far back as the 1980s. a) an (odd) break-in allegedly linked to the BC Legislature Raids so not your typical office lockpicking; b) the brief quote in a blog is I think actually an entire interview with the subject by a right-wing blog (subject is left-wing) on the topic of one of his claims to notability (STV opponent). His opponents (members of the citizens assembly) are on public record saying he played a lead role in the defeat of this notable referendum. c) his own blog - used to verify facts/his claims. d) a story on his Facebook page sounds innocent. the fact is he claims it is BC's largest group, he raised questions covered in mainstream media about whether there was political motivation to its temporary cancellation, and it is part of his notability claim as a HST opponent. His advocacy and Facebook page built and built until the political alliance was created to make a formal referendum petition -- which by all accounts (600,000+ signatures) looks to be the first to succeed in passing the notoriously difficult petition phase required by legislation. e) mention in a bio of "someone else." That someone else is the "grand showman" of BC politics Bill Vander Zalm. The reference to the bio demonstrates the notable three-party alliance (left-wing NDP plus right-wing Conservatives and Social Credit fossil) that is driving the notable and legislatively-sanctioned official proponent of the HST petition. f) a paragraph bio on a political site. this was used to source his university degree. It is the anti-STV society site, so is also proof that he was president of the notable organization that defeated STV. Canuckle (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of NorthWest[edit]

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

Unaccredited, non-notable degree mill, no non-trivial coverage, google and gnews turn up nothing. 2 says you, says two 12:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete as per norm.~~ Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC) KeepI did not know that there was a rule permitting the inclusion of all degree granting insitutions as pointed out below by terriersfan. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google Books search turns up a discussion of this school as an "accreditation mill" in a 2007 study from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.[51] It pops up on some similar lists found via Google, e.g.[52] The school appears to be based in Pakistan and does show up on a list from the Pakistani consulate, but this doesn't seem to be anything more than a bare list.[53] I do not find more extensive coverage of the sort we have seen with some other diploma mills. Also, to avoid confusion, please note that "The University of Northwest" was apparently a 19th-century predecessor of the school in Sioux City, Iowa now known as Morningside College.[54][55]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is our practice to have pages on all degree-awarding institutions where verifiable information can be found. We keep such degree mill pages because it provides objective information on their non-accredited status. This page is likely to be consulted by both those considering obtaining a degree and by employers seeking information on the status of the institution. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marsel Efroimski[edit]

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

not sure if WP:ATHLETE applies to chess players but simply being an under 14 world champion should not mean notability. does not extensive coverage [56]. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears in enough sources to convince me of notability. (Also see this and other sources.) Undead Warrior (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her ratings do not suggest that she is one of the best chess players in the world. -Drdisque (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of this individual from reliable independent sources. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:51, 29 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) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Taminsyah[edit]

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

not sure if WP:ATHLETE applies to chess. not simply being an under 7 world champion should not guarantee you notability. fails the greater WP:BIO with no extensive recognition [57]. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 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) 00:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination rationale. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:49, 29 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patusan[edit]

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

DELETE. This is a non-notable fictional location. There is a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage of this subject by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several pages of P. analysis in Conrad and Gender, Rodopi [58] Also in Real: The Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature, Volume 3, Walter de Gruyter [59], The novel and the globalization of culture, Oxford [60], Conrad and impressionism, Cambridge [61], Textual Practice, Issue 2 Routledge [62], and more. Novickas (talk) 01:23, 22 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, 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J.Viewz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mostly a procedural nom per Jeff G's prod, which was removed by an IP primarily involved in editing this page. The underlying concern is substantial: no sources that aren't first person for a band, and no substantial editing outside of those select editors. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - It was AfD in late 2008, and recreated within 4 months thereafter, that version being this nom. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The band is notable, at least in Israel. I added third-party sources, albeit mostly in Hebrew and removed the commercial parts of the article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 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) 00:02, 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beki and the Bullets[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC. I query the citations listed as those sources usually come up in gnews. 1 hit in gnews in a Turkish newspaper. [63] LibStar (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I couldn't find some of the cited sources, even searching the NewsUK archive. I did find this brief mention from The Age and this interview from Time Out New York. The band does, however, contain at least 2 (maybe 3) members of multiple Aria Award-nominated (and certainly notable)[64][65] band The Mavis's, so I'm inclined to either keep this here or merge into that article, probably the latter at the moment.--Michig (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those sources can be found with Factiva and can be verified by anyone with access which is freely available in Australia through the National Library of Australia. Whilst a lot of The Age articles do come up in GNews I haven't noticed the other sources coming up a lot. What we have here is a band made up from members of two notable bands that also has coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- disclaimer, I started this article. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - here is The Age article, yes it is on the trivial side but I used for verification purposes. (found on gnews using Beki & the Bullets). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 17 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, 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueline Medic[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. no significant indepth coverage. a few gnews hits but not enough for significant coverage. [66]. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to two Fueled by Ramen albums I've now updated the article with coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 17 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, 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.